thanks for the insult - you've picked up the method: unfounded, unnecessary, and arrogant - rummy would be proud. one piece of 'evidence' might be the 'embedded journalist' program, where the military apparently exchanged close-up video access for a right of first edit of the transmission. it is a good plan, people get to see sanitized shots of reporters driving in APCs, while keeping out the unfavorable stuff like soldiers covered in their friend's brains and children blown to bits. however, sanitized news, per se, should raise suspicion and scrutiny. who attempted to 'weigh in'? they refuse to answer questions directed AT THEM. this argument is a word game - they put out a story, they delivered the video, they took that initiative. to ask them to elaborate or to explain discrepancies is not 'gauging quality and tone,' and their refusal has nothing to do with respect for 'national discourse.' no. the position is that when there is only one source of information (or one source that is orders of magnitude larger in status and reach than all others), and that source has a political agenda, then that source should be scrutinized carefully.
Not sure what you took as an insult. In my opinion, your demands, for instance, for full unedited footage of military operations suggest naivete - as likewise your apparent willingness to believe (and on the basis of dubious secondhand testimony) that special forces troops would use weapons loaded with blanks on an operation in hostile territory. If you take these observations as insults, so be it, but I disagree that they are "unfounded," and I consider them quite relevant to the larger discussion. Nothing that you describe justifies your claim that the Pentagon "orchestrated, directed, edited, and produced nearly the entirety of US domestic war coverage." As for the depiction of the "horrors of war," where have you heard of a reporter or news station in possession of "horrors of war" video that wanted to show it, but was prevented from doing so? You appear to be asking for the US military to adopt a policy without precedent in the history of warfare - live war porno. For what purpose? To remind people that war is horrible? If it had what I suppose is your intended effect - to horrify the American public and force a halt to warfare - then it would put the US at disadvantage against enemies who are not so encumbered, either by democracy or by full media access, and are unlikely to volunteer footage of their own tactics and atrocities. Something like that happened during the Vietnam war. Of course, it's also quite possible that, after a while, people would become desensitized to such images, but that's another discussion... As for the embedded journalists, they were with the troops, in some cases in the thick of combat, and, with or without video, their 24/7 presence in rather large nunmbers amounted to virtually unprecedented "access." I don't understand what you mean by their supposed "refusal to answer questions." I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I'm not aware of what specific set of questions and what specific refusal you're referring to. As far as I know, they put out their story, and they stood by it. Please enlighten me if I'm missing something. I suppose it should be. Also subject to scrutiny should be those who, utilizing access to major news organizations like the LA TIMES or the BBC, make wild, defamatory accusations with little apparent basis.
Man you are so full of $hit it stinking up the place: don't ya dare report as independent PENTAGON THREATENS TO KILL INDEPENDENT REPORTERS IN IRAQ According to Ms. Adie, who twelve years ago covered the last Gulf War, the Pentagon attitude is: "entirely hostile to the the free spread of information." "I am enormously pessimistic of the chance of decent on-the-spot reporting, as the war occurs," she told Irish national broadcaster, Tom McGurk on the RTE1 Radio "Sunday Show." Ms. Adie made the startling revelations during a discussion of media freedom issues in the likely upcoming war in Iraq. She also warned that the Pentagon is vetting journalists according to their stance on the war, and intends to take control of US journalists' satellite equipment --in order to control access to the airwaves. Another guest on the show, war author Phillip Knightley, reported that the Pentagon has also threatened they: "may find it necessary to bomb areas in which war correspondents are attempting to report from the Iraqi side." " Oh I will be. And what actually appalls me is the difference between twelve years ago and now. I've seen a complete erosion of any kind of acknowledgment that reporters should be able to report as they witness." " The Americans... and I've been talking to the Pentagon ...take the attitude which is entirely hostile to the free spread of information." "Even if they were journalists ..' Who cares! ' said.. [inaudible] .." Kate Adie: " The telephones and the television signals." Tom McGurk: " And they would be fired on? " Kate Adie: " Yes. They would be 'targeted down,' said the officer." Tom McGurk: " Extraordinary ! " http://homepage.eircom.net/~gulufuture/news/kate_adie030310.htm what the firggin world we live in!!! It's our view or no view but of course.. information control is paramount http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=230108#post230108 do you trade? H. Blodgett was pumping INSP in the 270 range, were buying a boatload??? Get it through you thick scull. This is war for $$$$ and control. Media is just a tool to feed our people bullshit. Wake up and smell the coffee
Personally, I care, because I think the Americans are full of shit and not to be trusted under any circumstances (almost). If the chick didn't suffer bullet wounds, then why the hell concoct a story saying she did? Lie because it makes people happier? Is that the policy you're suggesting? I suppose for guys like you and Kymar, who simply can't bring yourselves to fathom the idea that your government could ever do anything wrong, then believing whatever you're fed is a no brainer. (Hehe, I bet 30 years Kymar (or his dad) was pretending Watergate didn't happen.) For me, the idea that the whole thing was staged or at least greatly exaggerated makes perfect sense, and is a continuation of the long tradition of American mass deceit. (The war in the ex-yugoslavia is a great example.)
Once again, idiotic thinking on your part. Put the incident in context. Is propaganda fair in love and war? Is it okay for a coach to tell a tall tale to his players at half time to inspire them to play better or go out and win, even if he has to lie? Is it wrong for a doctor to lie to inspire a patient to have courage and a positive mental state at a time of medical crisis? It is meaningless to focus on it at this point...it was during a time of war, when it was in the best interests of the USA to win the war.!<.......period, exclamation point. So if they fib to boost morale, and it means a quick war, and less casualties, and helped in any way to demoralize the enemy, to build support here at home, to inspire out troops, that is just a strategy of war....nothing new at all. I don't see you giving equal weight in your criticism of the Iraq spokesman who was lying his ass off trying to say that they were winning the war and not allowing the US to invade Baghdad. You are one big hypocrite, and a USA hater. Who gives a fuck what a weasel like you thinks about America? We crush losers like you.
When you all get done debating, what do you have to show for it? A good time? Are you aiming to achieve something tangible here? This is not a "what's the fucking point?" post. I would like to know what anyone here does with their understanding of politics, military, human nature, whatever... how are you benefitting from these posts? Some of you obviously put a good deal of time and thought into what you say, and with all due respect I'd like to ask how this helps you live your lives.
What, they have to fib to the entire nation? (The entire world?) LOL. As if military commanders couldn't (as if they don't!) come up with a multitude of morale boosting methods that don't involve outright bullshitting (if, in fact, that's what it was). (And if, as you suppose, it really did help so much for morale (VERY hard to believe), it sure wouldn't do much for morale for the next war, for people currently serving in the military, if the lie is exposed.) So there you go. If by "weasel like you", you mean the hundreds that have written books detailing the lies and malfeasance of the US government, then I'd say there are a great number of people that care what we think; on a global scale, pretty much the whole world. And, sorry buddy, you aren't "crushing" me at all. How childish. In fact, my family (especially one of my brothers) has profited quite handsomely from your securities markets; and not had to pay taxes on it either (not as much as you, anyway). So who's getting the better of who? hahaha. PS - yes, the iraqi 'information' minister was certainly full of it. Then again, I can forgive him far more easily than I can forgive your rabble. He had a country to defend against the agression of your unrivalled military might.