Just a few weeks ago, I blogged on media bias and noted that reporter Mark Yost was taken to task for reporting that the MSM “ignores positive changes” in Iraq. Well, it’s not only positive changes, they’re ignoring. The MSM is by and large failing to report a major offensive by U.S. & Iraqi forces. Over at Powerline, Paul wonders:
Have you ever read a history of war that focused almost entirely on casualty figures (with an occasional torture story and grieving parent thrown in), to the exclusion of any real discussion of tactics, operations, and actual battles? I haven’t. But that’s what our self-proclaimed “rough drafters” of history are serving up with respect to Iraq.
No wonder more and more people are turning to blogs to get information. Powerline links to Belmont Club which reports on the offensive here.
history and media reporting are two different things. of course historically we look at more than just casualty figures. and let’s face it, the MSM looks nothing today like it did even during Vietnam. negative news sells, since when is that anything new and since when is that unique to Iraq. I’m not advocating the neglect of the MSM to report everything, just pointing out something that I figured was obvious and nothing new.
“Obvious and nothing new since Vietnam” – that’s the key.
In WW2 and Korea, the media routinely reported on current battles, strategies, goals – in a word, victories (as well as losses). There have been several important battles in Iraq in the last 9 months, but see? I bet most people reading this (perhaps including you) have trouble naming more than one – if that.
The media also routinely used to report examples of heroism. Iraq has produced a lot of those, but rarely do they get reported. Instead, we get hypocritical editorials from New York Times (as happened recently) about why “President Bush and the culture” aren’t spreading the word more on Iraq heroes.
I will admit that I have seen the MSM report on a *few* examples of our troops doing good for the people of Iraq – which they do all the time, in some VERY interesting and important ways – but precious few reports.
World War 2 literally could not have been won, with such a media as we have today. Defeatism would have pervaded the home front and caused us to pull back, or seek terms, even before North Africa was re-taken.
In WWII it took weeks for news to get from the front lines to home. For example, many families weren’t notified of their dead until 8-12 weeks after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. There is also the psychology of television to consider. Driven by ratings: means more people watching = more money. People are much more likely to watch something with shocking bad news than more nuanced “feel-good” information. You can’t just blame the MSM for all the ills of the world. You need to put the responsibility on the people holding the remote control too.
Google “Kasserine Pass” – just that one battle in 1942, having 1,000 American dead, would have caused today’s media to give up and only report on the negative “stresses” of war, or what the effort to defeat Hitler was “costing” us.
If 4 deaths or 1 death or 20 deaths, or whatever the number is, is reported by the MSM day after day after day for 2+ years now…..how is it “shocking” anymore? How is it even *new*s, except to the bereaved families?
No, I don’t buy that argument. I think it is more plausible that the MSM would report “all bad, all the time” because of their own biases.
Heck, google “Tarawa” and “battle”. Talk about stunning casualty counts.
Realistically, if the American people had been informed about what was going on in Iraq under Saddam, Cindy Sheehan and her ilk would be at this point being laughed off the face of the earth for saying that the Iraq war was unnecessary and unjustified. However, when you have liberals like Scott Ritter saying that he was hiding information about Saddam’s imprisonment of children because it would interfere with his “dealing peace”, as well as CNN arguing that it had to broadcase faux rallies of support for Saddam in order to keep its “access”, what do you expect people to think? These people think Iraq was a kite-flying paradise because Michael Moore told them it was.
What I wish someone would do is to get together about a hundred or so Iraqis whose children or families were murdered or tortured by Saddam Hussein and zip them down to Crawford to meet with Sheehan and thank her for her son’s sacrifice in ending the nightmare that was Ba’athist Iraq. It would be wonderful, touching, and a great affirmation of the good that has come out of this situation.
It would also embarrass the hell out of the DNC, Sheehan, and every other misinformed leftist.
Great idea. I only wish I could do anything to make it happen. Sheehan, Moore and their ilk deserve to be confronted on how their path would have left Saddam in power – confronted, that is, by Iraqis.
Have been reading more this AM about Sheehan. What’s so freaky about her is that she has aligned herself, in effect, with her son’s killers. Her son, bless him, chose to serve and protect the U.S. He was sent to Iraq, where sadly he was killed by terrorists. Today, rather than honoring her son’s choice of profession, and recognizing his killers as killers (who ought to be defeated or destroyed), Cindy Sheehan tries to tranfer the blame to Bush, and calls for the U.S. to abandon the Iraqi people in favor of her son’s killers. Twisted! I guess grief can do that to a mother, or (who knows?) perhaps she may have had other problems.
Sheehan probably won’t care what you show her because her son is dead and while the atrocities committed by Saddam were just that…atrocities…I’m sure she’d still prefer he be in power and her son be alive. I don’t know a mother who wouldn’t feel that way. And last time I checked, her son was sent to Iraq to depose Saddam because he was a threat to the security of the United States, not on a diplomatic mission to liberate the Iraqi people from a hateful dictator. I doubt seriously that if everyone in America had been told in great detail all of the awful things Saddam did (since I doubt there are many Americans who thought he was a gem in the first place) that they would demand he be removed by force from power. We all know what a ruthless dictator Kim Jong Il is and we’ve seen first hand the atrocities that are being committed in Africa and we don’t feel the need to demand much is done. I think the issue is we sent our sons and daughters to Iraq because we felt we had to to protect America. And I don’t think everyone who may have believed that before believes it still. And it has to be horrible to think the war in Iraq was a mistake and your child was sent there to die unnecessarily. And until any of you lose a child in such a way, you should reserve your criticism of Cindy Sheehan until you have walked in her shoes.
Hi Britton,
Here is an account of Cindy Sheehan’s first meeting with Bush, that happened in 2004….VERY different from what she is saying today: http://www.thereporter.com/republished
As for certain of your points, in order:
— Many mothers of soldiers killed in Iraq understand that it was their child’s choice to serve, that their child felt they were doing something important, and that the U.S. has in fact been protected by their child’s sacrifice and Saddam’s removal from power. Many such mothers would not change their child’s life or choices.
— “her son was sent to Iraq to depose Saddam because he was a threat to the security of the United States, not on a diplomatic mission to liberate the Iraqi people from a hateful dictator”…..That sentence makes no sense. Liberating the Iraqi people from a hateful dictator *is* protecting the United States, especially when (or, given that) the dictator had a track record of using and seeking WMD, was hosting al Qaeda at the time (google “Ansar al Islam”), and generally speaking was one of THE MAJOR supporters of worldwide terrorism in many forms.
— “We all know what a ruthless dictator Kim Jong Il is and we’ve seen first hand the atrocities that are being committed in Africa and we don’t feel the need to demand much is done.”…….Errrr, please speak for yourself, Britton. Also: You’re comparing oranges and apples. We ought to remove Kim Jong Il, indeed for our own protection (unlike with the African situations) – but we simply cannot, without China’s consent. It would mean immediate, major war with China. They are basically keeping him in power, at this point.
— Criticizing Cindy Sheehan or not: I have more sympathy for her than criticism……but whatever……because I will reserve my human right to notice (and object to) someone acting sick, twisted or crazy, no matter who it is, or what their claimed reason is.
The Sheehan family’s view of Cindy Sheehan: http://drudgereport.com/flashcs.htm
Britton-
Of course she’d prefer to have her son alive and Saddam back in power. Who wouldn’t.
But that’s not the choice she’s presented with. Instead her choice (and ours) is: (1) Work to make sure her son didn’t die in vain, or (2) Work to make sure her son died for nothing.
It’s odd that she’d pick (2).
Then again, grief is strange. And everyone has to deal with it in their own way. If it helps her to have a concrete person to blame (GWB) rather than a faceless enemy (e.g. terror) then I don’t blame her. I blame those who are using her grief like a wet noodle try to flog the President with it. He met with her and expressed his sympathy — and actually helped her to feel comforted in her grief. They meet with her and fan her pain into a rage that is politically useful to them. This is the inevitable cruelty of a philosophy that exalts helplessness and victimhood above self-reliance and coping, whether it’s on the right (ala Mother Teresa, at least according to Christopher Hitchens) or in this case on the left.
Interesting. So you see her more as being emotionally and psychologically manipulated by the anti-war left (and all the praise and press attention), rather than as the manipulator.
I’ll consider it….but I feel skeptical, because “How can she not know what she’s doing? How can she not know that she’s working towards the failure of the mission her son died for?” keeps crossing my mind.
I’ve had 8 close friends deployed to Iraq. 6 have come back. 5 have come back with bullet wounds – and the purple hearts to go along with them. All six are back in Iraq.
Before the war, 6 of my friends were staunchly pro-invasion. Two were ambivalent. Now seven of these friends are think that the invasion was a BAD idea. One is still hasn’t made up their mind.
I was a BIG, BIG, BIG proponent of going into Iraq. Of course, that was based on what the administration was telling the public (and what friends of mine in the administration were telling me in private). Little proved true.
The situation on the ground is bad. It is really bad. Yes, there are lots of great achievements. Yes, we should not pull out. Yes, we need to win. However, all 8 of my friends now in Iraq think (from the little media coverage they have seen from home) that the media is not showing how bad it is on the ground…or how much danger they put their lives in every day. Of course, they would never complain. So, I will.
The milblogs – yes, including those run by people who are now civilians and can talk freely – and my own military friends tell a different story.
Don’t take this personally if you are for real, but your testimony about your friends seems “neatly constructed”, like classic Web bait.
Mabye joe has some first-hand knowledge of the situation in Iraq. I don’t think either GP, GPPartner, or GPW has served over there.
Just for starters – no “BIG, BIG, BIG proponent” of going into Iraq would fail to know that most (or all) of what the Administration told us has been true.
That Saddam was pursuing WMDs (research & materials): True.
That we couldn’t say for sure if he had neat little stockpiles all ready to go: True.
That we did know (because the U.N. inspectors said so) that he was stalling the U.N. inspectors and preventing us from knowing: True.
That al Qaeda was already in Iraq and training: True.
A skeptical/doubtful proponent, who only follows MSM coverage at a vague/general level, would not know those things were all proven true.
But a “BIG, BIG, BIG proponent”, who follows the story more, would know. Unless, of course, as “BIG, BIG, BIG” he was full of hot gas from the beginning 😉 Sometimes, even people full of hot gas may get a position right – just for the wrong reasons – and then later, because they never did actually get it right, their position collapses.
I doubt seriously that if everyone in America had been told in great detail all of the awful things Saddam did (since I doubt there are many Americans who thought he was a gem in the first place) that they would demand he be removed by force from power.
Why not? Lurid stories were more than enough to get Americans to demand that Slobodan Milosevic be taken out of power by force. Saddam made them look like amateurs.
Furthermore, I think the most damning proof that the American public would have demanded Saddam’s ouster had they known the full details is this statement from Scott Ritter:
Actually I’m not going to describe what I saw there because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I’m waging peace.
In short, Scott Ritter was AFRAID to tell the American people what he saw because he KNEW they would be outraged and demand action.
No, I continue to remain a strong believer in the need to finish the job. I think we have a real chance of changing Iraq for the better. My only point to this was to point out that everyone that I know in Iraq continues to tell of how dire the day-to-day conditions are. They don’t doubt that they will win – they are just afraid that the media is presenting a much-filitered story because they refuse to get out of the greenzone to cover stories, and their fears are that Americans are getting a bit forgettful of what is going on.
joe said: I guess grief can do that to a mother, or (who knows?) perhaps she may have had other problems.
Grief! My foot! The woman is a stereotyptical emotionally manipulative California Marxisant who posts on Michael Moore’s blog. The rest of her family thinks she’s a moonbat.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011045.php
the above is from 1998
I find it sad reading these comments that when someone chooses to dissent against the administration they automatically become branded a terrorist sympathizer. And that’s exactly what’s been wrong with the Iraq conflict from the beginning. Iraq is not about terrorism.
We are wasting an amazing opportunity to rebuild goodwill with other nations by not asking them to get involved at this juncture. It would create new diplomatic ties when it is slowly becoming evident that we went into the conflict overly optimistic of a quick resolution. The Iraqi government is slowly taking shape but will not have solidity without a firm footing. We’re underequipped to do that right now and that’s what so many Americans are upset about. Why are we and we alone fighting this fight? And why are we, and we alone losing so many brave men and women in a land that should have been secured and would have been secured if we had used better judgment at the beginning of the conflict. We’re in a no-win situation at this point and the general public grows tired of the fallacy put forth by the administration of some grand noble cause.
I find it sad, as well as astounding, that based on defeatist and agenda-driven MSM coverage (i.e. never say anything that might make Bush look sensible), people say with straight faces “Iraq is not about terrorism”.
Saddam Hussein’s involvement in the first World Trade Center attack in 1993 (remember?) was proven by the Clinton Administration.
Saddam’s extensive involvement in funding Palestinian terrorism was proven. Saddam’s sheltering of major Palestinian terrorist figures was proven.
Saddam’s extensive high-level contacts with al Qaeda throughout the 1990s were proven. Saddam’s sheltering and training of al Qaeda subgroup in northern Iraq, called Ansar al Islam, was proven. Considerable evidence has emerged of Saddam having given financial assistance to al Qaeda.
International terrorists (or historians thereof) recognize Saddam as one of THE top figures of international terrorism in the last 30 years.
A connection between Saddam and the second World Trade Center attacks – a.k.a. 9-11 – hasn’t been proven. Yet there are many in the intelligence world who believe it was true – that Saddam only got smarter, in not leaving any fingerprints the second time. I expect we’ll never know. Frankly I don’t care. Saddam was the logical “next step” or second target (after Afghanistan and the al Qaeda sheltered) in the global struggle against Islamo-fascism and terror.
As for the rest of your criticism, Question – They’re all over the map. Is the problem that we undertook the war to begin with? Or is the problem that we only used 150,000 troops instead of 300,000? Leftists just can’t seem to make up their minds. If, like Kerry, a leftist believes it was “The wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time”, where do they get off saying we’re in trouble because we didn’t do it hard enough? And claiming that we even *could* have (much less should have) gotten French and Russian support?
But the bottom line is: All this stuff about whether they should have used more troops and “secured it better” or whatever is just so much Monday-morning quarterbacking. Read Gen. Tommy Franks’ book, or one of Bob Woodward’s books. Bush said to the generals “You can have 500,000 troops if you want – do it right” and *they* talked him down to 150,000, in their role as the experts.
As for how the role is going now – Again, the milblogs tell a totally different story than the MSM (and what MSM-readers have said here). The January elections told a totally different story. I wasn’t surprised by what a success they were. I’d been following 18 months worths of page A27 stories (i.e., buried) about what was positive in Iraq. Sovereignty was turned over to a native government on schedule, last year. The January provisional elections happened on schedule and were a huge success. The Iraqi constitution is being completed on schedule. The next Iraqi elections will happen on schedule. The so-called “insurgency” has been, and continues to be, slowly but surely strangled.
The Sunni parts of the “insurgency” are turning on the “foreign terrorist” part of the insurgency, slowly but surely. I predict the next Iraqi elections will also be successful (in substance – MSM may be better prepared this time to give them some kind of negative spin) and 20 years from now, we will look back on Iraq as one of the positive turning points in the War on Terror.
This seems relevant: http://instapundit.com/archives/024884.php
Relevant to the Cindy Sheehan topic –
An Iraqi blogger, Mohammed, posts “A message to Cindy Sheehan”: http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2005/08/message-to-cindy-sheehan.html
I’ve said it before and I’ll doubtless live to say it again: No matter how deep that woman’s grief, no matter how painful her loss, I do not understand why she would now actively hope, or work to ensure, that her son’s death and 2,000 other mothers’ sons’ deaths will have been in vain (as their mission is abandoned prematurely).
Surfing some more interesting stuff…..Cindy Sheehan in her own words (hint: rabid Bush-hater and Israel-hating conspiracy theorist): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-8_11_05_CS_pf.html, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1460787/posts
Surfing some more interesting stuff….Cindy Sheehan in her own words (hint: longtime rabid Bush-hater and anti-Israel conspiracy theorist):
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-8_11_05_CS_pf.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1460787/posts
I tried to submit another update but it did not ‘take’…..Or, it may have taken ‘twice’…..the Comment software may be having problems, in other words…
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-8_11_05_CS_pf.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1460787/posts
Yeah, the Comment software is having problems. It doesn’t always take links.
OK, here’s what I tried to say. Surfing some interesting stuff today. The above two links are “Cindy Sheehan in her own words”. You can see she is in pain. On the other hand, she pretty much was already a rabid Bush-hater and anti-Israel conspiracy theorist as of last November. In other words, it isn’t a new thing just because Bush won’t meet with her again. There’s something “off” about her; I can’t put my finger on it.
Results of more surfing…apparently, Casey Sheehan voluntarily re-enlisted in the service in August 2003, knowing he would be sent to Iraq…he also “volunteered” for the battle that cost his life, having been told he did not want to go.
It sure looks like *he* was a true hero, who made a conscious choice to protect America in Iraq. I’m grateful to him.
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:5YJUg3eHdVcJ:www.talkingproud.us/Eagle101904.html+Casey+Sheehan+++Stars+and+Stripes+++Cindy+Sheehan&hl=en
Sorry – “volunteered” having been told he did not HAVE TO go. (excuse the earlier typo)
Wow, this is just amazing. If you believe FrontPageMag, her anti-Americanism is downright scary:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19117
And yes, from what they show (and if it’s true), I mean downright anti-Americanism…..actual encouragement of our enemies. Check it out.
One more link – intra-Left advice from Daily Kos on how the Left can more theatrically exploit Casey Sheehan’s death….link is via LGF….must be read to be believed: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=17039#comments
One LGF commentor makes a good point: Every human being’s first instinct (including mine) is to want to honor the mother’s sacrifice and comfort her…it bears remembering, though, that the sacrifice here was Casey Sheehan’s, not Cindy’s.
He chose to protect us in Iraq. He gave his life doing it. She now wants to simultaneously invoke (for her status/authority) and repudiate his legacy. OK, I’m back where I started. That’s the thing that creeps me out so much, about her.
To return to this thread’s original theme: I can’t say I’ve seen the MSM telling us about *Casey’s* sacrifice very much. Though maybe I’ve missed some coverage.
It sure looks like *he* was a true hero, who made a conscious choice to protect America in Iraq.
It’s comments like the above that I find so absolutely stupifying. Would someone please tell me what exactly it is that we’re protecting? We know that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. What immediate threat was Iraq posing to the United States?
If we were really concerned about terrorism, we would have pushed into Tora Bora and blown up bin Laden when we had the chance.
Of course she’d prefer to have her son alive and Saddam back in power. Who wouldn’t.
I think she’d prefer to have her son alive and Saddam deposed by the combined forces of allies against his tyranny, rather than a single arm invasion by the United States, cowboy-style.
I think the United States is doing a horrible disservice to itself by not involving other nations in the reconstruction and civilian training efforts but I suppose Haliburton wants all the dough for itself. I wonder how much the personal financial interests of the President and his cronies are bolstered by the actions of the last few years?
I think she’d prefer to have her son alive and Saddam deposed by the combined forces of allies against his tyranny, rather than a single arm invasion by the United States, cowboy-style.
I think we all would, Question. However, when you have other governments and UN bureaucrats making enormous sums of money off Saddam being in power, that tends to interfere with that.
Saddam Hussein was no idiot. He knew that other countries could be bought off, and he knew that they would use anti-Americanism as an excuse to cover up the real reason. He also knew the left in this country would completely deny his crimes, as I blogged about today, because they hate Bush so completely that they will justify anything as long as it’s anti-Bush.
As for your last statement, Question, it’s hard to say, but I would think that leaving Saddam in power was far more financially beneficial to far many more people than removing him was.
Question-
Amazing.
In one short post, you’ve falsely asserted:
(1) We had no allies in the war against Hussein.
(2) The invasion was by our troops alone.
(3) No other nations are involved in the reconstruction and training efforts.
Each of these is either a baldfaced lie or an assertion of such ignorance as to totally discredit anything further you might have to say.
I understand that your script now requires you to mock our allies (“Oh, sure, Bulgaria sent troops…”), and to point out that Russia and China aren’t helping. Please proceed.
Clint, you’re great 🙂
And the assertion “Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism” is, of course, equally ignorant (if not ill-intentioned).
Question, I answered you fully in #23 above. Won’t re-type it all. Please read #23 and try *absorbing* or *thinking about* what you are reading, OK?
P.S. And the Iraq constitution is going to be a week late now, but so what. Those who want America’s defeat in Iraq: don’t break out the champagne over that. I stand by my Iraq predictions.
Your blog is realy very interesting. http://www.g888.com