Site Presented By
Saturday, Nov 7, 2009
In nailing NBS, you're missing the forest for the trees. Here's the story:
"General McCaffrey harbored significant doubts about the invasion plan. An informal participant in the war planning, he was troubled by Mr. Rumsfeld’s resistance to an invasion force of several hundred thousand, he acknowledged months and years later in interviews. Mr. Rumsfeld’s team, he said, was bent on making an “ideological” point that wars could be fought “on the cheap.” There were not enough tanks, artillery or troops, he would say, and the result was a “grossly anemic” force that unnecessarily put troops at risk.
That is not what General McCaffrey said when asked on NBC outlets to assess the risks of war. As planning for a possible invasion received intense news coverage in 2002, he repeatedly assured viewers that the war would be brief, the occupation lengthy but benign.
“These people are going to come apart in 21 days or less,” he told Brian Williams on MSNBC."
Glenn, the last three articles you've written are concerned with the propaganda that fuels the Military-Industrial-M$M-Congressional Complex. I consider this one of the most important topics of our day.
What kind of country we are depends a lot on how much money we spend on defense. If citizens are to accept our role as World Policeman, we need to understand that it comes at great cost to our domestic population and domestic problems.
This endless war and its salespeople are problematic to a Representative Republic. Shiny medals and fear can and do sell the products of the U.S. war machine.
I spent around 100 hours or so looking at the first document dump by David Barstow last April. Those heavily redacted documents were quite the education in Military thought and policy. I'm also wondering if McCaffrey may have had inside information about Rumsfelds possible (2006) demise long before he resigned. Could that be why Robert Weiner said "go look at the Google!?"
I think we can give Glenn a pass here... Oftentimes, he'll use a few sentences or even a paragraph to elucidate just why he credits a particular source as trustworthy. In this case, I think the text of the emails presented, echoing NBC/McCaffrey/Weinerboy's talking points speak for themselves, even if the source has to remain a secret for the purpose of job security. Certainly a different case from Williams asserting trust in his consistent go-to war expert based on the shiny metal on his chest, and the fact that they like each other and hobnobbed on Pentagon flights to Iraq.
Plus, I think it's fair to apply different standards of journalistic trust to whistle-blowers in comparison to alleged experts offering "educated opinions"...
I think the problems with television news are greater than a reliance on commentators with conflicts of interest.
The problem is with the medium itself. It's inherently so condensed that the actual amount of content is minimal, compared to text-based media- whether in terms of factual details, reference material, or the presence of counterbalancing viewpoints.
The best solution is to simply turn off the TV.
It would also be helpful if the schools had courses in media awareness and public affairs information verification, including incisive critiques of the relative amount and worth of the content that its possible to purvey on the same story within the space of two hours by watching television shows; listening to the radio; reading print news articles; and reading journalism (including the on-line versions of print news articles) with on-line access to hyperlinks. (I also think that as early as the elementary grades, students should be educated in the techniques of manipulative and/or deceptive advertising.)
As far as I'm concerned, the only arena where electronic media have superiority is 1-to-1 interviews (especially when done with with minimal interruptions.) Otherwise, television and radio are inherently inferior media for obtaining news information.
I think we can give Glenn a pass here... Oftentimes, he'll use a few sentences or even a paragraph to elucidate just why he credits a particular source as trustworthy. In this case, I think the text of the emails presented, echoing NBC/McCaffrey/Weinerboy's talking points speak for themselves, even if the source has to remain a secret for the purpose of job security. Certainly a different case from Williams asserting trust in his consistent go-to war expert based on the shiny metal on his chest, and the fact that they like each other and hobnobbed on Pentagon flights to Iraq.
They're completely different. I'm not vouching for this person's general trustworthiness. If an issue were raised about his/her integrity, credibility, etc., I wouldn't be rely merely on their word and announce that all questions resolved to my satisfaction because I "trust" the person.
When I say they're a "trustworthy" source, I mean strictly for the limited purposes I'm using them here -- to believe that these emails are authentic. Why did I reach that conclusion? Because I know how s/he got the emails and -- most of all -- because the person has a public reputation which would be severely harmed if s/he fed me fake documents (which would obviously then lead me to reveal the who did it, etc.).
It's the person's self-interest and proximity to these documents which leads me to trust him/her for this limited purpose.
....It's easy transparency that would even be self-policed by the blogs and opposition research groups. However... the fatal flaw in this idea, is that the left would have as many or more conflicts of interest, demonstrating it's propensity for insisting others do as they say, not as they do.
That disqualifies an excellent idea, just as it disqualifies listing all campaign donors as a self-regulating campaign finance reform. Democrat hypocrisy is a constant barrier to better government and journalism. -- shooter242
Aside from your curious, reflexive conflation of "Teh Left" and the Democratic establishment, there is little wrong with your observation. I'm not sure what it has to do with Glenn, however. You've been reading him for nearly 3 years now and can't be unaware that he would be just as happy to savage an establishment Dem over this.
Supporters of establishment elites insist that all criticism of their inappropriate conduct is "Leftist" (except when it is demonstrably from the ultra-Libertarian fringe, laced with allusions to "fiat currency" and the "Trilateral Commission"). This is an unfortunate piece of nonsense. Criticism of the extreme venality of our current elites is not inherently "Leftist" -- and at this point, one needs to be a pitiable suck-up or on the take oneself to pretend otherwise.
What will my savings be worth in five years, shooter242, after this "bipartisan" reign of idiots? Far less than what it appeared to be this time last year -- but also far less, than what it could have been, and would have been if our government, financial institutions, and newsmedia had been in the hands of competents over the past 2 decades.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
