I was in the Army for close to ten years, on both active duty and in the Guard/Reserve. I was an armor crewman, I was a combat engineer, and I was an instructor. I count the years I was on active duty as the best years of my life, and I, to this day, actively worship our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines.
I also was and still am a pretty vocal supporter of this war. Despite the fact that no active WMD programs or weapons were discovered, I continue to think what we did and what we are doing was and is the right thing to do.
Why am I telling you this? To deflect the inevitable knee-jerk, wingnut responses I will get when I say this:
Hugh Hewitt’s so-called ‘support’ of the military does it far more harm than it does good.
Today’s entry is a classic example:
The combined volley of a fake story (Newsweek’s) and an old story (the New York Times’) underscore Terry Moran’s assertion that there exists deep hostility to the military in the MSM, and Linda Foley’s idiocy is proof positive of the existence of a lunatic fringe that will believe whatever they have to believe in order to justify to themselves their feverish hatred of George W. Bush. It is almost inevitable that more anti-military stories will surface, powered by more leaks, all designed to discredit a war effort that is all too obviously succeeding in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon and hopefully elsewhere in the Middle East.
Such a “leak” ended up leading to the death of innocents this week –though MSM seems uniquely disinterested in naming those dead in the Newsweek riots– and the damage future scoops may cause can only be guessed….
Everyone repeat after me:
Reporting on abuses that have been committed by our troops, in our name, is not anti-military. While I am not arrogant enough to attempt to divine the motives of every journalist who reports on such abuses, Hugh appears to be up to the challenge. I find his attack on the reporting of the outrageous abuses detailed at length in the NY Times to be both disturbing and disingenuous.
Apparently in the myopic worldview of Mr. Hewitt, reading and reporting the just-released documents the Army itself created is both ‘anti-military’ and ‘re-hashing’ an old story. Let’s not focus on the fact that few, if any, have been punished for these transgressions. Let’s not focus on credible reports that these incidents continue to occur. Instead, if Hewitt is to have his way, we should all focus on the ‘anti-military’ stance of the media.
What is particularly disturbing is how he and others have artificially conflated the Newsweek error and the NY Times story. This is no accident, but an act of intentional and outright propaganda. The Newsweek story may have been inaccurate, but the NY Times story was not. To read Hugh, you would think both were inconsequential and simply the result of a media hostile to the military. “Nothing here- just the military-hating mainstream media.”
To their meager credit, Hugh and his cheerleaders are not calling for outright censorship of the media:
Regarding my
Kimmitt
To demand a loyalty test of the media, requiring that they cover up our shortcomings and mistakes, is petty, demagogic, and a recipe for disaster.
Yes. Yes a lot.
ppgaz
John, you are The Man.
Ron Beasley
We disagree on most things but posts like this are the reason you are a daily read for me.
michael shew
there you go again John making sense and all. I am a liberal but I keep coming back here just to make sure your still trying to keep the “conservatives” honest. There going to take away your Rep. party credentials if you keep at it.
Great post. And, kudos to your work over the last 7-10 days.
michael shew
Mea culpa for the obvious grammatical and typogrpahical errors in my first comment.
Reid
Sorry, John. I agree with you 110%, but you’re tilting at windmills here trying to mount a case based on facts. We live in a world where, on the left and right, ideology trumps mere facts.
Facts can be interpreted and spun. And ignored when inconvenient. Ideology is, and forever will be, pure.
Gary Farber
Keeping our priorities and focus straight, I must note that Hewitt also used “disinterested” when he meant “uninterested.” He should know better.
Stormy70
Gee, all the press does is report on these abuses by the military, and always followed by the info that the military is investigating it. I want to know who is investigating the islamic terrorists, and reporting on the atrocities they’ve committed? I seem to have missed the in depth reporting of the mutilated bodies found in Falluja, killed by the mujahadeen. I had to read that at Blackfive.
Americans have heard the steady drip, drip, drip of prisoner abuse stories for years. Oooh, more Muslims hate us. Well, they hate me because I am an infidel that wears low cut clothing, and drinks alcohol and watches rated R movies. I don’t care if those people hate me, and most Americans could care less about some terrorists’ opinion of us. At least our military is investigating this, and our press is free to report on it.
The press is a business as well, and they are losing money and crediblity. If the press was more balanced in their reporting, then they would not have the knee jerk reaction against them when they do report on prisoner abuses. The soldiers despise the media, according to most milblogs. Americans revere their soldiers, and react adversely when they feel they are being attacked. The press is increasingly seen as hostile to the American Military. Terry Moran admitted the majority of the press corps at the White House were antimilitary in his interview with Hugh Hewitt. Do you not think that bias against the military is not transmitted to the American people. The press deserve all this because they are doing a piss poor job of reporting on this war, and their customers know it.
ppgaz
Stormy, you are full of crap.
Reporting on the incompetance of the people running the Pentagon is not “anti-military.” It’s pro-military.
The military is not served by the foolishness and malapropisms of idiots. Failure to report such things is negligence on the part of the press. If the press is not there to shine a light on those things, then who is? And what is a press for? To act as a publicity organ for these potatoheads in Washington?
I don’t care so much that Muslims hate us for acting stupidly. I care a lot more that saying and doing nothing about the stupidity is a reflection on us. Fanatical Muslims will find a way to stir up hatred. That’s no excuse for us to put up with abuses and incompetance.
Brad R.
John, you get one “Heh” followed by a very big “indeed.”
Brad R.
Gee, all the press does is report on these abuses by the military, and always followed by the info that the military is investigating it. I want to know who is investigating the islamic terrorists, and reporting on the atrocities they’ve committed? I seem to have missed the in depth reporting of the mutilated bodies found in Falluja, killed by the mujahadeen. I had to read that at Blackfive.
Stormy-
I hope you agree we should hold ourselves to higher standards than the terrorists. I mean, we already dislike them so much that we’ve declared war on them. The reason stories of American abuse get so much press is because we’re supposed to be the good guys.
Stormy70
I did not say the press should not report on abuses, or mistakes made by the Military, I think they should. This is what Terry Moran said: “It comes from, I think, a huge gulf of misunderstanding, for which I lay plenty of blame on the media itself. There is, Hugh, I agree with you, a deep anti-military bias in the media. One that begins from the premise that the military must be lying, and that American projection of power around the world must be wrong. I think that that is a hangover from Vietnam, and I think it’s very dangerous.”
Why do I trust those guys to report the good the military does? That’s right, they don’t report the good the military does. Until they do, I am going to keep going elsewhere for my War on Terror news. It’s ironic that the bulk of good reporting is done by foreign media in Britain and Australia, and some of them are more left-wing than our media.
The press is not a publicity organ of our government, thank God. But the press is not doing it’s job on reporting everything, and until they do, then I don’t take them seriously. And that’s the way it is.
ppgaz
I cannot agree. First of all, I think the press does a lot of “good news” reporting … more, a lot more, than is justified given the sorry state of affairs that exists over there.
The American people, I think, are not as incapable of figuring all this out as you seem to believe. I think that the man and woman on the street are dumbstruck by the courage and service of the people in uniform. Heartened by the good deeds and the hard work to improve the lot of the Iraquis and Afghanis. And shocked at the apparent ham-handedness and mendacity of the military leaders, and by that I mean, the civilian leaders of the military.
In short, I think that the average person gets it, on the good news side, and the bad news side, and that tells me that the reporting is doing a passable job. Not good, but passable, but a damn sight better than the buttheads in the Pentagon who wear civilian suits are doing.
Let me put it this way: Would I rather have a passive, whipped press, or a pit bull press? Give me the pit bull. I can figure things out… but not if I don’t get anything but doublespeak from the official spokesmen and the mealy-mouthed press secretaries and the legion of spin artists who would love to keep the press begging for treats and rolling over on command.
“Anti-military press” is a slogan for the sole purpose of covering up fuckups and beating down inquiry.
Birkel
The press withheld stories during WWII. Was that justified?
Was there no torture in WWII? Did the greatest generation never rape? Never kill an innocent? Never brutalize a prisoner?
Was America worse off for not knowing or better? What distinguishes WWII and OIF?
And as to context: Have the abuses perpetrated by American soldiers in this war been more rampant or worse than those of previous wars? How about those of our enemies in this war compared to others?
While none of the above questions is meant to diminish my hope that the guilty are punished for their crimes I do find a widespread lack of perspective. And it is that perspective that the press, what with their “multiple layers of editors” and ability to “surround a story”, consistently fails to provide. It is possible to both condemn the actions of the few and remind the reader that the actions of the majority are incredibly honorable. And honorable in spite of the fact that the enemy in this war has done everything it can–breaking every law of war–to incite.
It strikes me that Hugh Hewitt is going too far in criticizing the press but surely it deserves some criticism. Quite a bit, in fact.
ppgaz
All entities can profit from criticism. Criticism is where the fuel for improvement comes from.
But criticism of the press no longer serves a good purpose when its aim is to intimidate it or browbeat it into submission. The proper response of the good citizen, when presented with a sloppy job of reporting or attribution, is to demand a better product … better reporting … not to try to beat the press down with phony complaints that they are unpatriotic or “anti-military.”
Hiding behind other peoples’ uniforms and behind flags is the oldest trick in the book of demagoguery. If the empty suits in the Pentagon think that the right story isn’t getting out, let them try harder to get it out. That’s their job. They work for me.
Stormy70
Brad – I do agree we should hold ourselves to higher standards. The military investigates these abuses, and punishes the ones involved. The media gives them so much press because they have an anti-military bias, and it is another way to bash Bush in the press briefings. The abuse at Abu Garib was being investigated before the story broke big time in the media. I remember reading a mention that the military was initiating the investigation well before the media ever got hold of it. That fact should have been hammered home by our media, but it was used to bash Bush and the military. Abu Garib is brought up every day by some snarky member of the press, and it gets old, then it gets ignored.
I am going to hold the press to higher standards, as well. Newsweek does not get a pass from me because their story could have happened. When they run a story it better be true, and let the cards fall where they may. If this story had been true, they should have run it. But flushing the Koran is not torture, and it should not be used to bash our entire country. Finally some in the press are starting to realize that these Islamic fanatics need to be called to the carpet over their antics, as well. Thank you, Tom Friedman.
John
It’s very refreshing to read this type of honest commentary from someone with your perspective.
My question is why you continue to patronize the idiots–and really, there’s no other word for them–like Hewitt and the Power Line gang. They are propagandists, pure and simple, so why continue to promote their crap in your blog roll?
Stormy70
How can the military get the story out when the press is adversarial and won’t report it? The press deserves to hammered for not doing a credible job. The American people can find out what is going on by reading stories from actual soldiers on the ground, and comparing them to the piss poor reporting of the majority of news media in the country. If the press feels intimidation because people are now demanding their stories are substantiated before running them, then they can get a new job. People now have a way of fact checking their ass, and demanding they report the full story.
Jon H
Stormy: “How can the military get the story out when the press is adversarial and won’t report it”
You mean like the coverage of the military support for the Asian nations after the tsunami? That got plenty of air time.
But ‘the good news’ doesn’t outweigh the evil. The Taliban made some improvements when they took over Afghanistan. The fact that they imposed law and ended the chaos does not absolve them for the evil things they did.
Anyway, I don’t see anyone saying that the military as a whole needs to be punished. So I don’t what your problem is.
Are you okay with having evil fuckwits in the military, representing the United States?
The military needs to be given harsh scrutiny, because it’s ALWAYS a good idea to keep close watch on the guys with the weapons.
Birkel
Jon H,
You’re an absolute idiot if you think the Taliban did some good things like impose law and order after it conquered Afghanistan. They go into the trashbin of history with every other set of mass murdering dictators and if you fail to see that you are beyond redemption.
And if you’ll recall much of the tsunami coverage was devoted to bashing Bush for his initial paltry promise of aid. Of course Canada got loads of great press for promising 14X what America initially did. Only problem with that is Canada has only delivered 50K of their promised 425M. Meanwhile Bush upped his promise to 300M and has been delivering the goods.
Andrei
“And if you’ll recall much of the tsunami coverage was devoted to bashing Bush for his initial paltry promise of aid.”
Much?
Utter bullshit. It was mentioned as a minor side player, maybe, but it was not the primary focus at all of the tsunami story in the news, nor reported as “much of” the coverage whatsoever.
The primary focus of course would the victims and the stories of of how people survived and managed to make it through such a tragedy.
Andrei
“You’re an absolute idiot if you think the Taliban did some good things like impose law and order after it conquered Afghanistan.”
Oh… and btw…. last main story in the news regarding Afghanistan prior to the Newsweek sideshow was that they held free elections (even women got to vote!) and were most definitely on the up and up.
Freedom was on the march, remember?
Now they are an apparent cess pool of the Muslim extremism once again, rioting with anti-American sentiments, people dying and such. Which is it? What’s really going on here?
Josh
“would they rather there be a clear and open prosecution of those who ARE the worst of them?”
Certainly people who support the war should agree with that, but no one who opposes the war will want to stop with the “worst.” They will use every example they can find to paint the entire military as being the same set of bad examples, hence their desire to pin blame on everyone from the lowest ranking private all the way up to Bush Cheney and Rumsfeld. Punishing the ones who do wrong matters less, since to them, everyone involved in the war is “wrong.”
Covering it up is no solution, of course. The best I can hope for is that enough normal people can see through the lies and understand the facts, so the right thing can be done.
Birkel
Andrei,
You’re right. I was making a limited point about the political coverage that fit within the larger story of human suffering.
Naturally most of the coverage was rightly about the devastation–physical and human. But within the political coverage, which may’ve been 5-10% of the total coverage, much of the press was about President Bush’s initial inadequate offer of aid.
I was not clear about the narrowness of my point. Sorry for that.
Birkel
Andrei,
Anybody who tries to define Afghanistan will fail because it, like every place in the world where more than one person lives, is not uniform. Elections have been held and supported by a majority of people who, like most people anywhere you go, just want to get on with their lives. They want freedom from crime and thuggery and are choosing the options they surmise will best provide their basic needs.
A much smaller minority are hellbent on destruction and ruin of the majority’s will. Thus has it always been within every society.
To label the whole country as either extreme or democratic is to miss the point.
Jon H
Birkel writes: “You’re an absolute idiot if you think the Taliban did some good things like impose law and order after it conquered Afghanistan.”
Then you don’t know the history of the Taliban in Afghanistan. They were welcomed, in the 90s, because they imposed order after a lawless period of conflict between rival warlords and their troops.
Yeah, later, the Afghans realized the Taliban wasn’t very nice to live under.
But they were undeniably perceived as an *improvement* when they came into power.
And yes, to the extent they cut down on rape by soldiers, and other forms of suffering, they done good. It was more or less *by accident*, but to some extent it gave the Afghans some relief.
TJIT
John,
Interesting column. You are right on the abuse reporting but wrong on the overall media behavior.
Here is a column about the Washigton Post Baghdad bureau chief by a Marine reservist who served in Iraq. It is an interesting article and the most telling quote by the Marine comes toward the end of it, he says
“Since I saw Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s integrity up close, I haven’t believed a word he writes, or any story coming out of the bureau he runs. You shouldn’t, either.”
He also bricked the reporting on Paul Bremer’s speech when departing Iraq. Washington Post Story
and
Washington Post Retraction
The fact that the media reports on the abuse is not a problem. The fact that the media does not show the same zeal in reporting on the military’s positive accomplishments in the WOT is.
TJIT
John you said
“At some point, though, reasonable people have to wonder- maybe the constant villification and active attempts to impede press investigations make it more difficult for them to get the story right?”
I tend to think the proper response is for the media to grow a pair and deal with it.
The media freely criticizes any institution, person, or industry they think is behaving badly. This is fine, that is what they are supposed to do.
They should be happy to undergo the same scrutiny they apply to everyone else. Like you said sunshine is the best disinfectant.
Al Maviva
I’m basically with you on this one. Yep, the Times’ running a huge 6 page piece on this, as if in defense of Newsweek, is a bit suspicious.
But that doesn’t wipe out the piece’s merit. This fits in the category of “playing hardball.” Part of the game is the high inside fastball and the spikes-up slide, and if you don’t like it, you should find another game. The military is generally pretty good at fixing stuff, but at times needs to be pressured to fix things. I see this article as letting in some sunshine onto an infection that the Army appears to be taking care of. So yeah, the timing couldn’t be worse, but I’m not hot about this, as I was about Newsweek’s “our source recanted but we ran it anyway” account of Koran flushing.
Just because the Times is biased against the Administration and the military 95% of the time, doesn’t mean we should disregard their opinion when they say something smart. That’s a dangerous habit to get into. I mean hey, if Kos said you shouldn’t jump off bridges, would you disagree simply because of the source?
BTW, the British Sun running the underwear pictures of Saddam, thanks to some war criminal rat fink bastard soldier or contractor at his prison, does incense me. In the wake of the Newsweek riots, one wonders if Sir Rupert is trying to get a full-fledged war of civilizations going. I hope against hope that we can excise the Islamacist cancer from the Middle East, but Rupert’s maneuver makes it more likely that the people we are trying to reach will become alienated. There’s some things you don’t do in an honor/shame culture, no matter how low the person: publishing pictures of them in their skivvies is one.
Hesiod
“uber-patriots?”
There’s a better word for that. It’s “fascists.”
That’s what they are, John.
Glad to see you finally are starting to figure it out.
Hesiod
“The fact that the media reports on the abuse is not a problem. The fact that the media does not show the same zeal in reporting on the military’s positive accomplishments in the WOT is.”
Like what? How many schools they gave a fresh coatr of paint?
It costs $35,000 for a cab ride from central Baghdad to the Baghdad aiurport. One way.
That pretty much tells you all you need to know about the “success” of the WOT.
You guys are completely bonkers./ You sounbd like the nuts who kept saying that victory in Vietnam was just around the corner…over and over and over and opver again.
You blame the media, the opponents of the war, the Syrians the French, and God knows who else for all the problems we are facing there.
You blame everyne but the GUY AT THE TOP who CAUSED the problems: George W. Bush.
Eventually, reality is going to kick you in the balls.
Jon H
“The fact that the media does not show the same zeal in reporting on the military’s positive accomplishments in the WOT is.”
That’s because this would be like reporting the Terri Schiavo case and focusing on the fact that there is now an open bed at the hospice.
Or a doctor at a hospital telling you your sickchild got an extra serving of jello at dinner, but not telling you that the tumor has spread.
The good things are, for the most part, minor, and don’t remotely balance or outweigh the bad news.
The bad news consists of things that can lead to our failure. The good news generally doesn’t consist of things that will lead to victory. Painted schools won’t bring us victory, no matter how many we paint.
Sorry the news sucks for you, but I’d rather have an accurate, realistic report of important information, not happy stories intended to give me a distorted idea of the situation.
The number of schools painted this week gives me no notion of how the war is going. The number of attacks *does*.
SDN
Does not filling mass graves count as an accomplishment?
http://massgraves.info/
Phredd
The next step on your road back to reality is to understand that the torture you abhor is official Bush Policy, and therefore not likely to be ‘thoroughly investigated.’
Don’t take my word for it; there is plenty of evidence out there, and not hard to find.
SamAm
Stormy, care to share with us the details of the punishments meted out to the soldiers responsible for the Bagram murders? Care to discuss the charges brought against any one of the officers involved?
CaseyL
How is US torture of prisoners “old news”?
They – no, we – were still torturing prisoners as of one year ago, and that particular prisoner was finally released because he was innocent. I have no faith whatsoever that prisoners aren’t still being tortured, to this day; nor that prisoners aren’t being shuffled around to evade the IRC; nor that prisoners aren’t being quietly disposed of after they’ve been tortured to death.
Calling this “old news” in an effort to stop it from being covered, or commented on, is not only vile but stupid. Because – even if I accept, for the sake of argument, that most Americans are okay with torture – it isn’t “old news” to the friends and relatives of the victims. It isn’t “old news” to the people in Iraq, Afghanistan, and throughout the Muslim world. It isn’t “old news” to the people we’re trying to win over, the people we’re trying to convince to stop supporting the insurgency in particular and anti-Americanism in general.
Or is “winning hearts and minds” also old news? Have we abandoned caring about anything but body counts and brute force? Is the war in Iraq only important in terms of its effects on domestic politics? Should coverage be slanted to protect the Bush Administration, regardless of what’s actually going on in Iraq?
Far North
I agree with Hesiod.
Some “Americans” just don’t get it. One poster here is upset because the media doesn’t report all the good things the military does with the same zeal as the bad stuff. When the military does “good” things, hell, that’s what we expect. They are supposed to do the things that we in America are proud of. It shouldn’t be news when Americans act in a noble manner. It shouldn’t be news when we try to help those we just invaded. It shouldn’t be news that we are trying to rebuild a town that we leveled to the ground during military operations. We keep telling the world how much better we are than all these evil countries. We keep telling the world that other countries do torture (remember Saddam) but we don’t. We’re morally superior, right? Don’t you people get it? As Americans, we’re the world’s shining beacon of fairness, equality and morality (or so we say). Government tolerated torture is the most un-American thing we can do. Focus people. That torture has happened in US prisons and continues to happen is the outrage. There is no bigger betrayal of American ideals than that. The media is not the story. Torture is and it should disgust each and every one of us.
I don’t need the media to tell me about new schools or electricity being turned on. I don’t need to the media to tell me how this or that family or this or that man in Iraq loves America for making life great. Hell, I expect that from our military. And so should you. It’s what we do. It’s what we stand for. That’s why we can (or used to be able to) lecture the world on human rights and basic decency.
Our country in infested with all these so called “Americans” that whine and gripe and rise up in rigtheous indigation because “the media reported with zeal” the torture by US soldiers of those in our prisons. These “Americans” are upset because, damn it, muslims are cutting off people’s heads and our torture isn’t as bad as that.
These “Americans” always say that “a few bad apples” are responsible or US torture. And they say, “see, the military investigated it, where’s the investigation of the beheadings? See, we’re morally superior because we do investigations. I just wonder how many investigations would be initiated on these “few bad apples” were it not for the fact that the media reported on the story. I honestly can’t say.
These people that blame the media are the new brand of “American”. This new “American” thinks that all we should be is just a little better than those whom we condemn. They cut off heads all the time. We beat people to death in prisons, but not that often and by just a few bad apples. The beating death of any defenseless prisoner at the hands of an American soldier should repulse every single citizen of this country. The fact that the man beaten to death is innocent of any crime……for fuck’s sake, what the hell happened to my country.
I’m repulsed by it but I can see how the words of George W. Bush would affect a 21 year old soldier responsible for prisoner detention in Iraq or Afganistan. Bush says that our terrorist enemy is a “new kind of enemy”. Our enemies are pure evil so we don’t have to affort them the protections of the Geneva Conventions if we capture them. They are entitled to nothing. Now, don’t these words seem to establish the framework for US sanctioned torture.
Few bad apples, eh? Every single American should be disgusted and angered at each and every one of these revelations. In the military, the chain of command is everything. Those that disobey are quickly dealt with. If our civilian leaders truly detested torture, they would demand that it cease. This order would pass down the chain. Instead, we get “an investigation of these few bad apples is underway. This lackadasical attitude of Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice and the military hierarchy towards torture is reprehensible. This attitude is the problem. Bush and all you Bush apologists are angry, not because US soldiers are torturing and abusing prisoners, but because the the media is reporting on it. Each time a new torture or abuse story is uncovered, notice the conservative response: the media is aiding the enemy, the media is biased against the military, the media is helping the terrorists, the media doesn’t report beheadings with the same zeal. Notice, the reaction is never: we must stop all torture and abuse becasue it weakens our position, our case for war in Iraq and it destroys the moral high ground that we claim to hold.
True Americans don’t need to constantly hear the media tell us all the great things the military is doing in Iraq and Afganistan. We expect our soldiers to do these things. That’s what Americans do. Or used to do until 9/11 destroyed reasoning and any sense of accountability for so many conservatives.
TJIT
Far North,
Fair points but you neglect the fact that the coverage is seen all over the world, not just by US citizens. US citizens may expect the best out of the US military but the rest of the world does not. Austin Bay has a column on the impact of global information flow on the war on terror. Austin Bay column
So if the media is going to do an honest job they need to report the good and the bad both. You might not care about schools being opened etc, but that information should be available for non US citizens who are not familiar with the way our military acts.
TJIT
Jon H,
You said,
“The good things are, for the most part, minor, and don’t remotely balance or outweigh the bad news.”
The Taliban are gone and Hussein is out of power. I think those two good things pretty much overwhelm the bad news so far.
TJIT
Jon H,
You also said,
“Sorry the news sucks for you, but I’d rather have an accurate, realistic report of important information, not happy stories intended to give me a distorted idea of the situation.”
The point is accurate, realistic reporting of important information must also include the good news.
All bad news all the time while ignoring good news is neither accurate nor realistic and gives a highly distorted view of the situation.
PaulB
TJIT wrote: “The Taliban are gone and Hussein is out of power. I think those two good things pretty much overwhelm the bad news so far.”
Um…TJIT, remember that point about “old news?”
Moreover, how often should they report those two facts? It’s not like either one of them is unknown anywhere in the world which makes them, by definition, not news.
Sorry, but that was a rather silly comment.
TJ Jackson
How do you know when te media is anti military. Well one might look at the actions of Look and Life magazines after the battle of Tarawa. The Marines suffered horrific losses, the first three assault waves taking over 70% casualities. The beaches were littered with dead and wonded Americans. The photos would not have displayed an Ameriucan victory but rather have an a horrible effect on morale. So the editors of these magazines with held publication till after the war knowing the impact on the war effort.
Now let us suppose that all the allegations were true and verified. The publication of this material would result in increased funding for the jihaddies and recruiting. It would turn public sentiment in the world aainst us and result in the deaths of more Americans. So we are to believe the publication of such rumors and slander is done by a pro American media?
Hello!
Goatlord
Incredible read, great blog……..
jukeboxgrad
“Rather than publicly prosecute and punish those who have done wrong, they would rather keep the bad apples with the good until the entire barrel appears bad.”
The reason for this is simple: the fish is rotten at the head (sorry for the mixed metaphor). The time to “punish those who have done wrong” was Nov 2, and we failed. This failure will resonate for a long time.
“that would require that we accept blame for what has been done in our name, and that might require a level of candor and responsibility that many do not seem to possess.”
Bingo. The test for this nation is whether we have that “level of candor and responsibility.” The whole world is watching, and what they see (so far, at least) is that we don’t.
It’s true that there are only a few bad apples. Trouble is, they happen to be at the top of the chain of command, and therefore the consequences are pervasive. There’s a direct line between Bush tossing the Geneva Conventions out the window and troops believing they “could deviate slightly from the rules” (link).
But in its typical MO, this administration expects the little guy to pay the price, while the big shots get a raise and a promotion.
“If the rot goes all the way to the top, we have a right to know, and I say cut it out with a scalpel”
Be expecting a visit from the SS.
tom scott
This from Jim Geraghty:
Those of us who don
tom scott
Apologies for the double post.
Forgot to ask this question
Recently there have been several brouhahas concerning the mainstream media. Dan Rather, Eason Jordan, Michael Isikoff, Linda Foley. Don’t you think if it were just happenstance that at least one of these “errors” would fall on the side of the administration? That all were detrimental leads me to the belief of media bias. I’d be curious to know your views on why all these cases fell to the same side of the fence.
tom scott
Apologies for the double post.
Forgot to ask this question
Recently there have been several brouhahas concerning the mainstream media. Dan Rather, Eason Jordan, Michael Isikoff, Linda Foley. Don’t you think if it were just happenstance that at least one of these “errors” would fall on the side of the administration? That all were detrimental leads me to the belief of media bias. I’d be curious to know your views on why all these cases fell to the same side of the fence.
Far North
Hey TJ Jackson, in my post I stated that people like you aren’t angry about US torture of prisoners, you’re mad because the press is reporting about US torture of prisoners.
And here you are, saying you’re mad becasue the press reported about torture. No mention of demanding that torture stop from TJ Jackson. No sir, the big thing isn’t to stop this torture, the big thing with TJ Jackson, American, is to stop reporting on torture. Did I get it right, or what?
You don’t get it, dude. The media is not the enemy. Those that conduct torture, even if they wear the US uniform, are the real betrayers of the true American ideals. Phony Americans say the media is the enemy. Phony Americans like you, TJ, have a common enemy. Your enemy is the truth and those that report it,
weldon berger
John, I’ll try to remember not to get you mad at me.
Tom Scott, if you want to look at coverage that fell on the Bush side of the fence, you can look at pretty much every newspaper and television network during the year prior to the invasion of Iraq. Half of them have apologized for not noticing that, as British foreign minister Jack Straw said in the July 2002 meeting that’s getting so much press all of a sudden – and unfairly so, I’m sure you think – the evidence against Iraq was thin and the country posed less of a threat than Iran, Libya and North Korea.
In other words, you should be damned pleased with the press for helping walk us into the war. Instead, you’re pissed off that they finally got around to trying to cover it and the fallout from it.
Far North
Tom Scott,
I’ll give you one time that the “biased” media did a report that fell on your side of the fence. How about the “liberal” NY Times series of stories by Judith Miller on all those Weapons of Mass Destruction that Saddam had amassed and was preparing to use against us? Remember those stories?
And, oh yea, those stories were wrong. As a matter of fact, those stories could not have been more wrong. Kind of “fell to the other side of the fence, your side, didn’t it? I seem to remember 8 stories in all.
Let’s see, news stories that turned out to be untruthfull? I’m sure we’ll be see Tom Scott demanding a retaction of these stories that were so obvioulsy biased for George W. Bush and against those that said Bush was wrong. After all, we know Tom Scott values the truth above all else. Except, of course, when it turns out to be his guy that peddling the bullshit.
John Cole
What caught my eye was the reference to “Jesusland” and it reminded me of the religious bigotry that I see on Balloon Juice.
Close to 4,000 words on torture, and your only comment is that I am anti-Christian..
I give up. You are beyond parody.
Kimmitt
You’re an absolute idiot if you think the Taliban did some good things like impose law and order after it conquered Afghanistan.
Wow, this is genuinely the stupidest thing I’ve read in the past two weeks. Dang. I mean, I’ve read some stupid things in my life, and boy howdy is this one of them.
Al Maviva
Um, I wouldn’t go as far as you, Far North, as absolving the media. The only news reported from Afghanistan or Iraq, with rare exceptions, is bad news. If I was relying on the Wash Post for coverage, I’d have a picture that is roughly 90% prison abuse, U.S. forces getting their noses bloodied by barrel chested freedom fighters, and pretty girl soldiers who are just as good at combat as any boy.
The fact is that war isn’t solely about material; it is about the will to win, and if a nation’s will to win is destroyed, then it loses. Take for instance VietNam. We lost there, got our asses handed to us, in spite of *never* losing a battle. We had minor tactical reverses from time to time at the squad or platoon level, but never lost any real engagement. Yet still we lost? Why? Because the enemy fought the war in our media and on our campuses, and the steady drumbeat of propaganda about the glorious VC victories broke the U.S. will to fight. For example, the Tet Offensive was one of the greatest military disasters of all time. The entire Viet Cong stood up to fight at once, and got mowed down, wiped out to the extent that main force NVA units had to move to the South, don civilian clothes, and attempt to reconstitute the VC cadres. It was the “general uprising” that Giap and Ho had talked about for years, the battle which would win the war, yet it failed. But Walter Cronkite stood there, said “what the hell is going on here,” and then proceeded for the next three years to tell America about how the war was lost. Giap was very clear in his book about the war, that winning the propaganda war for the heart & mind of the U.S. media was a cornerstone of their victory. And when the enemy’s top general tells you that, it’s pretty much beyond contesting.
That experience is fresh in the conservative mind. Are the NY Times, Newsweek, and the Wash Post allied with the Islamacists and those holdout Saddamites who are still alive and fighting? Hard to say. (The NY Times appears to at least be in “enemy of my enemy” mode, if nothing else). But what is clear, is that the steady drumbeat of abuse stories and constant questioning of why we are there (as if Bush didn’t give a half dozen strong reasons before we went) has had a measurable impact on support for the war.
If we’re in it to win it, we should admit that the constantly negative reports have an adverse effect on our efforts. It doesn’t mean that the government has to start censoring papers or anything like that, but it would help if we could get the newspapers and MSM newsrooms to realize that they occupy a strategic role. This is not controversial stuff, and conservatives aren’t making it up. If you read your Sun Tzu or your Musashi or Clausewitze or B.H. Liddell Hart, you’ll find that public morale is an essential element to winning a war. A constant stream of negative reporting, that blows negative events out of proportion and basically ignores positive events (like the heroism of the Marines in Falluja, and the massacre of insurgents on the Syrian border last week), if it does not break that morale, subtly damages it all around, and actually does break it for those individuals whose position on the war has not hardened.
Kevin Boyle
Mr Cole,
I found you via The Moderate Voice and I must say I was impressed with this essay. I have many friends in the military andI don’t think any of them would disagree with you about wanting the bad apples out.
How can a soldier be proud of his country and the possible sacrifices he is making for it when there are those who sully the greatness of our country with base acts like torture and murder?
I will definately be back to read more. thank you.
BDB
What sort of ‘good news’ do you want reported? What sort of ‘good news’ merits front page coverage? As far as I can tell, military successes are reported often – that’s good news, right? Captures of highly valued terrorist suspects,
again, good news. What else should they report? Have you ever watched the news? They tend to report bad news.
Watch the local news. They always lead with the tragedies and horrors, even if they don’t impact the average American in the least – is the first thing that you need to know at 11 PM really the drowning death of a local senior citizen in a pond? Maybe they should instead lead off with a local senior who won the Bingo tournament at her retirement home. But who would care?
News, by it’s very definition, is when things don’t go as planned. If something happens as expected, it isn’t news. Should the New York Times file a report headlined “Gitmo Detainees Comfortable and Well-Fed” – is that “good news”? It isn’t news.
News is when things go wrong, and since Iraq was wrong from the start, there’s a lot to report on, and I can’t see how reporting on minor successes in the rebuilding of Iraq can be defined as news.
BDB
What sort of ‘good news’ do you want reported? What sort of ‘good news’ merits front page coverage? As far as I can tell, military successes are reported often – that’s good news, right? Captures of highly valued terrorist suspects,
again, good news. What else should they report? Have you ever watched the news? They tend to report bad news.
Watch the local news. They always lead with the tragedies and horrors, even if they don’t impact the average American in the least – is the first thing that you need to know at 11 PM really the drowning death of a local senior citizen in a pond? Maybe they should instead lead off with a local senior who won the Bingo tournament at her retirement home. But who would care?
News, by it’s very definition, is when things don’t go as planned. If something happens as expected, it isn’t news. Should the New York Times file a report headlined “Gitmo Detainees Comfortable and Well-Fed” – is that “good news”? It isn’t news.
News is when things go wrong, and since Iraq was wrong from the start, there’s a lot to report on, and I can’t see how reporting on minor successes in the rebuilding of Iraq can be defined as news.
Hesiod
“Does not filling mass graves count as an accomplishment?”
Whjat do you mean “not filling mass graves?”
And, does that fact that the graves that are being filled (regularly) not count if only one body goes in them at a time?
Heisod
I certainly hope John figures out that the torture IS offic ial Bush policy, not a bunch of rogue intelligence interrogators.
It’s too widespread AND chillingly consistent in its approach to be otherwise.
Of course, that is the last step that John has to take from being like a former member of the Society Union who blamed everyone but Stalin for the horrors they were experiencing.
“Surely,” they thought, “if only Comrade Stalin KNEW how murderous his henchmen were. He’d DO something about it and put a stop to it.”
The fish rots from the head, John.
NONE of this would have happened if Bush didn’t let it happen, or worse, ORDER it to happen.
Hesiod
“The fact is that war isn’t solely about material; it is about the will to win, and if a nation’s will to win is destroyed, then it loses. Take for instance VietNam. We lost there, got our asses handed to us, in spite of *never* losing a battle. We had minor tactical reverses from time to time at the squad or platoon level, but never lost any real engagement. Yet still we lost? Why? Because the enemy fought the war in our media and on our campuses, and the steady drumbeat of propaganda about the glorious VC victories broke the U.S. will to fight. For example, the Tet Offensive was one of the greatest military disasters of all time.”
That kind of thionking is our BIGGEST problem.
We are not teh Roman Empire. We are not the British Empire. We are the United States, a country that ONLY fights wars because we have to.
There was njo problem maintaining support for WWII because people understood that the sacrifices we were enduring in that war were necessary. AND, the Gvt didn’t LIE to people and pretend it was all champagn and roses.
The fact is that Vietnam and Iraq are going to lose support oevr time precisely because our leaders LIED to us when they got us into them.
They didn’t prepare us for the costs. That’s a failure of leadership.
And Bush is STILL lying about Iraq.
Domestic politcs are more important to him than our national security, apparently. But,. of course, he has willing accomplices in the fools who are whining about press coverage instead of Buhs’s failed strategy and leadership.
The Press are just the bearers of bad news. So, typically, the Bush supporters want to9 shoot the messenger.
The only thing preventing Iraq, right now, from becoming another Vietnam is that we haven’t instituted a draft…yet.
When that happens, the War supporetrs are in for a rude awakening.
syn
How many enemy heads have been hacked-off by US military members?
While America is bound to uphold the ‘moral’ highground, in an unprovoked act of war Islamofascists fly aiplanes loaded with fuel into buildings occupied by unsuspecting civilians who then jump from the 99th floor as to escape the horror.
While America is bound to uphold the ‘moral’ highground racist Arab Moslims are slaughtering black Sudanese Moslims for sport.
While America is bound to uphold the ‘moral’ highground, Muslim theocracies hang 16 year old girls because they were raped by righteous Arab Moslim males.
For Allah-fucking sake, America must uphold the moral highground at the expense of the worlds most racists and sexists societies. Wouldn’t want to be “unpatriotic” to Allah now would we!
Birkel
Kimmitt and JonH,
Mussolini made the trains run on time. (Not actually true.)
The Taliban did some good things before they did the bad things. (Not actually true.)
Please say some good things about other mass murderers. It’s fun to watch you as apologists for America’s sworn enemies. Not that I’ll question your patriotism…
TJIT
BDB,
You said “Watch the local news. They always lead with the tragedies and horrors, even if they don’t impact the average American in the least”
Thanks for helping to make my point. The if it bleeds it leads policy of the US media has had some very negative impacts on areas like crimminal justice and attitudes to young people.
The local news generally features a constant drum beat of crime, violence, and youth gone wild stories. This causes the media viewer to conclude that crime is out of control. Even though most categories of crime and in particular misbehavior / crime by young are both decreasing.
But the constant negative news coverage can lead to things like the passage of curfews for young people even though they causing fewer problems now then they were 20 years ago.
John Cole
I don;t know if the Taliban did, in the abstract, what we could consider ‘objectively good’ things.
I do know, that in the chaos of the post Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, with tribal warfare and warlords running amok and crime and rape and other shit running rampant, the Taliban and the Taliban militia was ushered into power by a grateful populace who, I might add, thought they were doing all sorts of ‘good’ things.
Anyone who says otherwise is just an idiot who has more time for idle talk than he does for learning history. From Info Please:
TJIT
PaulB,
The Taliban and Hussein being out of power may be old news. But the old news provides something that is sadly lacking in much of the coverage and commentary on the war and that is context.
Lets not forget what it was like in Afghanistan while the Taliban were in power. Taliban rules. Remember these rules were official government policy enforced by government officials. A few examples from the link above
* Women are not allowed to work outside of the home.
* Girls and women are prohibited from attending schools and universities.
* Women are forced to wear the burqa-a voluminous garment, which completely shrouds the body under layers of fabric, leaving only a small mesh opening through which to breathe and see.
* Women can not leave the confines of their homes unless accompanied by a close male relative.
* Women must paint their windows to hide themselves from view.
* Male doctors are not allowed to examine women.
* Women are forbidden to wear white socks, and their shoes can not make noise when they walk.
* Women and men are stoned to death on the suspicion that they may have committed adultery and persons accused of homosexuality are also punished by death.
Afghanistan and Iraq may not be perfect but the situation is much improved. The citizens of those two countries now have a chance to have some freedom and a chance to build a better existence. This was utterly impossible under the rule of Hussein and the Taliban.
mazzy
It took just a cursory search to find that your wonderful treatise on the improved circumstances for women in Afghanistan is woefully wrong. Many sources have reported that women are just as repressed, just as terrorized, just as abused as they were under the Taliban regime. Women still wear burqas out of fear; women were just banned from television programs and a prominent female television personality was just murdered in her home; women have the right to vote under the constitution but are threatened and intimidated to not vote; women are not allowed to drive cars or enter a car with a male that is not a relative; women are still dying in staggering numbers in childbirth.
Remember the Taliban’s Department of Vice and Virtue who went around beating and imprisoning women for “un-Islamic” behavior? Well, they are still around–except they are now known as the Department of Islamic Teaching. In rural areas, every aspect of a women’s life is still ruled by men. So don’t give me any crap about how the situation of women has improved to any significant extent under this regime.
mazzy
Oops, I forgot. Reporting things that contradict your rosy view of the world is obviously a plot by the anti-military, liberal press. Sorry.
syn
Mazzy, you declare “many sources” Is this the same source as unidentified government sources?
All Muslim societies are dominated by males, what is your point?
Instead of attacking what you preceive as the current regime, why not attack Muslim males for their racist and sexist ways?
Or does your rosy little world enjoy watching Muslim males as they sew the clits of females into second-class nothings all in the name of fucking Allah.
PS: Also in the name of Allah ‘religion of peace’ also executes homosexuals and infidels.
mazzy
The subject wasn’t the chauvinism of Muslim-ruled regimes. The subject was the bias of the Western press.
If you want me to talk about how I feel about the Taliban leadership, I can be here all day. Alas, that wasn’t the subject. But I understand the the standard trick of trying to change the subject. Congratulations for knocking down the straw man, tough guy.
And I suggest you do a search on your own to see how many sources have reported on Afghanistan. Don’t take my word for it.
Platosearwax
I’m probably talking to myself at this late stage of this comment thread. But I just had to say that, though I am not conservative, you rock, my friend. I’ve been reading you a long time, and while I used to be about evenly irritated and happy at what you write, lately you have been pushing all my buttons. I am wondering if it is you, or me, who has changed.
More of this kind of focused rant. Please.
Jon H
Birkel wrote: “Please say some good things about other mass murderers. It’s fun to watch you as apologists for America’s sworn enemies. Not that I’ll question your patriotism…”
You need to work on your reading comprehension. My original point was that the fact that the Taliban imposed some order, and thus improved the lot of the Afghans, does not outweigh the evils they were responsible for.
TJIT
Mazzy,
Have you heard the saying “The perfect is the enemy of the good”.
Afghanistan is a big country that has suffered through decades of conflict. The women have been oppressed for decades also. Decades of damage are not going to be repaired in a couple of years. But you have to start someplace and opening schools to women and encouraging them to attend is a good start and is just one of the many indications that things are moving in a good direction.
TJIT
Mazzy,
People can and do vote with their feet. Some information from the Migration information website is reproduced below.
“Twenty-three years of conflict, four consecutive years of drought, and a repressive government unconcerned with economic development or other basic communal needs combined to produce the exodus of over six million people from Afghanistan between 1980 and 2001.”
This is the interesting paragraph.
“Since the final collapse of the Taliban in early 2002, over two million refugees have returned to Afghanistan.”
So 2 million refugees think things have improved enough to return to the country they left in fear. Two million people now have a chance at a better life. It is not perfect but it is definitely good.
I do not expect or desire pollyanna style reporting. However the above imformation is interesting, highly relevant, and rarely mentioned in the media.
Christie S.
I have only a few comments on the entire brouhaha:
1. If there were no torture by Americans, there would be no stories about it.
2. If we, as a country, want to be seen as holding the moral high ground, we had better make sure that we don’t sap the foundations.
Crap stinks, no matter who produces it.
Jon H
TJIT writes: ” The women have been oppressed for decades also.”
I understand Kabul was fairly cosmopolitan back before things went to crap:
For generations, Kabul was a much more modern and outward looking place than the rest of Afghanistan.
It had a vigorous French-influenced education system, a respected university and an international airport.
Women worked in all aspects of public life, and even a small number of hardy tourists passed through.
At one point, a winery produced what was reportedly a drinkable white. Afghan culture, music, poetry and literature flourished, in public venues and on Radio Kabul.
Now, in Kabul, a female “VJ” has been shot and killed:
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050520-111640-2762r.htm
A female Afghan television host whose popular music program angered conservatives has been shot dead in Kabul, Radio Free Europe reported Friday.
Shaima Rezayee, 24, was host of an MTV-style show called “Hop” on the privately owned television station Tolo TV. She left her job last March as conservative Muslims attacked the program as anti-Islamic and immoral.
Jon H
TJIT writes: “Two million people now have a chance at a better life. It is not perfect but it is definitely good.”
Well, they think it’ll be better than life in a refugee camp.
That’s a pretty low bar.
Gold Star for Robot Boy
“Don’t you think if it were just happenstance that at least one of these “errors” would fall on the side of the administration?”
Pvt. Jessica Lynch says hello. She went out guns blazing, remember?
Cpl. Pat Tillman would also send his regards but he’s dead – from friendly fire, and not from enemy action as first reported.
Bernard
“Mussolini made the trains run on time. (Not actually true.)
The Taliban did some good things before they did the bad things. (Not actually true.)
Please say some good things about other mass murderers. It’s fun to watch you as apologists for America’s sworn enemies. Not that I’ll question your patriotism…”
I couldn’t agree more with this sentiment. Having a working knowledge of recent history is deeply unpatriotic.
TJIT
Jon H,
Feeling safe enough to go back to their home country is a luxury the refugees have not had for many years. If you had spent years in a refugee camp I’m sure you would find the ability to move back to your own country a very happy event indeed. Thats not a low bar that is a vast improvement in the refugees life
Some more information on the murdered VJ from Reason’s hit and run site.
–
“Like other young women,” wrote reporter Catherine Philp, “Ms Rezayee was denied five years of schooling while the Taleban were in control and like them was forced to wear the burkha whenever she ventured out of the house. When the Taleban were driven from power, she was one of the first to drop the veil. Then in October she burst on to Kabul television screens presenting an hour-long music and chat show airing videos of Western singers such as Madonna, as well as Turkish and Iranian pop stars.”
Tolo TV was established by an Afghan expat who had returned from Australia. “Tolo quickly became the most watched station in the city with a reported 81 per cent audience share,” notes the story. The service has since gone national. ”
—-
So Joh H, she was murdered by a private individual for doing something the Taliban government would have never allowed her to do.
Not a perfect situation but still an improvement.
Nelson Muntz
Ha. Ha.
foo
Um, I’m going to tar and feather you with Hugh Hewitt, just as you like to claim that anything some idiot does in the name of libs means that all libs are idiots.
So enjoy Hugh’s sodomy.
Far North
Al Maviva,
You don’t get it dude. With ‘Nam, the US government had been telling Americans for quite a while that victory was around the corner and the enemy couldn’t sustain the battle. The Tet Offensive was launched after the government kept telling us the enemy was about ready to fall. After Tet, Americans, and Cronkite, realized the government wasn’t telling the truth. Here’s where you don’t get it: quite a few of us Americans value the truth. Americans will sacrifice their sons and daughters to protect this country, but when it turned out the government had consistently lied, support for ‘Nam diminished.
I see you are a big fan of the media acting as a mere propaganda tool of the government. You say, ‘don’t report the truth because it might weaken our resolve. Here’s the problem, Al. When you can’t believe a supposedly free press, you have to trust those at the top levels of government to be truthful. I give you WMDs and the phony Bush nonsense. That’s OK with you? Your biggest gripe isn’t that the government deceives it’s citizens, it’s that the media reports it. Dude, you would have loved the Soviet Union. Remember TASS, the state sponsored news agency? They performed a service that you seem to support, that is government proganda every time all the time.
Listen up, Al. You are a phony American. Government’s actions that cannot pass the smell test for truth, leaders that have to hide the truth from its citizens, that’s what a free press exposes. If it can’t pass the smell test, maybe we shouldn’t be doing it.
Don’t tell me that there haven’t been countless pro-Bush news reports. Remember the Saddam statue? Does it bother you that the whole episode was a staged event? No, didn’t think so. Remember “Shock and Awe?, Remember the purple finger of Iraq elections? The real story for a lot of Americans is that, after more than two years, Iraq still isn’t secure, we’re still fighting a war where we were supposed to be greeted as liberators. The real news for so many of us is that hardly anything Bush told us about Iraq has turned out to be true. The media reports this and you label the media as the enemy. Al, you are another “American” that thinks the a free press and truth are the enemy. You should be repulsed at the US torture prisoners and detainees. Instead, you angry because the press reported the truth.
Far North
John Cole,
I respect that you are a supporter of what we are doing, or better yet, trying to do, in Iraq, even though I disagree. I’m wondering why you haven’t had a change of heart given that no WMDs were found or that we can’t seem to get things stabilized in Iraq after more than two years.
Is it an overall stategic concern about the middle East in general?Is it that we can’t pull out now, we have to see it through? Is it because our leaving would destablize the Middle East even more? I don’t necessarily disagree with any of those reasons but I was just wondering what compells to express support for operations in Iraq. Just curious?
bob
North,
Why would anyone spend five seconds explaining their thoughts to someone so sactimonious and adolescent?
Dude. Cripes. Go to your room.
Far North
Bob,
Give it a whirl. Try responding. Or are you one of those people that doesn’t respond with counterpoints but, instead attacks those they disagree with.
Go to your room? Wow, you sure told me.
Far North
Another witty, in depth, well thought out comment from a wrong-winger. Way to go Bob!
Birkel
John Cole,
Yeah, sure, the Taliban did some good things.
And Fidel was a pretty decent pitcher.
Mussolini made the trains run on time.
One out of three being true ain’t bad.
John Cole
Birkel-
I am not arguing with you, moron.
History is.
The Taliban was swept into power because they put a lid on the rampant murder and rape that was occurring. I didn;t say the Taliban in charge was a good thing. The people of Afghanistan did, and then slowly learned they replaced one evil with another.
Foolish troll.
Far North
I read in the book “Imperial Hubris” that the Afganis welcomed the Taliban and tolerated their extremisn because it brought relative stability to the country. Taliban rule ended much of the anything goes anarchy that Afghanis endured after the end of the war with the Soviet Union.
Pick up the book, Birkel.
TJ Jackson
Far North Troll:
Anyone who could recommend Imperial Hubris only reveals both his biases and eductaion. Too bad the author was outed as a complete and utter dunce who actually ran the Bin Laden unit during the Clintionistas regime. No wonder the CIA remains the laughing stock of the world.
Its too bad you cannot muster the same outrage for the murder of innocent civilians as you do for the military. But what is new with the red diaper brigades. Its touching that your concern for terrorists outweighs that of servicemen which shows in each and everyone of your comments.
Obviously you have drunk deep of the kool aid of the Left and are incapable of indpendent analysis or judgement, but then I repreat myself.
Far North
TJ,
Who outed the author “as a complete and utter dunce…?”
You? Hannity? Limbaugh?
America is too good for you, TJ Jackson. You are not worthy of citizenship. Hop over to North Korea or some such place that knows how to keep the press in its in line. You’d love a government controled society.
David Rossie
Mr. Cole,
Perhaps it is only the presence of winguts like Hewitt, Malkin, and the Powerline gang that make me feel this way, but nonetheless…
Being an anti-war libertarian, I would feel much more comfortable about our national-security apparatus if it were ran and defended by more people like you. Thanks for the honesty and willingness to acknowledge faults in the military and in the right-wing pro-war crowd. They are both made up of human beings; how could they not be faulty?
Birkel
Yes, yes. I’m a troll.
The Afghani people (including women) were simply enamored of the peace and security provided by the Taliban.
Where did the Taliban find the dissidents that they used to shoot in the soccer stadium?
Perhaps those people don’t count.
And I love the passive voice (“The Taliban was swept into power…). Perhaps you could’ve said they murdered their way to power but instead you act as if they were called by the masses to run the country. That, dearest host, should strike you as marginally unlikely, no?
Other Lisa
Okay.
The Taliban was bad. Saddam was bad. Islamic fascists who cut off peoples’ heads – bad.
So are acts of torture committed by American soldiers, in our name. We’re supposed to be the good guys, remember?
The lack of morality and reason exhibited by some of the posters here astounds me.
John, thank you for your post.
Birkel
Yes, Other Lisa, all those things are bad.
They’re not equivalent, mind you, but all bad.
Not that I think that’s what you meant.
Cyrus
Work on reading comprehension, Birkel.
I don’t know if Mussolini actually did get the trains to run on time or not and I don’t care. But for the moment, let’s suppose he did. Now, would that mean Mussolini was a good person? No. Would that mean his regime was an overall improvement for Italy? No. Would it mean that having trains run on time is bad? No! It would mean – pay attention here – that a bad person did a good thing. Get that? If you think I’m saying that the trains made up for everything else he did, then you’re either stupid or lying.
In the same way, the Taliban did some good things. Cut back on the rampant opium trade, for example. (Even if only briefly.) And, again, if you think I’m saying that makes up for everything else they did, then again you’re either stupid or lying. Now, to make an effort to get back to the point, as that Jon H said waayy up there, no one denies that the military has done good things, but that doesn’t excuse the bad they’ve done.
Does one outweigh the other? It’s too early to tell. Let’s see what history shows once the fighting is done, the investigations have finished and the bodies have been buried. Until then, kindly shut up about people who are trying to get ALL the facts, not just the train schedules.
pokey
WOW! I have never seen so many disjointed phrases (I hesitate to call them ideas, since there is no overall coherence) in ONE article. Is there a POINT here? Truly awful writing – sorry fans. I was barely able to wade my way through it all. It is nice that similarily poor writers are logging in with their comments of support, but since when does agreement with one’s dogma equal good writing? If there is a valid point of view reflected in this “article” I am sorry it is lost in the cliches.
Other Lisa
Birkel,
I meant exactly what I said. It’s not that complicated.
JTN
Pokey,
And yet it was compelling enough for you to read, along with all the many comments, and to comment yourself. Huh.
Birkel
Cyrus,
The same articles that portray approval for the Taliban and their efforts to curb drug trafficking mention that the Taliban itself increased poppy production.
It’s called eliminating the competition. That’s why the UN issued UN SC Resolution 1333 about the drug trafficking of the Taliban. See here for one example of an article that both argues for the Taliban’s widespread support in paragraph one and then offers varied reasons for how that likely wasn’t true in paragraphs 2-5.
TJ Jackson
Northern Troll:
Too bad you’re too dull to realize that this individual was in a position to take action and botched it. But by your wit and comments we can ascertain the depth of your education and manners. Still I was blessed to be born an American and not an ignorant troll as you are.
Too bad that most readers here would wish that you leave and find a nation more amenable to your views. Kind of funny how others hold you in the same esteem as a dead skunk but this insults the skunk.
If you have any facts marshall them instead of doing your wingnut act. Woulkdn’t you be happier at Kos & Co?
Up keep it up its always entertaining to see someone as well inform as a Michael Moore tell us about the way it is.
Far North
TJ,
I come here because the keeper of this blog often has very thought provoking insights. I don’t always agree with Mr. Cole but in these instances he almost always makes me reexamine the issue and reconsider my conclustions.
Why do you come here?
Other Lisa
And always entertaining to see someone with as good a grasp of grammar and punctuation as TJ Jackson. Not.
jt007
I agree with John that we should strive for a free press that objectively reports all of our successes and our failures. If 7 out of 10 developments in Iraq are successes and the remaining 3 are failures then the reporting of successes and failures should be in that same proportion.
However, John’s rebuke of Hewitt and other conservative bloggers goes too far. John’s call for an objective press is merely an expression of hope. In reality, we have endured an incessantly negative flood of stories that go far beyond the reality I have heard from first hand witnesses on the ground in Iraq. The abuses at Abu Ghraib have been reported, scrutinized and criticized far beyond anything that could be called proportional. The outcry in response to panties on detainees heads and blindfolding has been laughable, while the critcisms of detainees deaths has obviously been warranted and I don’t know anyone who opposes prosecution of the perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law. However, we were told that torture had been sanctioned by the highest officials in the Bush Administration. The media obsessed over Albert Gonzales’s memo, but they never showed any evidence that the soldiers at Abu Ghraib had actually been influenced by that memo. Also, the Rumsfield memos were allegedly a smoking gun proving that torture was the officially sanctioned policy of the DOD. It didn’t seem to matter to the media that the 4 specific interrogation techniques approved in the memo had nothing to do with beating, torturing, etc. As bad as the death of 20 some odd terrorism detainees has been, it doesn’t come close to invalidating the U.S. policy of liberating Afghanistan and Iraq which is exactly how it has been used by people like Teddy Kennedy and the liberal media.
In reality, Hewitt’s and conservative bloggers’ criticism comes in the context of massive overstatement regarding the significance of the malfeasance of 50 to 100 soldiers out of 150,000 stationed in Iraq and 10’s of thousands more in Afghanistan and Guantanamo. The press has also overhyped the significance of the approximately 20 detainee deaths (to be sure that is 20 too many) out of 10’s of thousands of detainees in those same areas. Hewitt’s hyperbole is an appropriate response to the negative hyperbole of press coverage about the War on Terrorism. John’s desire for more nuanced or less severe criticism might be possible in a hypothetical situation that doesn’t exist. As things have actually occurred, however, Hewitt’s hyperbole is warranted. His strident defense of the U.S. Miltary is more a response to the media hype than it is an attempt to sweep malfeasance under the rug.
Brainster
” No journalists I know are still covering My Lai.”
Guess you don’t know the guys at the Toledo Blade, who won the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting on atrocities supposedly committed by US soldiers in Vietnam?
Kimmitt
The Taliban did some good things before they did the bad things.
You’re so close to actually comprehending a paragraph. Keep at it. The actual statement was, “The Taliban did some good things while they were doing the bad things.” I feel quite confident that in a good 20-30 replies, you’ll eventually manage to respond to the actual thesis of the post.
Geoff
your post is much too long to read, however your views are clear in just the first couple of paragraphs (the rest I assume is your attempt to make your point)
You are also wrong. Reporting lies about how we treat prisoners, or re-reporting old stories for no apparent reason does hurt troops in the Iraq and Afghanistan.
You also have the most vile fans/readers I’ve yet witnessed in the blogosphere. Congratulations.
pr
John, I appreciate your well-written piece. It is amazing to me that people can find the torture of human beings “acceptable”.You are correct in surmising that these actions poison our image around the world and do not advance our cause. Although the removal of Saddam Hussein was desirable it was wrong to invade Iraq, especially since this Administration knew (although they still deny) that no WMD’s truly existed and that Iraq was NOT involved in the 9/11 attack…repeat, no Iraqi citizens were involved in that attack. When I see Bush talk I am reminded of Lucy from the “Charlie Brown” comic strip…she always swears she will not pull the football out as “Charlie Brown” tries to kick it…and he always falls for it, even though she has done so every time. So it is with Bush and lying…and yet some folks still…well, let’s just say Charlie Brown isn’t the only one who doesn’t learn.
TJ Jackson
North Troll:
I thought it was because the Kos kids thought you were too radical and insane for their company. Keep on trolling its most entertaining to see how much you can spew without intelligent thought.
Ben
“Americans have heard the steady drip, drip, drip of prisoner abuse stories for years. Oooh, more Muslims hate us. Well, they hate me because I am an infidel that wears low cut clothing, and drinks alcohol and watches rated R movies.”
Stormy… you don’t know any Muslims and you don’t think it matters what they think. I’ve met plenty, including Iraqi/Syrian/Lebanese/Palestinian students — and most of them admire America, like our culture and want their countries to become more like ours. And some of them drink plenty of beer, too.
They don’t hate you because you wear a thong and spilled your wine cooler on it, they hate you because you think it’s ok that we took two plus years to charge even some of the interrogators who beat that 120 lb taxi driver at Bagram to death… while the killers got transferred to Abu Ghraib and continued using the same techniques.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html?8bl=&pagewanted=all
Woosta
Couple of things to note are that covering up mistakes by the Administration in power only perpetuates the needless waste of lives of AMERICAN sons and daughters and fathers etc to a poorly planned and executed war.
As they say two wrongs don’t make a right. What’s needed is a clear diagnosis/picture of the situation. As long as the Administration is in denial over its so called sucesses, these problems will not get fixed. And more blood will be spilled.
TJ Jackson
Woosta:
Just wondering can you tell us about a war that wasn’t poorly executed that didn’t result in the needless loss of life? WWI or WWII perhaps.
I wonder if you know what Lincoln did to newspaper editors and even legislators who disagreeed with him?
Nothing like maling such comments without placing them in cntext.
Tom Paine
Now that bar snacks like TJ Jackson have established beyond any reasonable doubt that the Taliban are a bunch of wicked motherfuckers of whom the world will be glad to the backs, it might be well to remember one uncomfortable fact: the Afhgan mujahideen from whose ranks the Taliban was formed were trained and armed by the US during the war with the USSR, and later the US (under Bush I and Clinton) took a wait-and-see approach to their growing influence. So yeah, you ignorant piece of shit, the Taliban sucks–and the reason we have to deal with them at all is because the US government can’t keep itslef out of imperial wars in distant lands.
Russian Women and Brides
Imagine finding that someone special that is beautiful, intelligent and compatible with
your interests. Online dating is getting more and more popular and recognized as a
way to effectively find that person you have always been looking for. There are
many beautiful women in eastern europe who are looking for the same thing. Why
not try something new and exciting..
http://www.albabelarus.com
Russian Women and Brides
brenda vonahsen
I am sure that there were some attrocities committed by the Allies in WWII but frankly, I bet there was not that much. Those were different times and people held themselves to higher standards…in general.
This morning, John Yoo on Weekend Edition http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4709135
said that on the basis of a cost benifit analysis perhaps Guantanamo does more harm than good.
There was a time when the very idea of considering such a thing about the *torture of human beings * would have been unthinkable.