Uh, do you want to explain the mechanism whereby our soldiers are dying because of sloppy reporting?

What part of "The falsely bleak picture weakens our national resolve, discourages Iraqi cooperation and emboldens our enemy" do you not understand, JC?

Do you not understand that our enemy believes, first and foremost, that he can win by simply wearing down our resolve? By constantly biting at our heels, sewing doubt at home until we wear out and bug out like we did in Somalia and Vietnam? Like the Soviets did in Afghanistan? Like Napoleon did in Russia?

Do you not understand that not just the lives of our soldiers, but the lives of millions of Iraqis hangs in the balance on these equations?

No, apparently you don't. So people like me are going to just have keep saying it so enough people hear it and enough people get it.

Oh, Dean.

You answer JC by quoting Rep. Marshall. But the truth is, neither you nor Rep. Marshall can supply any concrete evidence that a journalist's reporting has been the direct cause of the death of a single soldier in Iraq.

I'm straining to remember whether even Peter Arnett could be accused of that.

I'll keep an open mind here. Please feel free to supply details.

Ara,

For gawd's sakes, where is the "concrete" evidence that the stiff upper lip of the Briton's and their fist in the air propaganda posters impacted Hitler's resolve?

Where is the "concrete" evidence that the threat of a third atom bomb drop on Japan would have backfired had they known we only had two?

Where is the "concrete" evidence that Jane Fonda's talks with the Communists caused soldiers to be tortured and beaten?

Where is the "concrete" evidence that anti-Semitic propaganda led an otherwise peaceful nation to attack and murder citizens within their own country?

Where is the "concrete" evidence that candy bars or cigarettes helped our soldier's morale in WWII?

Where is the “concrete” evidence that the fearsomeness of the Green Mountain Boys terrified their enemy with their planted, mythological tales of torture that sent the enemies running?

Where is the "concrete" evidence that Bob Hope tours, Jane Mansfield’s tits, or Harpo Marks’ humor helped our boys know that America was with them, and helped us win the war?

Where is the “concrete” evidence that allied paratroopers in WWII were executed by the Germans because the Germans so feared their fighting abilities?

Where is the “concrete” evidence that the reports of the successes of a single Russian sniper held back the entire German front in Stalingrad?

Where is the “concrete” evidence that a handful of Francs-Tireures held back the Germany army?

Where is the “concrete” evidence that the false letter writing by hundreds of German war effort secretaries, masking the disappearance of Jewish loved ones kept the rest of the world from understanding Hitler’s goals?

You might be able to find tidbits of proof here and there. But what you will find in every single one of those examples is that it was the PERCEPTION of those events that made a difference. They are all examples of the propaganda war. Those efforts and events contributed to the outcome of the war and a single reporter presenting contrary evidence or information, would have negated the impact. If you were hell-bent on proving otherwise, you could come up with all sorts of anecdotal evidence to prove the case either way. But the sheer volume of the evidence of the importance of propaganda and a united front is so staggering, so incredibly mind boggling, that it would be as if you were asking for proof that bullets make a loud noise.

But when our enemies are on the run, when we've got them scattered across multiple continents, it is not the time to wonder if news reports of "quagmire" or "Not in our Name" protests encourage them or strengthen their recruitment potential and their will to fight on.

We KNOW it impacts them because we are not ignorant of history, as you seem so determined to remain.

I suppose, if we got hold of an Iraqi holdout who had just shot an American and he said he did it because the JCs of the US convinced him that if he could just kill a few more US soldiers we would quit, JC would still not be convinced.

What makes you think the reporters are "thoughtless"?

Well, area, this isn't proof, but it is an observation.

People who live in news-controlled society (in this case everyone in the MidEast except Isreal) have serious trouble believing that whatever gets published (or broadcast) hasn't been in some way "approved" by the government.

In other words, the news published reflects the beliefs and policies of whomever is in charge. A good example would be Iraq under the Baathists. The papers published what they were allowed (or told) to publish. So people in countries like that believe that's how it's done everywhere else.

It's a common human conceit, that whatever you grew up with is natural and normal. It's how everybody does it, isn't it? :)

So, when people in the MidEast see a constant refrain of "quagmire, quagmire" plastered over most of the US news, they tend to believe that's what the government thinks too. That's what they are used to.

I suppose you can say this encourages the foreign thugs in Iraq, in that they think it means they really can drive the US out.

Me, I'm not sure it's accurate to say that such terribly slanted reporting is directly responsible for dying soldiers. I think most of those nutjobs are doing it because its' fun (for them) and they get paid. Probably the only thing that would make them happier is if they were being paid to kill Israelis...

I do think that the overall reporting of most major networks is terribly slanted, and that this bias is a bad thing, as it prevents citizens from making intelligent policy choices based on the facts. It may become Tet all over again; no matter how well the US forces do, voters become convinced that they've lost, based on poor reporting.

Ara, since you have repeatedly said that you are for the war, and want the campaign in Iraq to succeed, I would have thought you be at least as upset as Dean about the poor level of accuracy displayed by most news services in this case.

Ara:

If you really believe this latest piece of ridiculousness then please do me the honor of joining me in a game of poker in which you will have a "reporter" stationed behind you, divulging to me your every card and critiquing your betting strategy.

I have flight benefits with AA and can meet you in whatever continental-US jet city you choose, so long as the stakes justify the effort.

The truth is, falsely bleak reporting doesn't have to be a direct cause of soldiers' deaths to be the indirect cause. And we don't have to do a Gallup poll of insurgents' motivations to apply common sense to the situation.

You may want to compare casulaties in Operation Iraqi Freedom, to normal peace time casualties in our armed forces:

here

er, that should have been
"Well, Ara, this isn't proof, but it is an observation."

Whoopsie.

Jonathon: please stop helping Dean! :))

Blowback: good link. Thanks.

Casey,

"Me, I'm not sure it's accurate to say that such terribly slanted reporting is directly responsible for dying soldiers. I think most of those nutjobs are doing it because its' fun (for them) and they get paid. Probably the only thing that would make them happier is if they were being paid to kill Israelis..."

So are the "nutjobs" you talking about the terrorists or the reporters here? Either way, I think it fits....

Dean, equating reporting bad news with treason is a pretty serious charge. You'd better have more than just a list of names in your pocket.

As far as I know, the troops are getting everything they asked for, with hardly a string of oversight.

Are you saying that criticism of the plan is a dangerous, American thing to do?

That's a rich one.

Mrs. du Toit said:

For gawd's sakes, where is the "concrete" evidence that the stiff upper lip of the Briton's and their fist in the air propaganda posters impacted Hitler's resolve?

Not sure I know what you're talking about. In any case, please don't change the subject. We're looking for concrete evidence that a journalist's reporting has been the direct cause of the death of a single soldier in Iraq.

Richard Aubrey:

I suppose, if we got hold of an Iraqi holdout who had just shot an American and he said he did it because the JCs of the US convinced him that if he could just kill a few more US soldiers we would quit, JC would still not be convinced.

If if's and but's were beers and nuts we'd have a giant party.

Casey, my good friend:

Ara, since you have repeatedly said that you are for the war, and want the campaign in Iraq to succeed, I would have thought you be at least as upset as Dean about the poor level of accuracy displayed by most news services in this case.

Well, so what if I was? That's a far cry from calling these reporters (and their editors and publishers) enemies of the state.

Jonathan:

The truth is, falsely bleak reporting doesn't have to be a direct cause of soldiers' deaths to be the indirect cause.

Well, I happen to think that the actions and policies of the Commander in Chief have a hell of a lot more to do with the conduct of the war than what a reporter (or his editor or his publisher) say or do.

And....you don't?

But let's stay focused here: We're looking for concrete evidence that a journalist's reporting has been the direct cause of the death of a single soldier in Iraq.

Um, perhaps you could tell me why it matters at all what is reported in western media. Not like Al Jezeera has been taking copy from CNN in the past. They manage their own propaganda, no matter what we say. If we were all waving flags and crossing ourselves, then what do you think Arabs would hear?

So, I'll second it that we just keep it real here. It's serves our true interests and it sets a good example.

Ara: Ah, I see the plan, now. You want to drill Dean on one specific sentance in his post, ignoring the overall thread that shoddy reporting is hurting the US effort in Iraq.

Ok. Does this mean that more than one soldier killed means that your position is established? After all, that wouldn't, strictly speaking, represent the death of a single soldier, now would it? Heh.

Going back, I see that you are the only one trying to link a direct (your emphasis) cause between military deaths and bad reporting. Why is that? Besides trying to sidetrack the entire discussion, that is?

This is the whole "imminent threat" thing over again, where people get wrapped up in torturously twisting definitions to prove their point.

I say that you are introducing the red herring of "direct cause, and empasizing that, to avoid addressing Dean's central point: that sloppy, biased reporting is a Bad Thing.

I see you accuse Mme. du Toit of changing the subject, which (according to you, and only you) is that "there is no direct cause," blah, blah... Nice one, since you are the only one arguing that particular point.

Same thing with your response to Jonathan; drag Bush's actions and policies into it. Besides being an opinion, it's yet another red herring. It does not address Dean's original post that sloppy reporting hurts the war effort.

JC: um, where did Dean use the word "treason," or imply it? I missed that. And he never said criticizing the the war plan was bad. If you go back and read what he said, it was that (have I been repeating this much?) sloppy reporting hurts the war effort. A different thing.

Why do people insist on putting words in Dean's mouth, or changing the subject?

In year 2000, when Bush took office, the total death rate in our armed forces, for all causes was about 50 per 100,000. Tragically, this was mostly due to accidents, and that is still true today, and still true in Iraq. Since we have 150,00 troops in Iraq, the morbidity rate is expected to be about 75 per annum, if things were 100% peaceful.

Since the cessation of major hostilities in Iraq, about 6 months ago, some 150 or so troops have been killed. This is only four times what we expect per annum in peace time. And if you exclude all the deaths due to hostilites, they are only about twice what we expect per anum.

I don't mean to be morbid about it, or detract from the tragedy of each and every death, but even with those tragically added today to the total count, it is still NOTHING compared to past conflicts.

During the height of Tet, 500 Americans a week were being killed (not wounded, wounded was much higher). Of course the Viet Cong and the NVA were taking much higher losses, some 8,000 dead at Khe Sanh alone, but it was the political backlash, and the unbalanced reporting back here in the States that made the difference in the end. Militarily Tet was a disaster for the communists. Memoirs from NVA Generals of the time, even indicate after Tet, they were considering entering peace negotiations with the US and the South Vietnamese Army. That is until they saw the political backlash at home.

So, indeed, Iraq could become America's next Vietnam, if political support at home is lost, and the Syrians continue to meddle, and whose to say they are not getting backing from the Soviets, just as Uncle Ho did. Make no mistake, the Soviets, especiall the former KGB officer Mr. Putin, would love to see the US fail in Iraq.

BTW many of the stats I quoted above are ROUND numbers; say +/- 10 in most cases, but some may be +/- 20.

The exact figures are not what is important. Rather it is the scae of the numbers that are most important, for comparison.

And please do not call me a McNamara. There is no way the casualties in Iraq to date, could ever compare to Vietnam :)

So no contest on the question of poor reporting, just some scuffling on the magnitude of the negative results?

Can anyone make a common sense argument for some benefit resulting from the haphazard reporting from Baghdad?

Benefit to America, that is?

If two people are fighting and a third jumps in and begins pummelling one of the original two it is certainly absurd to argue whether he is hurting the first or aiding the second - regardless of his motive he is accomplishing both goals.

I think this analogy works for the press; their motive is to support the American Left and promote an anti-Bush agenda, but they are indeed aiding enemies of America. In this modern world of rapid communication of information it's quite naive (at best) to assume our enemies are oblivious to this.

Greyhawk...

Nielsen Ratings...

Dirty Laundry sells...

Political Agenda....

Personal bias...

The list goes on...

My advice is if you really care, fact-check their asses...

But that's just me...

Roger. But Dean, the slow rebuilding of infrastructure is less attention-grabbing than an explosion with casualties. I don't think that the flat accusation that the media sensationalize everything is fair, but they can hardly help gravitating toward the stories that are going to be compelling. I wonder whether the bigger problem isn't that those in charge of rebuilding infrastructure and institutions aren't organized enough to be publicizing what they do effectively. PR has a reputation for cynical manipulation nowadays, but it's not an easy art.

And BTW, I'm always happy to see the patriotic benefits of sexual objectification recognized, but Jayne Mansfield's name has a y in it, Mrs. du Toit.

Casey--

The words you use actually mean something. For example, here was the last thing Dean said in this current post:

"Thoughtless reporters kill soldiers."

You're suggesting that I am misunderstanding that. I dunno -- it's a declarative sentence containing four words. The meaning is pretty straightforward to me.

So...since you've avoided the question so far, I'll ask it again:

Can you supply any concrete evidence that a journalist's reporting has been the direct cause of the death of a single soldier in Iraq?

For the morons among us

For all of you that don't believe that the people that want YOU dead are trying to win via attrition and the media is helping.

For all of you that refuse to see reality.

For all of you that at too F'ing stupid to get what is going on,

READ THIS:

------------------------

[...]
The two lessons from Tet: 1) Underestimating a guerilla enemy that is fighting on its own ground is deadly policy; 2) The American people will not long stand for a bloodbath in a faraway land that has no clear objective, spends the lives of American soldiers to no good end, and costs billions and billions of dollars better spent elsewhere. The Tet Offensive in January 1968 began a long, slow slide into ignominy and defeat for the United States that, to this day, still echoes long and loud along the hallways of power and the streets of everyday America.

It is happening again. In the last 72 hours in Iraq, a dizzying series of attacks have rocked Baghdad. It began with the downing of a Blackhawk helicopter. It did not end there.

Several missiles were fired at the Baghdad Hotel where Deputy Defense Secretary was staying during his tour of the war. Wolfowitz, one of the chief architects of the conflict, escaped unharmed but was visibly shaken after the attacks. An American soldier was killed in that attack.

In separate attacks, three American soldiers were killed and four wounded. Two of the deaths came when a patrol from the 1st Armored Division was struck by a roadside bomb. The third death came in Abu Ghraib, on the western edge of Baghdad, when a Military Police unit was attacked. Therehave been 349 American soldiers killed in Iraq during this conflict, and thousands more wounded. Since George W. Bush strutted across an aircraftcarrier in the garb of a combat pilot on May 1st, after he said, "Bring'em on," there have been 211 American soldiers killed.

Four different Iraqi police stations were bombed in Baghdad on Monday, and a massive explosion tore into the offices of the International Red Cross. 34 people were killed, and 224 were wounded.

The attacks took place in rapidfire succession between 8:30a.m. and 10:30a.m. local time, strongly suggesting a high degree of coordination.

The similarities to Tet are chilling. In 1968, the attacks came at the onset of the Vietnamese New Year, a holiday that American command believed would herald a temporary quieting of the violence. In Iraq, these attacks come at the beginning of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. The American command in Baghdad believed the holiday would bring a slacking of the attacks that have been plaguing American forces. This assumption ran so strong that the Baghdad curfew was partially lifted by American forces yesterday.

The most pointed similarity is clear: These attacks are meant to cause a political reaction. The United States military, on the whole, will not be undermined by these attacks or by the loss of four more soldiers. The political ramifications, however, are a different story, and in the longrun the political reaction will directly affect the military.

------------

Where oh were did I find that???

A) Howard Dean's blog
B) The DNC website
C) Calpundit
D) Democratic Underground
E) Indymedia
or
F) www.JIHADunspun.com a website for those who want you dead?

Are you still too F'ing stupid to get it?

The people that want you dead(tm) are hoping and praying that morons like you people will pounce on every death, overblow it and increase the pressure at home.

How hard is it to see?

Paul

link

JC: Dean, equating reporting bad news with treason is a pretty serious charge.

Yes, and since I have yet to do that, what is your point?

Are you saying that criticism of the plan is a dangerous, American thing to do?

I never said anything remotely like that.

Try answering my question again: what part of "The falsely bleak picture weakens our national resolve, discourages Iraqi cooperation and emboldens our enemy" do you not understand?

Ara: That's a far cry from calling these reporters (and their editors and publishers) enemies of the state.

This is a distortion of what I've said. I would appreciate a retraction and an apology, please.

Thoughtlessness and sloppiness are not treasonous. But they kill soldiers, and must be fought like any other enemy. Here, the weapon is the truth, and resounding criticism where it's richly deserved. And disseminating countering info.

This is the home front, you know.

Well, I happen to think that the actions and policies of the Commander in Chief have a hell of a lot more to do with the conduct of the war than what a reporter (or his editor or his publisher) say or do.

Then you are deeply ignorant of the history warfare.

Every CIC in a democracy knows that information is key to public support, and public support is key to winning. And in a democracy, the CIC's control of the press is highly limited. It bedevilled Presidents like Truman and Johnson, and there wasn't a blessed thing they could do about it. Thus it falls to us, as citizens, to note what's going on, and do our part in fighting the war here on the home front.

Your call for "concrete evidence" that irresponsible press has killed soldiers is not just ridiculous--it's irresponsible and stupid.

At this point, I frankly do not believe you want to discuss this. You want to mock and deride people with serious concerns. I'm tired of it, Ara. Go off to your blog and make fun of people with serious concerns some more. I've had enough of trying to convince you of anything. So just laugh at me while our mission is endangered by faltering support spread by naysayers, pessimists, petty carpers and cheap-shot partisans.

But I would like that retraction, please.

It's nothing short of amazing the way the same five or six people can come back, day after day, for more talking past each other and gotcha-minded sentence splicing. I don't mean that patronizingly; here I am posting, too. But I do think that what Ara's trying to get at is serious and is not evidence of stupidity or his being an al-Qaida agent or objectively pro blah-blah. So.

My understanding was always that "Loose lips sink ships" was a warning against publicizing plans before they were carried out. It was literally possible, through careless talk or writing, to let the enemy know where you'd be and what you'd be doing there and thereby to make yourself vulnerable. Ara seems to me to be asking for evidence that reporters have, through their reporting, literally exposed us to attack in this time-dishonored way. Not a dunderheaded question.

But also not what Dean and others are talking about, which is exactly why I think the whole "Thoughtless reporters kill soldiers" slogan is a bad idea, even if it can be de-clunk-ified. At this point in American cultural history, pithy slogans have too much "Calgon, take me away!" resonance to carry that kind of weight. Personally, I think this whole issue leads right back to the basic question: Success doesn't just float around non-referentially; it specifically refers to the meeting of stated goals. In less rarefied terms than "defending freedom" and "liberating Iraq," what do we expect the place to look like after we make it over?

Is it worth it?

That is the ultimate question.

In Vietnam, the American people were informed that they were expected to take a undetermined, yet large, number of casualties in order that at some unknown point the enemy would voluntarily give up the fight. When these facts finally sunk into the minds of Americans, it became necessary to withdraw ourselves from Vietnam - it wasn't worth it, regardless of the overall right or wrong of the war, the price to be paid was not comensurate with the expected benefits of sticking it out.

So, ask yourself, is it worth it?

In spite of attempts to obscure the issue, there is a rock-solid plan in Iraq, and the larger War on Terrorism. Its a two-fold strategic plan, both sides reinforcing each other. The plan is that by pre-emptive action we'll destroy emergent threats plus put the fear of God into those who think about striking at us; the other side of the plan is that by implanting a semblance of pluralistic democracy in the middle east, we'll undercut the propaganda of our enemies and their ability to recruit people to go forth and kill.

The risk of failure is that if we do fail, the enemy will once again strike at us, sure in the knowledge that even after the most enormous attack upon us, we'll eventually quit if we're just nibbled at long enough in a frustrating grind of a fight. 3,000 of us died on 9/11, 30,000 or more of us might die on a future date - that is the risk.

The lives and treasure we are placing on the line are in the service of preventing such a thing from happening.

We certainly thought WWII worth it - even though back then, unlike now, there was very little chance of a direct attack upon the United States. Some 350,000 Americans died, times two for wounded - a million casualties, people. Hell, we lost 1,000 dead in four days of fighting on Tarawa and that was just to gain a position which allowed us to go on to the even bloodier fights of Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Was that 1,000 dead on Tarawa worth it?

Thats the question to answer, and then answer the modern version of the question.

Sean,

What we want, in Lord Grey's exquisite phrasing of yesteryear, is a bit of "patriotic reticence" on the part of the American news media.

We need, desperately, to know of our military and political mistakes - but we need the whole story; and this includes sending reporters out to cover extensively the more mundane work of the liberation - also, it'd be nice if we had a few patriotic movies; there's plenty of heroics to make some major block-busters out there from the liberation of Iraq.

Some writer pointed out that the media has a basic program which continually runs "Vietnam" whenever a war comes along. The whole frame of reference on the part of the most of the media is to look for mistakes, omissions and crimes on our part, paying scant attention to the utter depraved barbarity of our enemies. Where's the long expose of the purposes of the Iranian and Syrian governments? Where is the in-depth report on not only whom we fight, but the success we're having? I like to hear the interviews with the dog-tired troopers who have about enough of Iraq - but I also want to hear the interviews with the troops how have come completely alive in Iraq, who have discovered that becoming a US soldier and being in this fight is the largest thing they can be in, and they wouldn't trade it for the whole world.

Sean: "Loose lips sink ships" was a lot more pervasive than that. It was to discourage soldiers and their relatives from casually discussing almost any aspect of troop movements, assignments, etc., even to the point of saying, "Yes, we're sailing for Africa tomorrow morning" to your wife. It wasn't even directed to reporters.

But the point was, it was understood: what you said mattered. Small things could have a big impact that you never intended.

During the Vietnam conflict, the worst defeat the North Vietnamese ever suffered was during the Tet Offensive. They were crushed, demoloshed, utterly humiliated, their backs broken--for all practical purposes, destroyed as a functioning military operation. It was America's greatest victory in the Vietnamese war.

The widespread perception at home, fueled by an irresponsible and thoughtless press, was that the Tet Offensive was a major setback for US forces. Well, it turned out that it was, because public backlash due to that misperception drove support at home for the war into the toilet, and within a few years, we went home--and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese died in the mass slaughter that followed our leaving. Some are still in "re-education camps" there today. To this day you still find articles in college text books and web sites which portray the Tet Offensive as a major victory for the Viet Cong--which it was in only one sense, that it helped them win a massive propaganda victory. One they weren't even expecting to win; they were ready to surrender until they realized what had happened.

There is not a President since FDR who has not understood that the press could help win or lose a war. Nor is there a general alive who won't tell you the same thing. Try spending some time at Front Line Voices and note just how often actual soldiers who are serving over there note how well things are going, and how demoralizing the bad press coverage is that they hear about.

Morale matters. So does the morale of an enemy who believes that if they just wear us down long enough, we'll leave.

As for what we hope the place to look like when we leave: a functioning, stable society with a reasonable respect for human rights and as close to a functioning democracy as we can get. At worst, a place like Indonesia. Better would be Turkey or Argentina. Better still, India. Ideally? Japan.

Obviously, it's going to wind up looking a little like all of those, and uniquely its own place. Especially because it's the Iraqis themselves who are developing their own constitution. What we need to hope for is a stable, decent place--and, to be blunt, a base for the next decade or two from which to launch strikes against terrorist groups in the region.

This is what still shocks me, that more people don't get this. Iraq is part of a long-term strategic plan. Regimes like Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran sponsor international terrorism. We need a base from which we can breathe down their necks and make them get serious about cracking down on militant islamic terrorist groups. Iraq gives us that. It also gives us an opportunity to plant the seeds of modernity and reform among the thug-regimes in the area--every one of which is an oppressive dictatorship and/or theocracy that oppresses its people and sows the seeds of international terrorism.

Dean: You've said it all, but the slogan you need is more general than one that merely targets reporters to the exclusion of pundits, jackass politicos, and an indifferent or craven public. I move you accept Defeatism is the main enemy or something of the sort.

Apropos of defeatism, a long and searing column by Johann Hari merits careful reading.

So let's review...

The enemy knows that media manipulation works. They openly admit this is their tactic.

The soldiers know they are fighting this tactic. Letter after letter from by GI's in Iraq say that the behavior of the media negatively impacts moral and troop performance.

However some of you are too naive, stubborn, partisan or maybe just pain too stupid to admit that how the media portrays this war will change the outcome. (we all know that never happened in Vietnam)

You ask for a concrete example of one death. Mrs. du Toit showed the folly of such an argument so lets look at it this way.

The fact the reportage from Iraq is skewed is obvious even to the congressional democrats that go there. Not telling the truth of the good these soldiers have done has dramatically lowered moral. When moral is low in any organization they make more mistake. Just ask anyone who has played team sports. (how did the cubs do after they lost that out?)

But there is a difference. This is not a sport, it is war. In war when you make a mistake get killed.

If you can not see that the media has been irresponsible and it could cost human lives you are either blinded by partisanship or ignorance.

Which is it?

Ara:

I take it, then, that you are not just trying to deflect criticsm of poor war reporting? Ok, I'll take that for now. :)

I suppose I'll have to disagree with you on the specificity of your position, that there is a "direct cause" involved. To the point: Dean never said there was a "direct cause" involved.

I strongly take exception to your claim that I've "avoided the question so far!!" Specifically, I have said:
"Me, I'm not sure it's accurate to say that such terribly slanted reporting is directly responsible for dying soldiers."

Surely you are aware that actions have indirect, as was as direct, effects?

For example: bad reporting->idea that US will pull a Mogadishu-> encourages militants-> more attacks-> more dead soldiers.

Note that there is no direct connection. Baathist flunkies don't say "Man, watching CNN makes me wanna off an American pig." What they will say is "Look, Saddam and Osama were right! Kill enough Americans and they run!" This improves enemy morale, and encourages them to waste more blood and treasure on a futile mission.

I repeat: You introduced the idea of a direct link, not Dean. You push the idea of a direct link, not Dean. You keep directing attention away from the main point (sloppy reporting).

Not Dean.

Sean: Ara does not have a serious point. He is deliberately emphasizing a very narrow and literal definiton that he has constructed, that has no relation to what Dean originally said.

There is a difference (as you phrase it) between "exposing [troops] to attack" and encouraging the enemy, although Geraldo did exactly that with his dimwitted "map in the sand" during the invasion, the dolt.

And I forgot one more point....

When our enemy tunes in CNN and hears a distorted picture of how bad it is going do they say:

A) "Hey we lost, maybe we should fade away and let these guys rebuild the country."

or

B) "HA! We smashed the infidels and they are scared... Let's attack and kill some more of them."

Do you still not see how bad reporting can cause more attacks???

If you did not pick B you are simply a clueless partisan hack who is incapable of reason.

Paul

Guys, you really don't have to sell me on the idea that morale building, actively pursued, is necessary. I'm such a believer in the value of the proper public face that I moved to Japan, after all. If Dean and Mark and Casey and Paul (such terse, manly, can-do names) are this excitable when contemplating war coverage on CNN, I hope you don't ever tune into BBC World. You'll spontaneously combust.

I know the issue is urgent. But I'm less interested in having conniptions over whether other people who comment on blogs know it than in figuring out whether the administration does. Obviously, the history buffs and news junkies who comment here are able to pick out a coherent war strategy from all the information that streams by. But most Americans, while not stupid, can't. I wonder, as someone not seeing news reports in the context of local news features about hometown soldiers and women's magazine articles about new women's social institutions in Iraq, is the administration doing a good job of PR given the press corps it has to deal with? Is all that useful perspective from the democratization of Southeast Asia getting play?

I read and listen to the BBC all the time. I don't spontaneously combust, but I do chuckle at times. ;-)

As for the administration's handling of the press: Having watched the last four administrations "handle" the press, and read about Presidential handling of the press since the Johnson era, I'd say they're doing about as well as any administration ever has. Which isn't saying much, since dealing with the press during wartime has been the bane of every President since Truman at least.

You watch the press conferences, and they're good. You read the press releases, and they're good. You look at the speeches, and they're good. You watch the news analysis shows on Sunday, and they're good.

You look at the day to day headlines, the nightly newscasts, they're not so hot.

What's the solution? Clearly, we do not have a propaganda department. Given the gravity of this current war--which I view as every bit as important as World War II, especially because the consequences of failure are so drastic--I find myself wondering if there should be one. Alas, I think that would be a cure worse than the disease.

Which is why I go back to my initial point, which is that we as citizens have a duty of our own---to try to ferret out the truth, to criticize the media, to urge our citizens to think, to speak out about what we believe in.

I, for one, will probably never buy another issue of Newsweek. Is that a "Boycott?" No. But I let as many people as possible know about some of the attrocious stuff they've printed. That's the sort of thing I see as part of my mission as a weblogger in fact--it's not why I started, but it's part of what I do now, since I see that as my contribution to the war effort.

I don't know what else the solution is. We don't have a Secretary of Propaganda, nor does the President have an advertising budget. The White House just has some press people, some press releases, some web sites... so does the Pentagaon... Centcom's got some good material... but that's about it.

We're reliant upon the free press to do its job, and I think that when they're creating problems, we have not just a right but a duty to call them to task for it.

For that, some wag whose comment I recently deleted called me a "commissar of thought." Meanwhile, I've got people like Ara and JC claiming I've called reporters and editors traitors and accused them of treason--which they both still owe me retractions for. This sort of thing is tiring, I have to say.

Some wag whose comment I recently deleted called me a "commissar of thought.'"

I saw him and don't blame you, but you do realize how utterly hilarious that sentence is, no?

What, that I deleted the ad hominem-filled comment, or that he called me a commissar of thought? :-)

That you used the sentence in which you mentioned deleting his comment to complain that he called you a commissar of thought. We Orientalist types are all over that koan/paradox thing.

Ad-hominem? No more that accusing the Press of killing our soldiers.

The liberal tradition would be to let the hilarious and ridiculous words of an opponent condemn themselves in the 'free marketplace of ideas'. A Commissar would delete words too uncomfortable to confront.

I believe the gist of the effaced post appear on Hellblazer.

The Rules for Navigating Dean's World are clearly posted. You can abide by them, acting as if you are a guest in my home, or you'll be forcibly ejected. Your call. But no one's thoughts are being repressed, merely their bad behavior (said bad behavior including unprovoked insults hurled at me, and distortions of my words by people I don't know).

I confess I used unkind words and strong language. I wrote my reply after viewing your IMO unfair comments on Hellblazer and in the spirit of his more liberal commenting policy without reading your policy. My apologies for distorting your words, and accusing you of malevolence in supporting a misguided (IMO) policy of repression of the media's freedom by intimidation and innuendo (IMO).

I believe accusing the press of malevolence for fullfilling their necessary role of informing the public goes beyond mere rudeness, but one man's Mede is another man's Persian, as they say.

Check your email & let's hit reset. After all, It's Important.

Fox

I believe accusing the press of malevolence for fullfilling their necessary role of informing the public goes beyond mere rudeness, but one man's Mede is another man's Persian, as they say.

The actual accusation is malfeasence not malevolence, and it is based on an observed failure to inform the public of the entire story, but then one man's mead is another man's honey brew.

Hoo-ha! If I was having more fun I'd have to be twins.

BTW, I won't be issuing an apology or a retraction. Here's why:

[ Rewinding the tape ]

In one of the original posts you said this:

".....one of the chief enemies we face at home: press accounts that distort the record."

You backed it up with this comment and link. You said:

"...prominent Democratic (and Republican) members of Congress, some of them combat veterans, have stated openly that irresponsible reporting is costing soldiers' lives."

When I pointed out that you had mis-read the content of the article in which these Congressmen were quoted, you produced another quote, from Rep. Marshall (D-GA), who backed up your original assertion. Fair enough. I disagreed with him too.

Then you said this:

"Thoughtless reporters kill soldiers."

Well.

Let's summarize your main points (and I'm quoting):

1. ".....one of the chief enemies we face at home: press accounts that distort the record."

2. "...prominent Democratic (and Republican) members of Congress, some of them combat veterans, have stated openly that irresponsible reporting is costing soldiers' lives."

3. "Thoughtless reporters kill soldiers."

I think I understand your point all too well. And I still think you are wrong.

Sean,

"Obviously, the history buffs and news junkies who comment here are able to pick out a coherent war strategy from all the information that streams by. But most Americans, while not stupid, can't. I wonder, as someone not seeing news reports in the context of local news features about hometown soldiers and women's magazine articles about new women's social institutions in Iraq, is the administration doing a good job of PR given the press corps it has to deal with?"

This reminded me of some stuff I read a while ago about some reasearch on how people form opinions over time. The gist of it was that people view the various sources of information that they receive as data points, and then form an opinion as something of a weighted average. Subsequent contrary evidence is evaluated in terms of the weight of the preexisting information, and how much it diverges from the previous data set. This probably seems intuitively obvious, but one of the interesting findings was that a conclusive rebuttal of a point made earlier did not seriously weaken the overall judgement, even if the point being rebutted was seriously foundational to the concept. Basically, opinions on a personal level, and most likely on a broader societal level as well, have a certain inertia. If the ball starts rolling in the wrong direction, it's more difficult than you'd think to reverse its path.

This is why the media is so important. It's not any one slanted story; it's the weight of the repeated overtones of doom, gloom, and Vietnam. Past a certain point, all the fact-checking and correcting in the world won't be effective in reversing a perception of failure. That's why we must continue to publicize as much as possible the good we are accomplishing in Iraq. The American people need a sense of self-confidence that reflects reality, and we have a lot to be confident about.

(malfeasance)
noun: a wrongful act that the actor had no right to do; improper professional conduct
malevolence)
noun: wishing evil to others

A source is quoted:
"The falsely bleak picture weakens our national resolve, discourages Iraqi cooperation and emboldens our enemy.....We may need a few credible Baghdad Bobs to undo the harm done by our media. I'm afraid it is killing our troops."

Furthermore the blogger discerns that: "Our primary enemy here at home is irresponsible, sloppy, slanted, and unbalanced reporting" This enemy impedes our "duty" which is not to tire, falter, or fail. "Those of us who care about the war effort need to be aware of it, vigilant about it, and to take it seriously. Soldiers have been killed because of shoddy and irresponsible press coverage before. Entire wars have been lost before because of such things."

Malfeasance amounting to manslaughter. In men and women watching our soldiers give their all, but who are uncaring, irresponsible, sloppy, slanted, shoddy, and creating s falsely bleak picture in doing their professional duties. Clever enough apparently to fool uncaring Americans who cannot recognize their primary enemy on the home front (and thereby failing in their duty), but so blinding stupid that they can't see how they are killing the soldiers bleeding out in front of them. Or helping to lose battles, maybe even an increasingly costly war.

I don't think reporters as a whole ARE that stupid or irresponsible. I think they generally know what they are doing: they certain pay lip service to being fair: how could they fail so miserably out of sheer bumbling clueless incompetence, particularly in one consistent direction of doing ill to America? I think if they are causing all these harms they must reasonably be assumed to be doing so deliberately. Or perhaps I give reporters too much credit? As painted they might almost be said to be unable to distinguish right from wrong: to be children or mentally defective.

I wonder who might benefit if our problems in Iraq come to be blamed on reporters? Its a shame the eyes and ears of our Republic are so woefully derelict as to be serving evil, acting as our enemy, without the apparent capacity to recognize the harm they do or the will to do their jobs correctly. Well a little prodding from the State will help them care and do their duty. And a chorus of rebuke from caring citizens at the reporters and news outlets rightly understood status as our primary enemy at home. Goodspeak promotes Goodthought: what kind of enemy doesn't know that?

You know what the Commissars would do with such people who objectively serve the cause of enemies of the State and People. They may not be kulaks but they play the kulaks role...

Any more definition of 'is' is problems?

If you look carefully, Ara, the same Congressman Marshall is quoted in both articles. Because he was part of the same group of congressmen, mostly Democrats, who blasted the press for undermining our efforts with unbalanced and sloppy reporting.

The fact is that "treason" never came out of me. "Traitor" never came out of me. "Enemy of the state" never came out of me. I've clarified for you multiple times that I'm criticizing the reporting, not the reporters. But you go ahead and play your word games. You still owe me the retraction, but I didn't expect it, so that's just fine. You are a fundamentally unserious person, and I get that about you. Ain't that America?

Fox: You have just equated attacking irresponsible reporting from the press with Stalinism, simply because you think the reporting responsible, and you think it responsible because you believe we are failing in Iraq. I don't, and I think ill-informed attitudes like yours are part of the problem. This either makes me Big Brother, or you a foolish, misinformed person. Which do you find more likely?

Or is there some way we can come to agreement here?

Dean:

I'm sorry you feel wronged, but no apologies from me are necessary nor are they forthcoming.

Your statements (as quoted in my most recent comments above this one) speak for themselves. What you said was direct, clear and left nothing to the imagination.

As a result, I believe you are mistaken in what you say and that's why I disagree with you.

Let's just leave it at that.

P.S. I still love you.

[smooch]

Man, you cracks me up!

Ara, it's part of that, "threatening a mushroom cloud doesn't mean they're saying it's an imminent threat," thinking.

Dean, you're right. The press has been neglecting the good news from Iraq in favor of what they think will sell news. That's capitalism for ya. The flip side of this coin is the beginning of the end of every major power when folks start sticking their fingers in their ears and saying, "nya, nya, nya," real loud when the bad news comes. If you trust that people are smart, why don't you think they understand what the (bad) news business is all about? The already despise and mistrust the media, don't they?

Shep: good point. Except that, in terms of the war effort, their influence is amplified in ways that they aren't elswehere. Rather than minor issues like deciding which recent murder victim is worthy of major national coverage, they're examining issues upon which hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives hinge. This isn't so trivial as to which diva tongued which other diva, or which cute little murdered girl was more important than that little murdered boy. This is the stuff upon which Western civilization potentially hangs--and is that much more important as a result.

Misinformation as to who's fucking who in Hollywood is far less important than as to what our boys are fighting for on foreign soil. This seems elf-evident to me--and even if it's the nature of the corporate media beast, it's still worth fighting against.

I felt the same way about who's fuckin who (or not) in the White House so, I guess, we agree.

I have stopped watching the news altogther. Why?
1). My son is a soldier serving in Iraq,
2). He asked me not to watch the news.
3). Because what they report and what he reports are in direct conflict, (In the beginning of the war the stations reported that a shopping center was bombed--it was a hotel and no one was injured. They said it was aimed at us, it was their missile and they hit their shopping center.)
4) Because I get more information from soldier's blogs,
5). Because I get DOD briefings that tell me some things, and
6).Because news stations are corporations who publish propaganda so that they can stay in business.

News of the day from my soldier stationed near Tallil:

He spent the night like most nights on a 12 hour shift on the highway that runs from Tallil searching cars, camels, and pedestrians. Was a bit frustrated with a woman who refused to move when asked to, then complied, then came back later and tried to sneak into a secure area. He recovered a bunch of weapons this week and feels like he is making a difference. Had to travel an hour to get to a phone to call me.

It's getting cold at night, 50 but is 100 during the day. He said when he comes home for R and R he will have to go to REI for long johns--no the Army doesn't supply them. He feels good, is looking forward to his 2 weeks of R and R coming soon. Wanted to know if I'd talked to some of his buddies here at home, asked about how things were here, said he loved me. We talked about Halloween, the fires in California. The call lasted about 15 minutes.

It was a great call. So, that's my reason. Someone told me that a reporter was interviewing soldiers coming off of the plane and asking them how they felt about their comrades dying in the crash.

Those reporters are lucky that those soldiers are instructed to be polite. How incredibly horrid to ask such a rude and insensitive question. I just hate that kind of thing. Are they just that ignorant that they don't know how someone feels? Incredible.

I think if we all just stopped watching the news shows, maybe they'd have to change their sensationalistic proganda. Lock outs and letters. If we don't watch and don't buy the products on the commercials that sponsor the news programs, they won't get funded.

Letters to them, letters to their sponsors. Who knows?

Sam Barnes:
"Subsequent contrary evidence is evaluated in terms of the weight of the preexisting information, and how much it diverges from the previous data set."

Yeah, people are pretty stubborn.

Low Intensity Warfare 101: provoke the occupying power into actions which alienate the populace. Study their weakness and harry them with attacks especially where they think they are safe and especially when their reaction to the immediate or apparent security threat you pose will involve the innocent populace in insult or injury. Distrustful, uneasy soldiers and ideally their commanders will begin to over-react, the people will distrust the occupiers and become increasingly hostile and inclined to support or even join in actions against the foreign intruder. Nationals who cooperate with the occupiers are targeted to impede the occupier's efforts, disrupt links between the two sides, intimidate 'collaborators' and cooperators and confirm (in a strange way) their treachery. Unfairly, this sort of program can historically even redeem the most corrupt native actors and even wash a tyrant in the patriotic blood of heroic liberation. Schools and electrical power and other 'good news' endeavors are important elements in rebuilding a country and popularizing its invaders/liberators from tyranny but the bloody back and forth of an escalating insurgent campaign and deteriorating security on both sides is decisive: we filled S. Vietnam with good news and good works.

If a campaign of this type is underway in Iraq, its in its early stages. After WWII, German military officers, security forces and upper level bureaucrats were detained and screened. Manpower was lacking for this processing in Iraq, and in retrospect the complete dismissal of both groups, to include the civil police, has struck some as unfortunate. Manpower trained in civil affairs and police action was also lacking. High intensity warfare troops, as critics often observed during the last administration, lack the equipment, training and doctrine for 'peacekeeping'. Well US troops are nothing if not flexible: they can switch missions (if not necessarily mindset). There was a noticeable pause after the liberation of Baghdad however, as if the civil order situation was expected to settle but did not conform to expectation. Our combat troops were not well suited to switch to this role quickly: one must regret that the needed civil security forces were not on hand especially with the police etc. dissolved. The point I am speaking to is that a chaotic environment well suited for a shocked, routed Bathist military, intelligence and security establishment to rally and organize was permitted through apparent poor planning in Washington, evidently against uniformed advice. Weeks, maybe months of relatively ineffective resistance might have followed an occupation as smoothly and authoritatively executed as was our assault, with invaluable economic, infrastructure, and political progress to our credit as liberators with the populace. Finally, the enormous problem of controlling Iraqi's copious conventional armaments and explosives in a poor security environment seems to have been almost as badly underestimated as the actual dangers of an Iraqi WMD program were overstated.

By now Iraq was to be stable with US troops being drawn down to well under 100,000. Instead of being stretched into potentially devastating overcommitment, Guardsmen and Reservists were to be at home or on the way. Serious calls are being made for reinforcing our deployments (as Genl. Shenseki was ridiculed by emergent warlord Rumsfeld for suggesting last year*) when in fact we have few uncommitted forces available without highly disruptive alterations in training and other deployments. Short of the (now iffy) Turks, whose deployment would have a huge potential downside, robust reinforcements from foreign sources do not seem to be available in part due to this administration's earlier attitudes and behavior. An emergency need for ground forces elsewhere could outright wreck our NG and Reserve components and take years to repair. Finally, the war-planners expected by now that our forces would be coming online for the next stage of their grand plan, likely in Syria or Iran, with battle honed heavy combat forces of awesomely demonstrated effectiveness poised to strike from an Iraq being developed as a major base for US power-projection in the world's petroleum treasurehouse. I have listed some of the apparent miscalculations that got us here, instead, none of which are the fault of the press and whose impact dwarf into insignificance the presscorp's supposed lack of balance. The fact that we ARE heavily engaged and not preparing for another invasion is itself proof the administration's planning failed badly: we seem to have veered far beyond any worse-case they allowed for. I don't believe military execution can be blamed although our forces in Iraq are hardly ideal for extended peacekeeping or counter-insurgency. The potential of Iraqi resistance forces with RPG's and makeshift explosives seems to have been as decisively underestimated as Saddam's capability to research, produce, stockpile and deploy WMD's in the face of inspections and sanctions was overestimated. Seeking scapegoats and shooting the messenger are hoary political traditions when the wheels come off, as our plan's did after the capture of Baghdad. The press didn't make this mess. As an exercise by bunglers in CYA they sure make a handy distraction. I'd rather a competent team were assembled under this administration to retrieve the situation before Osama bin Ladin's well-publicized dreams of America and its allies besieged by an aroused Islam enraged, rendered susceptible to his propaganda by Americans easily portrayed as busy killing Muslims in their homeland gain momentum. The 'Flypaper' theory is not unique to us: should we get stuck in Iraq fanatical Islamic terrorists expect to reap a windfall of support. As the warlord asks, can we kill the low-tech low-cost warriors faster than they can be created? Its a damn shame we have obliged the extremist's dreams: the real failure of our press is that Americans have to turn to Arabic and other foreign sources to learn of this defeat in the war on terrorism over the bullying spin of happy-babble spraying from DC.

What kind of reporting would I like to see from Iraq? I'd like to be reassured that the apparently growing number (per Military sources not press estimates!) of assaults, bombings, ambushes, assassinations and high-profile 'Hollywood' deadly mindf*cks are not successfully provoking our command and troops into potentially self defeating responses that insult or injure innocent Iraqis and render our ultimate goal of a peacefully stable, prosperous and friendly Iraq less likely no matter how many good works we complete. Our troops must defend themselves and act to forestall attacks: granted. Hard-charging heavily armed troops geared for high-intensity warfare against comparable forces are not necessarily ideal for this role; how are our big-game hunters handling the dangerous ambiguity and need for restraint of operating in a friendly populace infiltrated with calculating, ruthless attackers? Insurgents want to create impossible situations where self-defense means putting civilians at risk, under fire, or in the path of heavy-handed pursuits and sweeps. How well is our restraint holding against provocation? Do our troops exceptionally, occasionally, or frequently fire into populated areas used by attackers? Do stories of unfortunate occurrences such as destruction of orchards or intrusive searches represent rare, sporadic or common events? Are the attackers mostly hardcore Baath supporters and hired thugs with foreign Jihadists reinforcements, or are 'ordinary' Iraqis being drawn in from nationalist and/or religous ire? Are Iraqi civilian casualties on a weekly basis in the dozens, the low hundreds, or higher? What are the trends? Are relations between GI's and the populace being poisoned as a sucessful insurgency intends?

Maybe it would only occur to a cynic toward the Bush administration to suggest that if our press is fending off charges that they spend too much time focusing on the bad news of US casualties and not enough attention to school opening and increasing access to electricity and clean water they are effectively inhibited, unless availed of a spine and taste for punishment and criticism grown unfortunately rare, to delve into such issues as trends in Iraqi civilian casualties or the relative restraint of our troops to the levels of provocation offered by attackers. I can't say if we are losing or winning this next war after our laudable Victory, our supine and submissive press is too busy trying to do its minimum job of covering the most superficial aspects of the situation while being badgered for an irrelevant 'balance' and being set up as the undermining enemy of an Administration that loves the truth the way Osama loves sacramental wine. Although some find the phrase "I'm from Washington and I'm going to give it to you straight," strangely convincing these days, input from a variety of sources is what allows democracy to flourish. A single line of Patriotically Correct Goodthink from spin-doctors who control all three branches of our Government is pathetically thin gruel for citizen proud of their self-government.

As far as Iraqis are concerned, how would the alleged lack of balance through consistently slanted incompetence of our press outweigh the native and Arabic international sources which have flooded into Iraq? As to our own troops, take everything into account. Many things in this world have a mixed impact, with their disadvantages tolerated in return for their advantages. No surprise that in some situations, in some cases, in some manner, however you want to slice it, various types of American press coverage can and do have some negative morale impact on our troops. Is it inadmissible to argue that a free, independent, diverse press can overall be a net plus for America over the long haul, in a great many circumstances, even warfare, all-in-all? I volunteered as a soldier but I never thought of myself as less than a citizen. If citizen soldiers exposed to the workings of a free press face some challenges or stresses the soldiers of an authoritarian information regime are never exposed to, is that a reason to emulate the information control of oppressive regimes? Trusting the citizens to act responsibly in making decisions is not any different than expecting soldiers will do the same in his duty-limited sphere. If some aspect of press coverage is detrimental to morale I would hope command would address this problem within military channels using their own resources long, long before determining to reach out into this important civilian institution and tailoring it to ideal military requirements. If some soldiers take a hit to their willpower or comfort level from press coverage I hope as civilians someday they appreciate that a diverse press going hither and yon up down and sideways sometimes serves them and their country. As a soldier I lived with the reality that my Central Front deployed unit was tasked for rapid deployment to the Mid-East. Every single month of the year we carried dessert camo. If we'd been sent to war on the Czech border on short notice, we'd have stood out like ebony bunnies on a snowfield in Commie optics every season but fall. Tough shit: we were tasked for sand-dunes fighting in Deutscheland. If we had the time and the S4 was sharp we could slap on some white or gray or shades of green. You deal with it as a part of your service to the United States. If you're interested I could list some morale-shots the troops have taken from our Government, reported in the press to inform us as citizens and voters. We can set that against your specific list of the ways the press is hindering our troops.

Making the press jump to non-security military needs has to be limited and accountable somehow. Somebody write up a handbook telling the press how not to kill soldiers and let's talk. For politicians to tell the press they need to exercise better 'balance' and 'judgment' to serve the troops is a nice cheap applause-getter for the politician and a open-ended chance to use them as a piñata. Write it up and get it out there, maybe in a few wars it'll be the recognized gem of the Bush years, or maybe it'll get shot down next Tuesday. Let's have the benefit of some well-thought out boundaries everybody can look at and some blessed quiet meanwhile.As for civilian morale, if not everyone on the continent wants to believe what the White House, GOP and Faux News tell them on faith and get a different take that's our country, that's what we do, get used to it and quit whining. If your fellow adult citizens can't be trusted with a remote without government coordination of what they get to see you must be really happy only 9 highly educated electors got to vote last time for President. I don't see any sign the press is MORE slanted, incompetent, irresponsible, unbalanced, uncaring, shoddy or prone to killing our troops than our elected leadership. That's sad but without the free press, with all their problems, what hope would their be of improvement?

*A "senior administration official" told the Village Voice newspaper that Gen Shinseki's remark was "bullshit from a Clintonite enamoured of using the army for peacekeeping and not winning wars". http://www.google.com/search?q=rumsfeld%20"how%20many%20troops"%20general&num=100

Dean, I notice that Ara managed to completely ignore my last reply. Heh. That says it all.

Sean: I doubt I would I would self-ignite over the BBC, but I would be very tempted to kick some pooftah buttocks about the horseshit they spew... :)

I will say that Dubya has run into a ... let's call it: an inability to communicate his vision to the country. He didn't do too bad last year, but there seems to be rising sentiment (across the board) that he isn't getting his message across.

Pity we can't cross Bush & Clinton; that way we would get someone who actually leads, and can explain why it's a good idea at the same time... Heh.