Media on the Military

Colleges and Universities A-Z Service Academy Parents
21

<p>Blaming the media for news reports and interviews with which you disagree is pretty weak. There are enough "expert opinions" on both sides for those of us inclined to only listen to one or the other to remain blissfully ignorant. The general's spoke their peace, and many of them have been retired for years, hardly in a position to "speak up" during the planning phases of Iraq. Many of them are shedding light on how prior military planning for an Iraq invasion was basicially thrown out the window by Rumsfeld. He had that perroggative, but now must face the consequences of miscalculation. "Energetic and steady leadership" is not the same as competent leadership. As private citizens the generals have the right and some would say the duty to speak their minds. They lend insight to arguments some of us don't want to deal with, but they are relevent (at least just as relevant as a right wing talk show host or a democratic strategist). As far as book deals, well there are enough of those on both sides--Tommy Franks--Weseley Clark--also their right. Political motivations can always be charged, and sometimes that charge is right on---but politically motivated truth (on both sides) is still truth. I think there is a lot of effort in some media circles to try to obscure that fact (talk radio is at the top of the list). If Charles Manson says two plus two is four, he isn't wrong because he is Charles Manson and isn't a school teacher.</p>

<p>The link below is an article not to the generals who are speaking up now, but to ones that spoke up in 2004, to show this isn't something new-----</p>

<p><a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/6593163/the_generals_speak/?rnd=1145108506187&has-player=false%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/6593163/the_generals_speak/?rnd=1145108506187&has-player=false&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

22

<p>Shogun, apparently you haven't been watching much news lately. Anything that's "bad" automatically gets a front-row seat. Like I said, I can only imagine how much the media tripped over eachother to interview these generals.</p>

<p>You can search around the net hard enough and find good information about Iraq. However, when was the last time you saw a CNN or MSNBC special about the school building in Iraq? About the children we've helped? About the women who can finally get an education?</p>

<p>They don't show it, because it's not "shock and awe" news, and it does nothing to promote their agenda of bashing the Bush administration.</p>

<p>Open up your eyes, and look at the world around you. If it were as bad as the media portrays it, the Apocolypse is just around the corner.</p>

23

<p>Wait a minute . . . didn't I try to start this conversation a bit earlier? Who highjacked my thread to another thread of non-sensical shots across the electronic void?</p>

24

<p>I watch three channels primarily--Fox news, CBS, and CNN.</p>

<p>All three focus on bad news:</p>

<p>On Fox, they report it then attempt to downplay it by finding a right wing talk show host to debate democratic strategists and letting both look foolish--(I saw this yesterday when they attempted to discuss the generals speaking out issue).</p>

<p>On CBS they pretty much just have a half hour to "cover the world"--not much more time than that to present top stories (not enough time to devote 3 hours a day on missing girls in Aruba or passengers falling overboard on cruise ships).</p>

<p>CNN has the time to devote themselves to quality news reports but i find them so watered down these days that I can almost not even bear to watch them, but I do.</p>

<p>I find I need to watch all three to really get some "balance". Add a newspaper or two, discussions with associates, and a lot of drive time listening to everything from America Left to America Right on satellite radio (when the 70's music station gets stale) and I consider myself failrly well informed enough to actually have an opinion that hasn't been handed to me. People who are stuck at one end of the spectrum or the other are only barely credible in real life.</p>

25

<p>"about the school building in Iraq? About the children we've helped? About the women who can finally get an education?"</p>

<p>I don't remember any of the above being an objective in the war on terror. They are of course, noble accomplishments in themselves, but hardly what we went into Iraq for. I don't remember the speech in front of the UN or the American people outlining our reasons for going into Iraq being that we could liberate the Iraqi people, build schools, or educate their women. In fact, we have put that responsibility upon ourselves now that we have committed to a policy of nation building as a result of our inability to stabilize the country quickly. Arguing that the media should somehow run stories in some particular manner, with a particular slant, or agenda (pro-government or anti-government) isn't what we fight for.</p>

<p>I have found that in the best organizations, public or private, bad news travels as fast as good, and not all news is equally relevant to those who receive it. Acknowledging that is the only way mistakes get corrected quickly. Burying your head in the sand, pretending all is going according to plan when it clearly is not, and refusing to adjust course despite the big fat iceberg in your path leads to disaster.</p>

26

<p>Some info on women's rights in Iraq--not all is "black and white":</p>

<p><a href="http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/wrd/iraq-women.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/wrd/iraq-women.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

27

<p>Shogun,
Thanks for sharing that excellent article from RollingStone. It would be particularly suited for the intellectual lightweights on this forum who are unwilling to read in-depth news and analysis, or choose to form their opinions on the droning of talk radio entertainers. </p>

<p>There is so much wisdom and experience shared by these retired senior military leaders. General McPeak pretty much sums up the situation:</p>

<p>“The people in control in the Pentagon and the White House live in a fantasy world. They actually thought everyone would just line up and vote for a new democracy and you would have a sort of Denmark with oil. I blame Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the people behind him -- Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary Douglas Feith. The vice president himself should probably be included; certainly his wife. These so-called neocons: These people have no real experience in life. They are utopian thinkers, idealists, very smart, and they have the courage of their convictions, so it makes them doubly dangerous.”</p>

<p>Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak
Air Force chief of staff, 1990-94 </p>

<p>Last night on the NewsHour this “Disconnect from reality” was also discussed. That was followed by the dreaded Honor Roll paying respect to 16 American soldiers and marines killed this week in Iraq.</p>

28

<p>Almost, but not quite, "news" by definition is bad.</p>

<p>News: *Information about recent events or happenings, especially as reported by newspapers, periodicals, radio, or television; A presentation of such information, as in a newspaper or on a newscast.
New information of any kind, e.g. "The requirement was news to him."
Newsworthy material: “a public figure on a scale unimaginable in America; whatever he did was news. *</p>

<p>Thus, once the new school has been reported, it is no longer newsworthy. Given the very limited time of the daily news broadcast, anybody who expects those broadcasts to be complete is living in a fantasy world. Neither can your local newspaper give complete coverage. NYT? Sometimes rights, sometimes wrong. Same could be said of the Washington Times. Same could be said of any publication. [Hmmm . . . must be a liberal, media conspiracy to misdirect the public.]</p>

<p>Let's face facts, everybody brings a bias to the table. Everybody lives in their own little fantasy world where they are correct and everybody else is uninformed. Fact of the matter is that if Zaphod was so smart and correct about so much of what he speaks, he wouldn't be down here with us chumps talking about this stuff online. [Or, * just maybe *, he really is President Bush!] He would be a policy maker, not a backseat, wannabe general/admiral, who is no more informed about much of what he speaks than any of us are. </p>

<p>The "facts" are that we are stuck in a conflict that is dragging on with no clear end in sight; one with no apparent marker by which victory can be declared. Now you have generals coming out in criticism of the manner in which the war has been executed. Whomever says the Generals should have come out earlier to the public, despite the limitations on them doing so due to their position, is also living in a fantasy world. The same fantasy world in which global warming does not exist; in which all illegal aliens will disappear; abortions will stop once they are illegal, that teenagers need only to say no, etc., etc., etc. The same fantasy world wherein all judges are stooges [unless they rule in my favor], the media never gets it right [except when they agree with me], and "liberals" [even though they are not in power] are the bane of all existence. The same fantasy world where "I am always right" and you are not because, well, simply because I say so. </p>

<p>Sometimes I listen to Rush, sometimes I listen to Al Franken. They both say outrageous things, pandering to their audience who laps it up. That's because they are doing what they are suppose to be doing: entertaining. It seems that some confuse entertainment with facts.</p>

29

<p>People on active duty are asking GOs to speak up. They are tried of their advice being ignored. Rummy thinks that the GOs are what is wrong with the military and that he is smarter than everyone. People who have expressed opinions that differ with him have been asked to retire. </p>

<p>Why are so many post still empty at DOD(SESs)? (it's not congress blocking anything) Nobody wants to work for the man. Please read Cobra Two by Zinni. The man is a life long republican. As are most of the men speaking out. Get it from the library so you won't have to buy it. </p>

<p>Please don't swing the "They should of spoken up while on active duty" Everyone knows that they can't.</p>

30

<p>
[quote]
People who are stuck at one end of the spectrum or the other are only barely credible in real life.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Or perhaps they're comfortable enough in their core beliefs not to have to pretend to be enlightened by listening to a bunch of claptrap in the name of "considering all sides" and "being well informed".</p>

<p>It also avoids them having smug little attitudes of superiority behind which they call everyone else barely credible in real life.</p>

<p>The fact is that the media is absolutely awash in pure unadulterated socialistic liberalism. The only exception is Fox News, the proof of which is the derision it receives from the rest of the "enlightened" left and their sycophantic lapdogs in the press.</p>

<p>Deny it if you like, but it doesn't change the reality of the situation.</p>

<p>It must burn you leftists to no end that Fox News and conservative talk radio continues to steam-clean the clocks of their liberal competitors! :D</p>

31

<p>
[quote]
Fact of the matter is that if Zaphod was so smart and correct about so much of what he speaks, he wouldn't be down here with us chumps talking about this stuff online. He would be a policy maker, not a backseat, wannabe general/admiral, who is no more informed about much of what he speaks than any of us are.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What, do you consider that only smart people become policymakers, and only policymakers are smart?</p>

<p>I don't need to have a PhD in international relations and a Masters in Communications to turn on the TV and see the blatant bias against Conservatism in general and the Military in particular. </p>

<p>The rest of my opinions on this board are born of experience or critical thought over many years. I used to be a liberal, then I grew up.</p>

<p>If others refuse to do so, that's their problem. In the meantime, I'm not going to become a policymaker because a) I don't want to take the paycut, and b) because I'm already the most powerful person in America: I'm a VOTER.</p>

32

<p>
[quote]
"about the school building in Iraq? About the children we've helped? About the women who can finally get an education?"</p>

<p>I don't remember any of the above being an objective in the war on terror. They are of course, noble accomplishments in themselves, but hardly what we went into Iraq for.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, people like you refuse to acknowledge what we went to war for. As for the examples above, I guess since it wasn't an objective, we can just ignore it, eh?</p>

<p>I wonder where the National Organization for (Liberal) Women are? Oh, yes! They're still defending the right to kill innocent children. Meanwhile, millions of WOMEN across the world are actually getting to VOTE for the first time in GENERATIONS, but all we hear about is IEDs, Abu Grahib, and sourpuss generals who obviously were not nearly persuasive enough when it mattered, and are now playing Monday-morning quarterback from the safety of their family rooms.</p>

33

<p>
[quote]
hanks for sharing that excellent article from RollingStone. It would be particularly suited for the intellectual lightweights on this forum who are unwilling to read in-depth news and analysis, or choose to form their opinions on the droning of talk radio entertainers.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>LOL!</p>

<p>So now Rolling Stone Magazine is the pinacle of journalism?</p>

<p>ROFLMAO!</p>

<p>So tell me: did they tuck that gem between the story about Paris Hilton's latest fling and the one about Elton John's latest financial and reproductive problems?</p>

<p>Rolling Stone! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!</p>

<p>Geez! You people really are pathetic. You have to go to a bad media rag to find news about the war. What happened to your vaunted monoliths of excellence, the New York Times, Washington Post, and Al Jazeera? :rolleyes:</p>

34

<p>
[quote]
Please don't swing the "They should of spoken up while on active duty" Everyone knows that they can't.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The hell they can't. It's called resigning in protest and making their case THEN. Aren't YOU guys the ones who have always adore consciencous objectors and deserters? Wasn't it YOU guys whose biggest champion before the war was some grimy EX-Marine who was trying to find human shields to protect Iraqi targets from US?</p>

<p>Please...</p>

<p>If we don't shoot propagandists like Michael Moore, idiots like Cindy Sheehan, or traitors like Dick Turban, what makes you think we're going to do anything to a general who resigns because he thinks the decisions being made will kill his troops and not assure victory? At least HE would be fighting FOR the troops!</p>

35

<p>"The fact is that the media is absolutely awash in pure unadulterated socialistic liberalism. The only exception is Fox News"</p>

<p>Fox news instead is awash in pure unadulterated neo-conservatism. They are the "Volkischer Beobachter" of the conservative movement. (Better look that one up Z, Rush can't pronounce it). Fox is no closer to the ideals of journalism than their proported "left wing" arch-enemies, but certainly the mouthpiece of one side. Worth listening to and watching as long as it's not your only source of information because Fox News is commentary, not news.</p>

36

<p>
[quote]
Burying your head in the sand, pretending all is going according to plan when it clearly is not, and refusing to adjust course despite the big fat iceberg in your path leads to disaster.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh! You mean like Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Welfare, and the like?</p>

<p>Good! Let's hear what YOU think we have to do to save those (blatantly unconstitutional) programs, which have been abject failures going on 50 years, but the left REFUSES to touch.</p>

<p><zaphod waits="" for="" the="" inevitable="" response:="" "we="" need="" to="" cut="" military="" spending="" and="" raise="" taxes="" on="" rich."=""> :rolleyes:</zaphod></p>

37

<p>
[quote]
Fox news instead is awash in pure unadulterated neo-conservatism.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>LOL!</p>

<p>Oh, yeah! AWASH! Especially with such renowned neo-cons as Alan Colms and Susan Estrich!</p>

<p>
[quote]
Fox is no closer to the ideals of journalism than their proported "left wing" arch-enemies, but certainly the mouthpiece of one side.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>See above, but at least it's nice to know that you accept the fact that they are better at journalism than the rest of the MSM. PROGRESS!!</p>

<p>
[quote]
Worth listening to and watching as long as it's not your only source of information because Fox News is commentary, not news.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, and the rest of the media is propaganda.</p>

<p>Or do you consider CNN to be impartial? :rolleyes:</p>

38

<p>
[quote]
Some info on women's rights in Iraq--not all is "black and white":</p>

<p><a href="http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/wrd/iraq-women.htm%5B/url%5D%5B/quote%5D"&gt;http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/wrd/iraq-women.htm

[/quote]
</a></p>

<p>In a related story, Human Rights Watch came out this morning for the re-establishment of rape rooms in Iraq and mandatory burkhas on pain of death in Afghanistan.</p>

<p>:rolleyes:</p>

39

<p>"Well, people like you refuse to acknowledge what we went to war for. As for the examples above, I guess since it wasn't an objective, we can just ignore it, eh?"</p>

<p>Read through my statement Z, I think you will see that I said nothing of the kind. Perhaps you should enlighten us as to our reasons for going to war with Iraq as given to the American people and the world in early 2003? Show me where liberating the Iraqi people was the objective. Then show me ONE stated objective from 2003 which was met.</p>

<p>A quote in Rolling Stone Magazine is no more or less accurate than one in the Washington Post, or the London Times. They are quotes which can either be verified or not. Are you arguing that those gentlemen never said those things? </p>

<p>Z, You come back with a lot of glib answers, long on emotional content, short on facts, logic and analysis (oops, forgot, only Fox news and talk shows).</p>

40

<p>We had the perfect venue to which to draw terrorists out into the open and destroy them---it was and still is Afganistan. To say that was our objective in Iraq is faulty logic and after-the-fact excuse making.</p>