Letters to the Editor
-
Sheesh
Maybe we were better off talking about Ron Paul.
-
What's worse really: killing or lying?
Hmm.. The Service Academy oaths say nothing about killing..
Lying, yeah they mention that.
-
@Aycharaych
When lying is used as a tool or weapon to facilitate killing, which in this case it was and is, it is perfectly acceptable among certain circles.
-
Reminder - Appreciate a (real) Journalist Day!
GG has written a pair of superb articles. Please also remember it took the NYT and David Barstow, even as GG acknowledges to have all the spadework done to get this story out.
As a subscriber to the NYT print edition since 1998, I have a love-hate relationship with the newspaper, and several times have suspended my subscription for weeks at a time because I get annoyed with them. But I don't yet see a replacement for what they can do; and therefore continue to support them because of stories such as this one.
In this internet age, when I can get government press releases and video without the intermediary of the media, the real value-add by a newspaper or TV channel is this kind of investigation. I don't know how to encourage it except by writing to them, continuing to subscribe and expressing appreciation in forums wherever I write.
I also think we should try, to the extent possible, to make our best journalists have as much name-recognition as the Russerts, O'Reillys, Limbaughs, Williams etc. If for nothing more tangible than a psychic reward for them to know that people appreciate their work and discuss it.
-
@Pedinska + cabdriver
(sorry for the long post, but I hope it's worthwhile)
Pedinska, you are off on other adventures at the moment, but ... thanks for your appreciation, and your thoughtful comments generally. Cavalry is on standby, 24/7. Just let hubbie know we're on your side, when we show up ...
Cabbie - you raised good points, incl. what may seem like small change, i.e. the way journos covering the military sometimes even get the small details wrong: ranks, chain of command, what a unit actually does, misquoting NCOs, etc. It contributes to uniformed military (especially enlisted) souring on the media, having a dim view of their professionalism, and adding one more brick to the wall, behind which they sometimes come to feel beseiged (illegimately, but understandably). I've had a lot of contact over the past 5 years with current or former embeds, some whom appreciate this.
A couple important differences. First: the stab-in-the-back syndrome re the media isn't the whole story. It wasn't even as prevalent as all that by the end of Vietnam ... for all the bitterness about early reporting, I heard a lot of respect and praise for reporters like Halberstam, Neil Sheehan, and so forth, from the officers I learned from.
The official post-Vietnam line in the army, as taught in service schools (for officers), was articulated first by Col. Harry Summers, who was tasked by the army to write the official 'lessons-learned' document after Vietnam that became a course text, 'On Strategy' (purposefully referring to Clausewitz): it wasn't the media, it wasn't the protestors, it was us, the uniformed military --- 'we' did it to ourselves. See my sig for an article about the MA scandal by an active duty LTC who doesn't get the point, but still says this line unambiguously.
Twenty-something years of papers, articles in professional journals, after-action reports concerned with 'media relations', etc, show that the uniformed military --- army, marines and navy, at least, I defer to RMP about USAF --- took this as an assumption in planning media relations, up to Iraq.
Just the same, the stab-in-the-back story seems to have gotten new momentum the past few years. I think it always has that potential. If you're dealing with someone who takes that line, the strongest counterargument is to throw the official doctrine back in their face.
Second: You said the military needs the 'consent' of the people to wage war. The doctrine put in place by Creighton Abrams, post-VN, and reflecting the constitution, was stronger than that.
The military doesn't need the consent, it needs the explicit orders of Congress before going to war: the big black hole in this, which doesn't apply to Iraq, is for 'contingency operations' which the executive is deemed to have authority under the War Powers Resolution to enact subject to congressional review (but this is a much bigger discussion). The point is, under the Abrams doctrine --- which stood until the Bush administration, the military does what it's directed to do by law under the national command authority, not go looking for fights for which it seeks the consent of the people.
Rumsfeld explicitly dismantled large swaths of these doctrinal protections, and jumped into the promotion process to ensure that there wouldn't be a fight over it. Another casualty of the Bush regime.
-
two cents
once anyone from the public gets a whiff of any of the propaganda issue, they have a responsibility to stand up.
The public can stand up all they want, the propaganda will continue unabated and unchanged.
I've personally been publicly complaining about government propaganda for nearly twenty years now.. Nobody gives a phuck, I can't even get people to tell me I'm wrong.
It's like screaming into an anechoic chamber, nothing comes back.
-
About that equipment
Anyone remember the long-ago episode of Johnny Carson where Zsa-Zsa (or was it Eva) Gabor appeared, that slid past the FCC? My dim memory:
Zsa Zsa in chair, next to Johnny and petting huge Siamese cat in her lap.
Johnny: I see you've brought your cat with you.
Zsa Zsa: Yes, dahling.
Johnny: That's some cat.
Zsa Zsa: Zees ees my favorite leetle pussy, she goes with me everywayar I go. Would you like to pet my pussy?
Johnny: Sure, but first you have to move the cat.
-
Johnny: Sure, but first you have to move the cat.
Thanks. That was a good one.
-
This story really ought to have legs
I can see why CNN wouldn't cover it -- it implicates them in the propaganda. Same of course with Fox-News and probably MSNBC. How about ABC, CBS, NBC? Have they said anything?
It's pretty remarkable when a major newspaper story doesn't make the jump to the TV news.
I'm glad you're still talking about this, Glenn Greenwald. It deserves to stay in the news cycle for a good long time. A massive domestic propaganda campaign? That's news.