In response to last week’s coverage of the fifth anniversary of the Iraq war, former Eagle editor Davis Merritt has a commentary in today’s Opinion pages arguing that the news media share blame for the Iraq mess. He wrote:
“In the media universe that is obligated to challenge every facile government assertion and official pronouncement, only Knight Ridder’s Washington bureau did so. Its reporters looked behind the evidence about weapons of mass destruction and the administration’s claim about direct links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, and found serious questions.
“But they could not reach enough people. So, in substantial part because of journalistic failure to question authority, we slid into an ill-conceived and badly executed adventure.â€
95 Comments
Phillip I have a suggestion for you and Davis, pack your bags and leave the country.
We would be fighting in this country now if you left wingers had your way.
One of Merrit’s consistent complaints is that the news media has become less independent because of profitability pressures which did not use to exist. IIRC from his book Knightfall, the profit margin used to be in the 15% range, but as more independent papers were bought up by corporations, the expectations shot up to 25% - which started effecting the wall of seperation between the business and reporting departments that existed in most papers before. I have wondered, after reading Merrit’s book, if there is not a market niche for media sources that were smaller and less driven by a larger profit expectations?
Come on SSITL, you really aren’t serious, are you?
If so, you have no clue about the basic principles this country was founded upon.
Part of the duty of a true patriot is to challenge the government. Our government continues to get bigger and take more control that it is not entitled to. This war is a perfect example.
Wasn’t this on the blog a week or two ago?
Will the news media eat crow, when the WMD is finally found, I doubt it.
Well gosh george.
It’s been five years. Ya think the US military has missed the WMDs all this time?
SSITL
Posted March 25, 2008 at 6:12 am | Permalink
Phillip I have a suggestion for you and Davis, pack your bags and leave the country.
We would be fighting in this country now if you left wingers had your way
And what do you think we are doing right now?
George is calling our military inept, he is unpatriotic!
Where’s open thread? I have something to discuss that does not apply to any of these threads!! So I’ll do it here.
Patriot Act used in drug case; lawyer riled
BY TIM POTTER
The Wichita Eagle
“I thought that this Patriot Act was something passed to protect us all from these terrorist acts, and it would be used very judiciously,” O’Hara said Monday. “This doesn’t seem to be one where these secret searches would be used.”
http://www.kansas.com/topstories/story/351592.html
This is where Vaughn and GMC would come in handy. I agree with the defense attorney, I thought that the patriot act was specifically for tracking terrorist using our phone and internet lines in the U.S. I guess I need it explained a little more thoroughly.
JR and Writerdog, thanks for the chuckle. I think george had to be joking though, right? I mean no one is that dumb, are they?
Anyway, on this blog we have talked about this off and on since I started posting over a year ago. Not only did the media fail in questioning the administration, they were the administrations cheerleaders. It always seemed fishy to me, and when Dan Rather was fired for doing a report on Bush that was probably true, that really seemed fishy. I mean, he was a reporter for decades, and suddenly he does a report unfavorable for the administration and he’s canned.
Six years later (one for the build-up and five for the actions in Iraq) shall we point fingers in all directions?
Yes the media failed in its duty to speak the truth, yes the administration misled in a real sense as much itself as it did the American people. Hindsight is always 120 by 120, if someone had reasonable information that might have given us all a moment of second thought. Where were they? But as it turns out they were there all along, but we were so full of blood lust that their voices were small and unheard. If they were sensed than they were beaten down as unpatriotic and aiding the enemy. WE DID NOT WANT TO HEAR! You can go back and read the words of Patrick Buchanan, the words of the reporters of Knight Ridder’s there are still there as they were back in 2002. The only use in reviewing the past is to try and correct the future.
Yes TNT it was said in jest but sadly like the man who acts crazy long enough they become crazy. Some have said such things so long they have come to believe it as true.
The only use in reviewing the past is to try and correct the future.
Good luck on that one, WD. 200+ years of history, and we still keep making the same mistakes…with the same results.
What’s that definition of insane again?
The major T.V. media turned into war mongers, trying to keep up in the ratings with Fox. It’s as simple as that. What caused the war was us.
In a generic sense, in any significant action ever taken, there were people who warned against it for one reason or another. If you took that advice every time, nothing would ever be done.
But if what is done turns out bad, then there will always be those who look back and say; “see, if only you had listened!” Human nature.
It’s called hindsight, and it’s always 20/20.
Old history, but I as I said before in the beginning I was supportive of the invasion though there was a feeling I had. There just seemed to be something missing, something that did not seem right about the reasoning. Like most I dismissed it as “well he is the President and must have access to information that I do not have!”. All I knew and had access to was not conclusive in favor of the invasion and the claims that Saddam was a real and immediate threat to the U.S. Though it was possible that he might have been able to get secret access to materials and had continued his goal of WMDs. There just was no indication nor proof he had. David Kay was saying there was no proof and did not believe he had. Though the world was not saying that the President was wrong. Neither were they saying with any confidence he was right, it was like they too had taken the stance that Bush must have access to more information then they did.
Since then I have studied many sources and read more then I had my last year in High School.
Grammer correction Phil:
“failed AND IS STILL FAILING its job in Iraq”\
Hard to be a cheerleader and cover the news at the same time.
Outlander whines–But if what is done turns out bad, then there will always be those who look back and say; “see, if only you had listened!” Human nature.
*****
BS!
The case for WMD’s was obviously flawed from day one. Weapons inspectors had been in Iraq for about a decade, and no new WMD’s had been found.
The case that Saddam aided and abetted Al Qaeda was total and complete bs, and the intelligence community was saying so.
The after-effects of Iraq splintering into contentious factions was pointed out by none other than Dick Freaking Cheney in response to H. W. Bush’s decision to allow Saddam to stand in the Persian Gulf War.
Everything that has come to pass in Iraq is exactly what the most common-sense analysis said would happen.
But as one Bush official said to a reporter, “you’re part of the ‘reality-based’ community; we [BushCo] make our own reality.”
Frontline ran the first two hours of a two part series called “Bush’s War” last night on PBS (ch. 8).
It carefully documented how BushCo. fed stories to the media. Then after a paper like New York Times ran the story, Bush officials would go on Meet the Press and say, “The Times said just yesterday that Saddam is hiding WMD.”
Still, that doesn’t excuse people like Judith Miller who just prostituted herself trying to make Bush’s case for him.
Anybody who couldn’t see that Bush wanted war with Iraq and was lying through his teeth when he said “it all depends on what Saddam does” is so stupid, one can’t even begin to reason with them.
How about McCain’s desire for war with Iran?
Clinton supporting Columbia?
Don’t see much coverage on those either.
SSITL
Posted March 25, 2008 at 6:12 am | Permalink
Phillip I have a suggestion for you and Davis, pack your bags and leave the country.
We would be fighting in this country now if you left wingers had your way.
SSITL
Now you know that is not true. If they started fighting in this country the democrats would just turn this country over to them. They don’t believe this country is worth fighting for.
SWP
RE: No one could have predicted what would happen–
Guess who said it, below.
I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we’d have had to hunt him down. And once we’d done that and we’d gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we’d have had to put another government in its place.
What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi’ia government or a Kurdish government or Ba’athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?
I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it’s my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.
Answer–Dick Cheney, 1991
Thanks, SWP, for proving my point that some people are just too effing stupid to reason with.
Just a review
J R
Posted March 25, 2008 at 6:20 am | Permalink
Hey outlander?
Maybe all that money we are spending in Iraq we should be spending making America worth fighting for. See, because if you are asking me if it is?
The answer would be no.
World War I — the United States entered under a Democratic president, Woodrow Wilson
World War II — the United States fought on two fronts under Democratic presidents, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S Truman
Korean War–Democrat Harry Truman
Vietnam War–Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson escalated the war drastically from Eisenhower and Kennedy
Lebanon Peace Keeping–Republican Ronald Reagan cut-and-ran after 200+ Marines were killed in their barracks from a suicide bomber
Keep listening to Rush though, SWP. The anal cyst draft-dodging welfare-receiving junkie is a great source of factual analysis.
:roll:
“littlejohn” if the scary terrorists come to kill you or “SWP” or “SSITL” I will freaking applaud.
“In the media universe that is obligated to challenge every facile government assertion and official pronouncement, only Knight Ridder’s Washington bureau did so. Its reporters looked behind the evidence about weapons of mass destruction and the administration’s claim about direct links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, and found serious questions.
Well, there it is then. Next time the U.S. will just parachute in some old Knight-Ridder Reporters and all our intel problems will be solved.
(chortles)
J R
Posted March 25, 2008 at 10:21 am | Permalink
“littlejohn” if the scary terrorists come to kill you or “SWP” or “SSITL” I will freaking applaud.
Nice.
JR-
If you want it, come and get it
Bill Moyers’ “Buying the War” laid out in breathtaking detail the extend to which most of the American media–including the “liberal” New York Times and Washington Post and the usually skeptical 60 minutes –credulously bought into administration propaganda and, although it was sometimes filtered through badly-vetted third party and anonymous sources.
Buzz Merritt is correct: there were two reporters at a Knight-Ridder (and a handful of others elsewhere) who saw through the facade, but most had to buck their editors, and usually see their stories end up buried in the inside, if not killed (heh, buried and killed, how friggin’ apropos).
I suspect it’s no coincidence that the Eagle (a Knight-Ridder paper, at the time) had the nerve to oppose our entry into this debacle. Reality was, at least, available to them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5Kngf803dQ
J R
Posted March 25, 2008 at 6:20 am | Permalink
Hey outlander?
Maybe all that money we are spending in Iraq we should be spending making America worth fighting for. See, because if you are asking me if it is?
The answer would be no.
J R
Posted March 25, 2008 at 10:21 am | Permalink
“littlejohn” if the scary terrorists come to kill you or “SWP” or “SSITL” I will freaking applaud.
JR shows his true colors.
P.S. Bill Moyers Journal: Buying the War
Wednesday, April 25, 2007 at 9 PM on PBS (check local listings).
And, maybe I need more coffee, but I have no idea what the hell the JR/lj dust-up above is about.
Regular claims there were “intel problems.”
There were no intel problems.
The problem the Bush people had was trying to trump up a phony case for war with the accurate intel the CIA was providing–
Saddam was contained, he was not a threat to us or his neighbors.
This is in fact what Colin Powell, with Condi Rice at his side, said in February of 2001 in Cairo: “And frankly they [the sanctions against Iraq] have worked. He [Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.”
Not only did Powell say he was not a threat to the US, he said Saddam was not a threat even to its puny neighbors.
But, wait, there’s more.
On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to “build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction” for “the last 10 years”. America, he said, had been successful in keeping him “in a box”.
Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenseless Iraq. “Saddam does not control the northern part of the country,” she said. “We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd-original.htm
The media is failing us again by letting McCain’s positions take a pass. He claims there’s an Iran/Al-quaeda link and the media goes along like it’s a fact. Bush claims Iran has a nuclear weapons program after it’s known that Iran doesn’t and the media just yawns and goes on like it’s a fact. You’d think a “liberal” media would be all over it.
This is in fact what Colin Powell, with Condi Rice at his side, said in February of 2001 in Cairo:
Wasn’t that a year after that the GORACLE lost the Presidential race because he couldn’t pull in his own home state of Tennessee?
(chortles)
The administration was planning an attack on Iraq two weeks after 9-11.
Actually, if you believe Paul O’Neill, the administration was already planning that war in January 2001.
And they still did everything wrong.
The media let itself get played: simple as that. The Bush regime threatened to cut off their access to the key players, and the media fell into line like a bunch of insecure thirteen-year olds.
The media strategy of this “Administration” was obvious from day one: spin, lie, threaten, obfuscate. The media has played along every step of the way, and continues to do so. It’s like Charlie Brown kicking the football: everybody knows what’s going to happen, but they line up for it anyway.
Right, Regular.
Al Gore lost. Bush won.
And thanks to Bush we’ve lost 4000 soldiers brave and true in Iraq and squandered half a trillion dollars and counting.
Laugh at that, you miserable POS.
While I would never try and stop anyone’s first amendment rights, the study linked below should at least give us pause to stop and think (I think) pun intended
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080324/FOREIGN/259963993/1003
Periods of intense news media coverage in the United States of criticism about the war, or of polling about public opinion on the conflict, are followed by a small but quantifiable increases in the number of attacks on civilians and U.S. forces in Iraq, according to a study by Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university’s Kennedy School of Government.
The increase in attacks is more pronounced in areas of Iraq that have better access to international news media, the authors conclude in a report titled “Is There an ‘Emboldenment’ Effect? Evidence from the Insurgency in Iraq.”
Littlejohn, maybe it’s because their paychecks from the U.S. government stopped arriving on time. Iraqis are paid $10 a day not to kill soldiers.
How exactly are these people “emboldened”? Is it because of some report in the London Times, or is it because there are a bunch of foreigners occupying their land and those nation’s leaders are saying that they want to be in the country for the next 100 years?
(chortles)
Doug-
I am not commenting on the righfulness of the Iraqui conflict. I was against the invasion before it happened, I was FOR a successful completion and exit ONCE it happened. I have repeatedly called for us to remove ourselves from Iraq.
That being said, I would suggest that you ready the study. It does bear witness that there are consequences to our actions, including displaying criticism of the war. SOmething we should always consider,in my opinion. However, the study authors stated their belief in that knowingly causing more carnage is a proper price to pay for freedom. Perhaps. But one should ALWAYS consider the cost others must pay before taking action. My only point.
Actually, what they said was, according to the article,
“that the increases in attacks are a necessary cost of the way democratic societies fight wars and say they are concerned that the research may be seized upon by the Iraq war’s supporters to try and silence its critics.
“We are a little bit worried about that,” Mr. Monten said in an interview. “Our data suggests that there is a small, but measurable cost” to “anything that provides information about attitudes towards the war.”
Just added for clarification, so that none can say I am misrepresenting anything.
lj, perhaps there is some type of quantifiable “emboldenment” effect, but color me skeptical. Did the paper include any verifiable causative mechanisms? Correlation is not causation, ya know. What would, and what wouldn’t, “embolden” the attackers? Would Sunni militias be “emboldened” by something different than Al Qaeda fighters? Would particularly stupid and reckless pronouncements by Cheney etc. “embolden” them too? Seems a pretty fuzzy idea to me.
Add to that the fact it comes from that bastion of thorough, thoughtful journalism the Washington Times . Find another source–like maybe the authors?–and I might take that crap more seriously.
Oh–is there a link to the study? Okay. I’ll give a look when I have time.
Regular
Posted March 25, 2008 at 10:40 am | Permalink
This is in fact what Colin Powell, with Condi Rice at his side, said in February of 2001 in Cairo:
Wasn’t that a year after that the GORACLE lost the Presidential race because he couldn’t pull in his own home state of Tennessee?
(chortles)
I’m really trying to see the connection there Regular. What does Powell’s and Rice’s statements about Saddam have to do with the 2000 election? Or is it you can’t argue Capn’s point, so you just throw up a totally irrational point?
Rage-
Before you label it “crap” perhaps you should read the article. It carries quite a bit of information contained within the study. Whether or not you think the Washington Time is crap, does not it make it necessarily true, or true of the article that they are reporting on.
I believe it does give credence to the claim that it does hurt troops in the field. The question each person must ask is: Is it worth it?
If someone is unwilling to even ask the quesiton of themselves, they should stfu.
Glanced at the article again. I still don’t see any link, and I would emphasize again that you can use statistical correlation to “prove,” say, that eating tomatoes turns people into serial killers.
Oh well.
She added that the authors had submitted the study to the Quarterly Journal of Economics, a peer-reviewed academic journal published at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and she expected it would be accepted. “It is good enough to pass peer review,” she said.
I bet it won’t.
Well TDT, since we are talking about just words, I quote from the source the Crapn re-plagiarized his words from the memory-stink-hole:
(Wikipedia)
“United Nations Security Council on February 5, 2003 to argue in favor of military action. Citing “numerous” anonymous Iraqi defectors, Powell asserted that “there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more.”[8] Powell also stated that there was “no doubt in my mind” that Saddam was working to obtain key components to produce nuclear weapons.”
(chortles)
Sorry. I hit enter too soon.
If someone believes it is still worth it, then by all means, they should say what they need to say. I have no problem with that. I do hav a problem with either side just shooting off their damn mouths without thinking about the consequences.
By the way, start the withdrawal now. Yes, I have considered my actions. Yes, I have considered the possible cost of additional troops lives being lost (and it hurts me more than i could tell you), but it must be done. For the good of the country, and for the good of the troops.
LJ - I could see that there may be a correlation, but what do you think we should do? I can’t bring myself to not speak out against the war, and vote for someone that will end this war in a timely fashion. I’m not attacking, but really wonder if there is anything that can really be done. Americans are so used to speaking freely and passionately, that it almost seems like something the military needs to learn to deal with, one way or the other.
Regular - Yes, and before that speech and AFTER that speech everything he said was refuted. He was just a puppetman for the Bush/Cheney administration.
TDT-
I have to agree with the authors of the study”
” the increases in attacks are a necessary cost of the way democratic societies fight wars ”
I only want people to think about the consequences of their actions, and then decide their proper road. If they believe it is still necessary, then go ahead. However, when your action may “possibly” cost someone their life, you should stop and think about it before commiting that act. I see far too much BS from both sides, obviously without thought. It sickens me.
Here’s a lovely picture the Rudepundit linked to on his site: George Bush presiding over the White House Easter Egg hunt, shortly after being notified of the 4,000th troop death in Iraq.
http://bp0.blogger.com/_94vWmzABPGg/R-gndEeikJI/AAAAAAAAAKg/8-KtgJ8st2M/s1600-h/20080324-1_p032408sc-0292-515h.jpg
Mission Accomplished.
CF2K,
So what were you doing at the time of the 4,000th death?
“News media failed its job on Iraq”
Ho-hum. So what?
The news media has failed to do unbiased reporting worldwide.
So why the surprise?
Please don’t act as if you have some reporting standards or something. (barfing)
The MooneyTimes isn’t a credible news source, kinda like World Net Daily, Fox News and the Drudge Report.
#
TDT
Posted March 25, 2008 at 11:33 am | Permalink
Regular - Yes, and before that speech and AFTER that speech everything he said was refuted. He was just a puppetman for the Bush/Cheney administration.
——————————-
Since Crapn quote the source the first time and the second time the person spoke, they spoke differently, which source was not credible?
Can you state that the Crapn quoted from a non-credible source? I think you can.
If the source was accurate the first time, then the source for the second speech was inaccurate and non-credible.
However, since the source of the information came from the same person, the person can be considered non-credible in both sources as there was a complete contradiction.
One cannot quote something and ignore the other.
(chortles)
lj, assuming that study has any validity (and there so many possible variables, I doubt it does), I think the only we can do here to stem that kind of thing is to engage in responsible debate, getting all the facts on the table–including those that indicate success and/or support the neocon view.
Certainly, the reverse is not true, that is, if we all became brainless, unquestioning war proponents ( no, I’m not suggesting that’s anywhere near your position), that would not automatically translate into a dispirited opposition.
The scary thing is that there are people who actually believe that . They think it’s a friggin’ football game.
Regular - The way I look at it is he spoke before Feb. 5, 2003 against attacking Iraq, somehow was convinced by Cheney to change his mind, and then 6 weeks later, realized he had been duped when the evidence came out that there was no evidence.
LJ - I had seen that quote in a previous post and it kind of went in one ear and out the other, so to speak. That link was more of an FYI I take it.
I see your point TDT, but the Crapn was biting the image in the pool of water and ignoring reality.
Using as his defense for no justification, he imbibes the words of Powell on one occasion and ignores them on another for the purpose of setting an artificial and fallacious point to which the Crapn could draw a conclusion that matched his ideology.
Neither fact-based story telling or science works that way. This is the trick of the ‘warmers’, they ignore any facts outside their sphere of their thinking and only include stuff that is convenient to their cause. That’s not factual or science, it is political hacking by false indoctrination through correlation and ignoring observation to its end.
Nathan,
Actually, I was sitting in my office, posting on the WeBlog that the U.S. had passed the 4,000th combat death.
However, your juvenile attempt at a response is beside the point: I’m not the “Commander in Chief” who sent those 4,000 brave Americans to their deaths.
for those who wish to read the study about enboldment mentioned above, here is the link
http://people.rwj.harvard.edu/~riyengar/insurgency.pdf
“Using as his defense for no justification, he imbibes the words of Powell on one occasion and ignores them on another . . .”
Wrong as usual, Regular.
Powell was correct when he spoke in Feb and May of 2001, and so was Condi Rice–Saddam was no threat and never was a threat to us.
They became co-opted by the Bushites and consequently changed their stories.
If they were aware of new information in the intervening time, why didn’t they let us the public know of it?
As for my source, it simply links back to .gov websites.
Nope. Like the famous saying goes, those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make angry.
After 9-11, too many people were too angry to see reality.
CF2K,
My response is not any more juvenile than yours.
What would you expect our President to be doing on Easter? Should he have been hiding somewhere in a closet waiting for the 4,000 mark?
The only ones eagerly anticipating more American deaths are you liberals and the media, so you can use them as a political bashing tool.
If you cared as much about the 4,000 mark as you expect Bush to, you would have been out doing something besides sitting in your office blogging.
“Times have changed for Al Qaeda here. Too many Iraqis have decided they are not going to take it anymore. Al Qaeda in Iraq is still fighting, and they are tough and wily, but Al Qaeda Central seems to realize there are easier targets elsewhere, perhaps in Europe, where many people demonstrate weakness in the face of terror.
Al Qaeda was apparently not in Iraq before this war, and at the current rate they will not be here when it’s over. The Iraqi army and police are doing most of the work these days, but their own operations are significantly augmented by what we bring to the fight.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341312,00.html
Leave now or finish the job?
The cheerleaders at FAUX continue their support of Bush’s war. They admit that it was Bush who established alQuada in Iraq but cling to their hopes that it will just go away. While I hope they are right I must note they they have been consistently wrong on everything for the past 6 years.
The Crapn offers more platitudes…
News media worldwide have their own agenda and in the US it seems to hold back truth or not to question the press releases which passes for news gathering these days. One big, big lie is that the world hates America, a tactic used to promote “us against them” mentalities, creating fear and condemnation of any investigative reporting, as helping the enemy. Most allies cannot stand Bush and co., but have an admiration for things American that will still be there when Bush isn’t. I saw a post yesterday where Canada won’t let deserters stay up north anymore, a complete 180 in attitude. I wonder what ever happened to Hans Blix, that Swede who got hung out by the Cheney media posse, but was praised in every other allied country for his findings about WMD?
rfl posted March 25, 2008 at 4:09 pm
“Leave now or finish the job?”
As I explained yesterday, leaving now finishes the job faster.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/03/is-iraq-war-worth-sacrifice/#comment-319014
Nathan writes disingenuously, “If you cared as much about the 4,000 mark as you expect Bush to, you would have been out doing something . . .”
Gee, Nathan . . .
like gathering at protests? check.
writing letters? check.
organizing media events? check.
distributing petitions? check.
calling Congress-critters? check.
sending money to candidates vowing to end the war? check.
public showing of movies like “Iraq for Sale?” check.
CF and I and a number of others have done all of those things and more.
Short of breaking the law, we’re doing just about everything that an ordinary citizen in Kansas can do to stop this illegal and immoral war that will forever be a stain on the proud history of America.
There’s no blood on our hands.
Can’t say the same about your side.
If you can think of anything else we can do to end the war, Nathan, please let us know.
We’d love to hear it.
CapnAmerica,
Let me save you some trouble here…
I don’t really care what you were doing at the 4,000th death in Iraq.
The point is that you are absurd for thinking that Bush celebrating Easter while we hit the 4,000 mark was wrong.
Sorry, next time I will be more blunt. That is what I get for thinking you might have been smart enough to figure that out.
I was late to the war protest that Capn and CF organized. But I was there.
And let me help Nathan be honest here.
If he had his way, we would NEVER leave Iraq.
Sure, I understand, Nathan.
It’s just a number.
Why should Bush pause to mark the moment and recognize the sacrifice or anything? Lord knows, he himself hasn’t sacrificed now or ever has.
Just send us a rebate and keep the good times a-rolling!
Unfortunately, J R, you’ll have plenty of opportunities to go to anti-war protests as this last long Bush year plays out.
BTW, the thread is “media fails to do its job on Iraq.”
Isn’t that clever? The effing Wichita Eagle hasn’t covered a war protest since 1968 . . .
CapnAmerica,
YOU are the one making a big deal out of 4,000.
I am sure that each and every death saddens Bush.
What next? Should we chastise the President at 4,050?
How about 4,100?
You set an arbitrary number like 4,000 as if it is the magic number. Why 4,000?
Get over yourself.
One time.
A long time ago,
Hank was honest with us about Iraq.
He admitted that we had to be there to secure the oil. I should go back and find that.
Heh, as I recall, GMC had an entertaining meltdown on the same thread.
I think I’ll go looking.
Thank God. Not a single flag-draped casket has appeared on American TV.
How’s that “last throes” thing going these days?
4,000 - it’s just a number, the same as, say, 58,000.
They’re just numbers.
Unless you or a family member is one of those numbers.
Then it is a little more than just a number.
CapnAmerica,
Is that what you do at your little anti-war get togethers, come up with catchy little sayings?
Good Job!
In one sentence you pretend to care about the deaths of American Soldiers and in the next you want to use thier bodies on TV.
Some people find that a bit disrespectful.
Is it “respectful” to cover up painful reality?
I want the blood of Americans to be seen by the Americans who sent them there.
It shouldn’t be hidden like a shameful thing.
It’s you who disrespect their sacrifice by shielding the public from the emotional truth of what is happening.
CapnAmerica,
I support shielding the dead bodies of American Soldiers from a bunch of political hacks like you who would want to use them for your anti-war political BS.
If the family members want to show their dead on TV so that the American public can see them, there is nothing stoping them.
Gee, I wonder why I don’t see the family members jumping at the bit to televise their loved ones?
People die for their country and come home in flag draped caskets and we are not supposed to see?
Are we ashamed?
Or, maybe we should be and are being kept from it?
It makes it easier doesn’t it?
Pretense at reverence so we don’t have to see?
The funerals of those brave men and women who have died in combat are usually open in public cemetaries.
Feel free to drop by and pay your respects to the family members for thier loss.
You don’t get to use the bodies for your policial BS and it just irks you to no end.
It really does make it easy not to care.
Just don’t look at things that make you uncomfortable.
Well, Price, this is the first time in our history that we didn’t honor our combat dead by showing them returning home in a flag draped casket.
Why is that?
“If the family members want to show their dead on TV so that the American public can see them, there is nothing stoping them.”
That’s totally false.
“The ban on media coverage of returning casualties was imposed by Defense Secretary Cheney after an embarrassing incident in which three television networks broadcast live, split-screen images in December, 1989, as the first U.S. casualties were returning from an American assault on Panama.
In that incident, President Bush was seen on television joking at a White House news conference while somber images of flag-draped coffins arriving at Dover Air Force Base moved across viewers’ screens.
The ban on war casualty images was continued during the Clinton administration, which made several exceptions to allow publication and broadcast upon the return of victims of attacks against U.S. personnel abroad, including the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in 2000.
President George W. Bush continued the ban following the start of the Afghanistan war in October, 2001 and the Iraq invasion in March, 2003.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB152/index.htm
*****
So, it turns out that this “no show” policy was continued by the CLINTON administration too.
Yup, no surprise there.
See? I’ve said so all along.
The attention span of the American public is very short.
Mounting debt because of tax cuts and the war?
Well just shove that debt into the growing mountain of debt! Handy for claiming we can’t afford social programs!
Soldiers dying abroad? Don’t show the pictures of their caskets coming home. Eventually, the public is lulled into believing their are asceptable losses.
This was the plan of bush’s handlers re:Iraq.
And it almost worked.
you are right, the left wing media, including the eagle, as puppets of the dems, set out to aid and comfort the enemy with their reporting. in spite of that the Marines kicked butt. it was like winning on the road with paid off refs. too bad scofield and the rest of you clowns- you are double losers; unfair, biased, and on the losing team.
I recall how the media DID show pictures of old looking Russian Calutrons (uranium enrichment equipment) loaded onto rail cars leaving Iraq, then followed by satelite through Iran back to Russia.
These were the real article but were removed only weeks before the war began. I Think GWB thought he would find paperwork or more equipment or at least some radiation left over since they were known to be there. Apparently they were never hooked up and used or we would have…
Lesson, Don’t piss Russia off, they will go help North Korea or Iran or Pakistan (again). Serbia next? Probably.
One Trackback
[...] and rich media …Rich-media ad firm creates 31 jobs in Dublin Siliconrepublic.comukpress.google.comNews media failed its job on IraqNews media failed its job on Iraq Posted6:02 a.m. In response to last week??s coverage of the fifth [...]