I wrote about this a few days ago on my blog. The interesting thing is that during the Kosovo war, Dan Rather was accused by an Arab-American journalist of covering up US "war crimes." Dan Rather, without apologizing, said that he was an American and that he wanted the Americans to win. Maybe it's different when there's a Democrat in the white house.
Black Five:
And the next time the military asks you to delay the release of something, think about what happened this time.
Dean:
I for one don't believe those prison photos had anything to do with Denton's execution. They were going to kill him regardless, the only question was the excuse they would use. The real purpose was to kill an American.
Is it the simple fact of ignoring the military's advice that makes you angry Dean? I'm not attempting a snark here in case you get that impression.
Gen. Myers (no relation) asked CBS to enter into a conspiracy of silence in order to allow members of the military to evade responsibility for their actions. CBS declined the general's request to deceive the American people and perpetuate the illusion that the war is going well.
Black Five's accusations seem predicated upon the idea that the press should always do whatever a general tells them to do without question, which doesn't seem to jibe with a free and open society.
Gen Myers didn't even read the report prior to the request. I guess it wasn't that important to him. I think this is a clear example of Soldiers betraying Soldiers. Bashing the press for reporting these incidents is ridiculous. Now, if the press had given away HQ locations and such, that is a different story. Gotta say, although Rumsfeld was not responsible for the acts in this prison, he does bear the responsibility for causing such a cluster-fuck in Iraq. Nearly everything bad that has happened since "mission accomplished" was declared, what, a year ago or more, is a direct result of not properly planning and executing this war. Gen Shinseki stated we needed at least 250,000 troops, and they ran his ass off like it was on fire. I guess NOT listening to experienced Army Generals is a BAD thing. Lessons learned Mr. Rumsfeld, now get the fuck out of here!!
Max: I'm angry because the general's request was perfectly reasonable, and CBS didn't give a crap.
It's not directly related to Berg. It's directly related to the fact that CBS refuses to take sides in this war.
Don Myers: You can prove anything you want if you simply make up your data. Which is what you're doing. There was no coverup; the criminal investigations and relieving people of command started back in January and was never hidden. The only request was to delay release of the photographs to the public--and the photos did not prove we are "losing" to any sane person.
Tim: OH come on man. What I said above. He knew what the accusations were, he knew court martials were going to be issued, so why did he need to so the photos to know they'd be inflammatory? I don't have to see them to know that. This couldn't wait? What does releasing them before the handover in late June accomplish besides create a big stink and inflame tempers? It won't get anyone indicted faster, won't bring anyone to justice any sooner--and indeed, it might well hurt the case for the prosecution!
Dean, you got it covered, amigo. An examination of the timeline shows very clearly that there has been no cover-up.
Hey, Tim: you talk a lot of crap for someone who's never been to the sandbox. I listen to the guys who've been over there, and who're over there now. And they don't agree with you. Not one tiny bit. But then, they don't hate Bush like you do.
I don't know who you are talking to, but everyone I know that has been over there has said that "more troops were needed to complete the job properly." You see Casey, when you have more Soldiers working together in a really big area, someone can cover your back. When troops are stretched too thin and pushed too hard for too long without backup, these things happen. I don't know what kind of war gaming that you've been doing, but the Powell Doctrine seems to be one we might want to follow next time. Oh, and the way things are going, we're going to have to go back and finish it again.
BTW, I don't hate Bush, I just don't think he's a good President or Commander in Chief, that's all.
And exactly how long would you ask the media to sit on the story? Personally, I would have prefered that it had been published before they had photos to make it sensational, so I'm not realy upset that they only waited one week after having photos, at least not because it was *only* a week.
I understand why Gen. Myers wanted them sat on, but he was wrong. There would never be a good time to publish them from a PR standpoint, and the longer they were sat on the worse it would get.
I don't agree with the argument that by not showing the photos, they'd be neglecting their responsiblity as journalists. I'm sure the producers of 60 Minutes could have put together a show that "broke the story" without actually showing the photographs. Not every news story covering a murder has an accompanying crime scene photo, yet most readers get the idea that a horrible crime has been committed.
For the people that believe that it was necessary, would you also argue the necessity of showing the graphic murder of Nick Berg on prime time television as well? How about just the audio feed of him screaming as they spend 40secs hacking his head off?
ok, Tim, fair enough; even if it sounds like hate sometimes, the colorful way you put things. :)
Actually, what I was referring to was reading blogs run by folks are are now, or have been recently stationed over there. I've also read comments posted in threads on these blogs by similar folks.
I can't recall the last time I ever heard anyone who's been over there say "we don't have enough troops." Of course, that doesn't prove there aren't any servicemen/women who think that.
Still, I'll go with what I learn from the folks over in the sandbox, rather from someone who's been in Foggy Bottom for two years. Not cracking on them per se, but wouldn't you agree that normall it's the guys in the field who have the best grasp of day-to-day problems? Mind you, that doesn't mean there aren't other systemic problems (Abu Gharib, anyone?), but I haven't heard any hard data that shows a problem with troop levels.
I think that we should create at least two more active divisions, but not because we need them in Iraq, but because we'll need at least one or two divisions in Iraq for the next 5-10 years, barring a miracle. We'll need those divisions further down the road for strategic depth.
(by the way, sorry if I sounded snippy in my last post. you've been trying to play nice. but life sucks lately and I've been making a point of just not saying anything when I'm in that mood. It slipped out. my bad.)
"Slippery slope" is a classic logical fallacy that you'll find in any introductory book on the subject.
The press routinely holds back information under all sorts of circumstances when it learns that lives are at stake. It does so today, it has done so in decades past, most especially during war.
So let's get a grip okay? Holding off on releasing some photographs is not a "slippery slope toward fascism."
These photos would have been released in any case, by other media sources. It would have been worse for us if the only sources for them had been Al Jazeera and the BBC.
It is not the job of the American media, or the media in any other free country, to censor things to suit the government.
Whose lives were at stake? If you can indicate to me who was immediately threatened by the release of these photos, I would change my mind.
If you are asking the media to sign on to the war effort and censor anything that might be considered critical of it, then I will have to disagree with you on that.
Then, again, American networks should be playing the Berg video. If it's okay to "inflame" the Arab world, then it's fair to inflame the American public. See how many damn give a damn about what happens to imprisoned terrorists after that.
Of course, that goes against the agenda, now, doesn't it?
I personally am not interested in seeing pictures of people being raped or beheaded, but if an American news network plays it, I will defend their right to do so. They should probably warn their viewers so that parents can avoid the showing of such things to their children, if they do so.
I'm always excited when you snap at me and challenge my posts. You always get me to post immediately. I do see you points. Yes, someone coming back from Iraq will give a more accurate picture than myself, but try and consider what they are trying to accomplish. That prison was seriously understaffed and supervised. Even terrorists are afraid of overwhelming force, but a piddly little convoy, now that is a prime target.
The slippery slope question is an interesting one. Reporting is one thing. Stuffing a story down the public's throat 24/7 is quite another.
Killing a story is yet another.
Sure glad that the mainstream media sense of priorities put porn to the front, and Nick Berg, Daniel Pearl, and the Swift boat commanders to the back. Move along, nothing to see here....
Slippery slope my *ss.
The issue becomes that the mainstream media has become the second front of the WOT. How about a fifth column slippery slope??
I wrote about this a few days ago on my blog. The interesting thing is that during the Kosovo war, Dan Rather was accused by an Arab-American journalist of covering up US "war crimes." Dan Rather, without apologizing, said that he was an American and that he wanted the Americans to win. Maybe it's different when there's a Democrat in the white house.
http://houseofpayne.blogspot.com/2004_05_01_houseofpayne_archive.html#108396035268858310
(Apologies to Dean for shamelessly plugging my own blog here.)
Truthfully, I'm not surprised.
On another note, please check your email.. I sent you a request for an interview.
Thanks.
Black Five:
And the next time the military asks you to delay the release of something, think about what happened this time.
Dean:
I for one don't believe those prison photos had anything to do with Denton's execution. They were going to kill him regardless, the only question was the excuse they would use. The real purpose was to kill an American.
Is it the simple fact of ignoring the military's advice that makes you angry Dean? I'm not attempting a snark here in case you get that impression.
Maybe I missed something, but who the hell is Denton?
Typo by Dean, I think he meant Nick Berg. From the Rumsfeld thread.
Gen. Myers (no relation) asked CBS to enter into a conspiracy of silence in order to allow members of the military to evade responsibility for their actions. CBS declined the general's request to deceive the American people and perpetuate the illusion that the war is going well.
Black Five's accusations seem predicated upon the idea that the press should always do whatever a general tells them to do without question, which doesn't seem to jibe with a free and open society.
Gen Myers didn't even read the report prior to the request. I guess it wasn't that important to him. I think this is a clear example of Soldiers betraying Soldiers. Bashing the press for reporting these incidents is ridiculous. Now, if the press had given away HQ locations and such, that is a different story. Gotta say, although Rumsfeld was not responsible for the acts in this prison, he does bear the responsibility for causing such a cluster-fuck in Iraq. Nearly everything bad that has happened since "mission accomplished" was declared, what, a year ago or more, is a direct result of not properly planning and executing this war. Gen Shinseki stated we needed at least 250,000 troops, and they ran his ass off like it was on fire. I guess NOT listening to experienced Army Generals is a BAD thing. Lessons learned Mr. Rumsfeld, now get the fuck out of here!!
Max: I'm angry because the general's request was perfectly reasonable, and CBS didn't give a crap.
It's not directly related to Berg. It's directly related to the fact that CBS refuses to take sides in this war.
Don Myers: You can prove anything you want if you simply make up your data. Which is what you're doing. There was no coverup; the criminal investigations and relieving people of command started back in January and was never hidden. The only request was to delay release of the photographs to the public--and the photos did not prove we are "losing" to any sane person.
Tim: OH come on man. What I said above. He knew what the accusations were, he knew court martials were going to be issued, so why did he need to so the photos to know they'd be inflammatory? I don't have to see them to know that. This couldn't wait? What does releasing them before the handover in late June accomplish besides create a big stink and inflame tempers? It won't get anyone indicted faster, won't bring anyone to justice any sooner--and indeed, it might well hurt the case for the prosecution!
By the way, I have no idea where I got "Denton" from. That's what I get for typing while tired.
Dean, you got it covered, amigo. An examination of the timeline shows very clearly that there has been no cover-up.
Hey, Tim: you talk a lot of crap for someone who's never been to the sandbox. I listen to the guys who've been over there, and who're over there now. And they don't agree with you. Not one tiny bit. But then, they don't hate Bush like you do.
Funny that...
Dean,
My point all along....
I don't know who you are talking to, but everyone I know that has been over there has said that "more troops were needed to complete the job properly." You see Casey, when you have more Soldiers working together in a really big area, someone can cover your back. When troops are stretched too thin and pushed too hard for too long without backup, these things happen. I don't know what kind of war gaming that you've been doing, but the Powell Doctrine seems to be one we might want to follow next time. Oh, and the way things are going, we're going to have to go back and finish it again.
BTW, I don't hate Bush, I just don't think he's a good President or Commander in Chief, that's all.
And exactly how long would you ask the media to sit on the story? Personally, I would have prefered that it had been published before they had photos to make it sensational, so I'm not realy upset that they only waited one week after having photos, at least not because it was *only* a week.
I understand why Gen. Myers wanted them sat on, but he was wrong. There would never be a good time to publish them from a PR standpoint, and the longer they were sat on the worse it would get.
I don't agree with the argument that by not showing the photos, they'd be neglecting their responsiblity as journalists. I'm sure the producers of 60 Minutes could have put together a show that "broke the story" without actually showing the photographs. Not every news story covering a murder has an accompanying crime scene photo, yet most readers get the idea that a horrible crime has been committed.
For the people that believe that it was necessary, would you also argue the necessity of showing the graphic murder of Nick Berg on prime time television as well? How about just the audio feed of him screaming as they spend 40secs hacking his head off?
I think that Jeremiah? Denton was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, and he went on to become some sort of senator, or something from Alabama.
Tadeusz
ok, Tim, fair enough; even if it sounds like hate sometimes, the colorful way you put things. :)
Actually, what I was referring to was reading blogs run by folks are are now, or have been recently stationed over there. I've also read comments posted in threads on these blogs by similar folks.
I can't recall the last time I ever heard anyone who's been over there say "we don't have enough troops." Of course, that doesn't prove there aren't any servicemen/women who think that.
Still, I'll go with what I learn from the folks over in the sandbox, rather from someone who's been in Foggy Bottom for two years. Not cracking on them per se, but wouldn't you agree that normall it's the guys in the field who have the best grasp of day-to-day problems? Mind you, that doesn't mean there aren't other systemic problems (Abu Gharib, anyone?), but I haven't heard any hard data that shows a problem with troop levels.
I think that we should create at least two more active divisions, but not because we need them in Iraq, but because we'll need at least one or two divisions in Iraq for the next 5-10 years, barring a miracle. We'll need those divisions further down the road for strategic depth.
(by the way, sorry if I sounded snippy in my last post. you've been trying to play nice. but life sucks lately and I've been making a point of just not saying anything when I'm in that mood. It slipped out. my bad.)
It is the job of the press to inform the public, not pander to whoever happens to be charge at the time in the White House.
I happen to believe that the American public is smart and savvy enough to see what is really going on.
In any case, it is not a reporters job to censor things. Down that path lies a very slippery slope to totalitarianism.
"Slippery slope" is a classic logical fallacy that you'll find in any introductory book on the subject.
The press routinely holds back information under all sorts of circumstances when it learns that lives are at stake. It does so today, it has done so in decades past, most especially during war.
So let's get a grip okay? Holding off on releasing some photographs is not a "slippery slope toward fascism."
These photos would have been released in any case, by other media sources. It would have been worse for us if the only sources for them had been Al Jazeera and the BBC.
It is not the job of the American media, or the media in any other free country, to censor things to suit the government.
Whose lives were at stake? If you can indicate to me who was immediately threatened by the release of these photos, I would change my mind.
If you are asking the media to sign on to the war effort and censor anything that might be considered critical of it, then I will have to disagree with you on that.
Then, again, American networks should be playing the Berg video. If it's okay to "inflame" the Arab world, then it's fair to inflame the American public. See how many damn give a damn about what happens to imprisoned terrorists after that.
Of course, that goes against the agenda, now, doesn't it?
What agenda are you talking about?
I personally am not interested in seeing pictures of people being raped or beheaded, but if an American news network plays it, I will defend their right to do so. They should probably warn their viewers so that parents can avoid the showing of such things to their children, if they do so.
Casey,
I'm always excited when you snap at me and challenge my posts. You always get me to post immediately. I do see you points. Yes, someone coming back from Iraq will give a more accurate picture than myself, but try and consider what they are trying to accomplish. That prison was seriously understaffed and supervised. Even terrorists are afraid of overwhelming force, but a piddly little convoy, now that is a prime target.
Jim,
The slippery slope question is an interesting one. Reporting is one thing. Stuffing a story down the public's throat 24/7 is quite another.
Killing a story is yet another.
Sure glad that the mainstream media sense of priorities put porn to the front, and Nick Berg, Daniel Pearl, and the Swift boat commanders to the back. Move along, nothing to see here....
Slippery slope my *ss.
The issue becomes that the mainstream media has become the second front of the WOT. How about a fifth column slippery slope??