About that Atwar Bahjat execution video I commented on yesterday: the video is a hoax. The beheading shown in the video is indeed real, but the victim isn’t Ms. Bahjat, it’s an unfortunate Nepalese male hostage taken in another, earlier event. Rusty Shackleford at My Pet Jawa has links and video stills of the original beheadings. The video stills are very graphic but are separated from the text portions of his post. You don’t have to view the stills if you don’t want to.
Meanwhile, at least one blog on The Left, in commenting on Ms. Bahjat’s execution, raises a familiar meme: “It’s our fault.” Yeah, right. It always is, isn’t it? In this case, it’s because we established, facilitated, encouraged, supported, equipped, trained, and/or ignored the activities of Shi’a militias, and wouldn’t you know it? Rampant murder, torture, mayhem, and executions follow. BushCo just can’t do a damned thing right…except for this, which indicates the enemy thinks we are winning in Iraq
More on General Hayden…the foam-flecked Left rages:
And how quickly the tactic worked! As Glenn Greenwald points out, Dianne Feinstein took the bait with the ferocious appetite of a 7.5 pound perch, praising Hayden and already coming out in support of his confirmation (come on Dianne, you couldn't at least wait to backstab your party until after the hearings?)
And how, exactly, did Senator Feinstein “backstab” the party? Apparently by saying this:
California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democratic member of the (ed: Senate Intelligence) committee, said that she was also leaning toward supporting Hayden. "We need a respected, competent intelligence professional who can command respect and manage this growing agency," she said in a statement. "Based on what I know so far, Gen. Michael Hayden appears to fit that bill. He has run an intelligence agency twice the size of the CIA. And while he might not have had experience directly supervising human operations, he has been effective."
Hmm… Senator Feinstein, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, a person who knows Gen. Hayden professionally and has heard him testify before said committee on numerous occasions, makes the rational observation that General Hayden is highly qualified for the job. On the other hand, Georgia10 (who sits where?), exercises her First Amendment right to be stupid in public and insults a member of her own party. Ya gotta love ‘em, don’t you? If only for the entertainment value they provide. And don’t go on about the Republican voices raised against Hayden…that’s not the point. Yes, some Republicans object to this nomination, but they’ve done so in a less-than-insulting manner. The Left, on the other hand, prefer to eat their own.
Hockey update: New Jersey Edmonton Carolina San Jose Carolina Carolina New Jersey New Jersey San Jose Edmonton
Didn’t I say I wasn’t going to be tethered to the TV now that the Red Wings are out of it? I was wrong. There’s just too much great hockey going on; I can’t resist watching it. You need to realize I live in a hockey wasteland…this is the only time of year the sport gets any exposure at all here on the High Plains of New Mexico. And I’m thankful for it, too!
“So, put it all together: al Qaeda in Iraq is failing. It has little military strength, and the Iraqi people "do not support its cause." It has succeeded in one arena only: the American media. Yet, despite the despair manifested by the authors of the captured documents, that one success may be all that al Qaeda needs. Because the perverse negativity of the American press is the only view that most Americans get of the conflict's progress. And, because of their shoddy coverage of the war, our reporters and editors provide the terrorists with their only gleam of hope.”
ReplyDeleteHi Buck. Interesting claim on the blog you quote from above. I sure wish he were right. I’d like nothing better than for our side to be winning and for the Iraqi people to have some semblance of safety and security once again. I can’t see that we (or rather, they) are there yet, though. Do you really? I’m glad to hear that the Atwar video was a fake, although I’m sorry for the poor Nepalese guy – and all the other men and women who are being murdered and terrified as we write (including Atwar). It was a publicity stunt, of that you can be sure. Aimed at our media and at their own citizens, I have no doubt.
And I’m not sure what he means by “shoddy coverage of the war,” when reporters can’t even go out to interview private citizens. I have read a few blogs written by Iraqi citizens, though. Have you had the opportunity to do that? Most of them are bewildered by how violently they’ve all broken up into factions, when they used show little distinction between Sunni or Shiite. And most of them are wretchedly disappointed that our overthrow of Saddam has resulted in such a protracted hell. They obviously felt, as did most of the American public, that this war would result in something much saner. This is one blog I’d recommend you read, if you haven’t before. I like to get a sense of what’s going on from the people on the ground, who know their own culture and what they had before. http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/ I’d like to know what you think.
The whole thing makes me sad. I wish I didn’t feel that our administration had no idea what it was getting into. I’d have been proud to have set the Iraqi people free to have their own autonomy, but I feared it would not be as simple as what our administration was telling us. Was I wrong? I’m proud of our guys over there. They’re doing their best. They have my thanks and admiration. I don’t hate America. There are probably those on the left who hate it in the same way they “hate” their parents. You know what that’s like, right? (Well, actually, I never have. I’ve always loved my parents. And they’re conservatives, too.) :)
Oops. Sam
ReplyDeleteSam? Not our Sam...
ReplyDeleteSomebody's Sam though...
Interesting. Where did the
"And I’m not sure what he means by “shoddy coverage of the war,” when reporters can’t even go out to interview private citizens"
comment come from? Is there a source for that one? I hadn't heard of that restriction on the press.
All in all, a very decent view from the "other" side.
Buck: Read the comments under my "PS" post; all will be revealed.
ReplyDeleteSam: I've read Riverbend on occasion, but I've read Iraq the Model a lot more. I like ItM's point of view better, but, like all things, it's a matter of taste and preference.
As for whether I feel Iraq is "there" yet...no, not yet. And I believe it will be quite a while before they get there, but the progress is encouraging. It took us quite a while to get where we are, and we're still a work in progress.
Concerning war reporting in the Western press (and in the state-owned and/or supported Middle Eastern press)...I believe the reporting IS warped and is generally negative in nature. This POV is one that is generally shared amonsgt the troops on the ground, too. Do you read any MilBlogs? If you don't, two good ones are Fire and Ice, a blog written by Warrant Officer (WO1) Mike Fay, USMC. Mr. Fay just returned from Iraq, where he was the USMC's artist in residence. His blog is full of "in country" photos, water colors, sketches, and word pictures. He's posting erratically since returning from The Sand Box, but his back pages are worth reading. Michael Yon, on the other hand, is not a military member, but he was embedded with the Army in Fallujah and Mosul. I consider Yon's writing to be right up there with Ernie Pyle's...it's the best war reporting I've read out of Iraq. As a matter of fact, Yon was nominated for a Pulitzer. Read those two guys and tell me if you think the MSM reporting can hold a candle to what they're doing.
Without going into any detail, my opinion is ALL news reporting is largely shaped by media's senior management (why should media be any different than other industries or business segments?), and media management cut its journalistic teeth on Watergate and Viet Nam (e.g., the "late" Dan Rather). To quote the old proverb: "To a hammer, everything looks like a nail." In the news biz, all wars look like Viet Nam, and every political contretemps somehow devolves into a conspiracy. MUCH has been written on this subject, as you know.
You ought to blog, Sam. It's a great stress-reliever. Not as good as some other relievers I know of, but good, nonetheless! :-)
Greetings! No, you’re right, I’m not your Sam :) I’m the Sam mentioned in the PS below. Buck and I became acquainted over at Mahablog and he very kindly invited me to come on over to your side for a chat or two. I hadn’t planned to stay long tonight, but I realize I should have provided a link for the quote you mentioned. Here’s one of several I found:
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.reuters.com/2006/04/06/reporting-from-iraq/#comments
“Reporters can’t follow their basic instinct to “see, smell and hear” if they can’t linger in the streets to talk to people, said Roger Cohen of the New York Times. Iraqi journalists are fearful of being considered collaborators with the American military if they are seen working as journalists, said Zaki Chehab, political editor of Al Hayat.”
This is the context I was thinking of when I made the comment. I probably should have added the word, "freely," and not implied an actual restriction on the press. Anyway, I’d be interested in your take on it. Many seem to fault editors for not providing more context. With that, I would agree.
By the way, nice to meet you.
Hi, Buck! We posted at the same time! I'll read yours after I post this.
ReplyDeleteSam
PS: My father was conservative, too, Sam. My Mom was apolitical, ANTI-political, actually. I inherited my Old Man's politics for a while, until about 1966 when the VN war heated up and I lost my first friend over there. I switched political sides, to my father's great dismay and subsequent derision. He lived to see me return to the fold, however, and could never figure out why I left. Now that I look back, it was a pretty dumb move.
ReplyDelete:-)
Buck,
ReplyDeleteI think we'd have to invest in another computer if I were to blog! (We have one shared by four adults in our family) Thanks for the encouragement, though.
I figured you must have been in Vietnam. My Dad and I still clash over that. (Nicely, though. If it gets too hot, we quit.) I'd be interested in your views, since you've "been there and back" in more ways than one.
Thanks for the links. I'll try to enter the world of the military when I get the chance. I feel like I owe it to them.
In the meantime, may I ask you what you honestly think about this administration's handling of the war?
With that, I'll bid you good-night. Hope to continue this soon. Thanks for the opportunity.
Sam
I didn't actually serve a tour in Viet Nam, Sam. I spent the war years in California, Japan, Turkey, and Oregon. Being "young, dumb, and full of...", I submitted a Viet Nam volunteer statement in 1966, but withdrew it in 1968. The AF was different back then, we only sent volunteers to VN towards the beginning of the conflict. That changed, of course as things heated up.
ReplyDeleteYou asked for my opinion on how this war has been handled. Overall, I'd give Rummy and Co (the senior leadership) a "C." There have been mistakes, but there are always miscalculations and unforeseen events in conflict. No enemy just rolls over when you arrive. I give the middle and lower echelons an "A." They have simply been superb.
Sam here,
ReplyDeleteRe: Vietnam - Oh, I see. My husband was in the Navy at the time – mostly offshore in Singapore, Sasebo and the Philippines. Glad neither of you were in direct combat. I imagine you are in touch with many who were, though, being a military family. My dad was barely 18 when he went into the Navy. They waited to invade Japan. Glad they didn't have to. He had some Japanese American friends during the war who were gone when he came back. (Interred) Sad, he thought. They were nice folks.
So you’d give Rummy and Co a “C”? (I definitely agree on your grade for the middle/low echelons) I’d go lower on Rummy myself, though. I agree that war is never what you expect, but that’s what we should have heard more about in the first place. It was Rummy’s rosy scenario that I take issue with. I think that either the American people were not given enough credit that they could accept the truth, or that Rummy was incompetent in his own expectations. As Powell warned before going in, “You break it, you fix it.” I suspected that we would have more difficulty – having read history – and when this proved to be the case I didn’t appreciate being scolded that “It’s easy using hindsight.” He lost me then.
Abu Ghraib is another sore point. Do you think that was just a few bad apples? Or was that the fault of middle/top management? Do you think the media was at fault for putting that out there, making us look bad? Or do you think the American people were entitled to know that this was going on?
It’s hard to get into everything from scratch, isn’t it? This’ll take pages!
Just let me say, Buck, that I took another more careful read this morning of your last post. You’ve laid out your points of view very thoughtfully and clearly. I appreciate it.
I tried other “right wing” blogs at the beginning of my “blog tours,” just for an understanding of what was going on out there, and I was not impressed. I certainly wasn’t impressed by many of the ones on the left, either. It’s been fascinating to see how most blogs simply spew out spin in more radical ways than news media and talk radio do. And if you don’t go with the party line, you’re pounced on. I tried not to grit my teeth too hard at your mild ranting of the left. I’ve indulged in ranting myself when discussing Limbaugh over the years.
Well, I’m here to learn. I likely will not agree with all you say. If not, I’ll tell you so. I don’t like to accept things at face value but if I find I have, I’ll admit it. I’ll probably have lots of questions. I know you have much of value to say and I’ll listen.
Glad I stopped by. Back later today, I hope.
Well. A couple of surpises here, not the least being your gender, Sam. :-)
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that you were commenting as I was putting the final touches on today's post, and all the more interesting that we're essentially saying the same things about blogs, talk radio, and the press.
I have to go out and run a few errands (yes, there is life outside of the blog!), but will answer the questions you've asked later today.
Thanks for stopping by again. I'm here to learn, too.
"not the least being your gender, Sam. :-)"
ReplyDeleteI made no secret of it over at Maha's, Buck, but I half-wondered if you were aware.
More about me: I love classical music, science, real literature, history - I majored in entomology at Berkeley, used to fix my own car (a '72 Datsun) before they got complicated, made and lived in my own tipi in the great outdoors of Wyoming. My best friends have been the native pioneer descendents up there, even though I grew up in a So Cal beach town. See, I don't fit in anywhere!
(Husband's an artist; we have two sons in college, fine young adults)
Loved your post! Couldn't have said it better myself.
Back later, I'm on my "lunch half-hour." (I work at home)
(Glad you poked your nose in over at Maha's)
Abu Ghraib is another sore point. Do you think that was just a few bad apples? Or was that the fault of middle/top management? Do you think the media was at fault for putting that out there, making us look bad? Or do you think the American people were entitled to know that this was going on?
ReplyDeleteI do believe it was a few "bad apples," but I also believe those bad apples extended a bit further up the hierarchy than has been acknowledged to date, specifically, up to and including the senior NCOs and junior officers (i.e., lieutenants and captains). If the senior NCOs and junior officers really weren't aware of what was going on, then they weren't doing their jobs. Either way, that level of leadership has some 'splainin' to do, and I suspect we'll eventually see more people charged.
I don't think senior leadership, general officers and senior DoD civilians, up to and including Rumsfeld, were involved or aware of the abuses.
I also believe the media overplayed the incident, and the over-exposure hurt us more than most people realize. On the one hand, I wish the government had more control over those photos...we ARE at war, and the Abu Ghraib images were used by the enemy to great effect. Yes, I'm wishing for censorship where the photos are concerned. The American people may or may not have a "right to know." Personally, I think not. What was gained by publishing the photos, aside from enemy propaganda opportunities, and accompanying (but not related) opportunities to galvanize the anti-war opposition? Nothing, I submit.
This is a slippery slope, but I compare today's lack of wartime censorship to the censorship we had in WW II. I don't believe the American public was "kept in the dark" completely during WW II, but some things (a lot, actually) were rightfully withheld. Operational security, items of value to the enemy, etc. As I said, a slippery slope. The key thing is to acknowledge that we are indeed at war. I feel most people do NOT believe we are.
Sam again,
ReplyDeleteJust spotted your post. Haven't gone for a walk yet, but this is good timing. I'll think about the points you made - very military, they are, and I'm not surprised. It's about 180 degrees from where I've been all my life, but I'll give it some thought.
You don't think Rumsfeld and Miller "set the tone" for the abuses?
"The key thing is to acknowledge that we are indeed at war. I feel most people do NOT believe we are."
Maybe a definition of "war" would be in order. No territory involved. No national leader that stands out. But we had this situation back in the Middle Ages with the Crusades. The difference now is that the majority populations of the religions involved don't want this. It's conducted by criminal/terrorists (backed by shadowy government leaders of various stripes). But is it truly a war in the classical sense? If so, how would you define it? Maybe that's been the problem with why there's the disbelief. I'll be thinking about this.
These beheadings just make my blood boil, whomever it is. I wrote a post on the fact that we were no longer able to torture our prisoners and got such mixed emotions from people it was surprising. For me, it is plain and simple; war is barbaric. I think these post baby boomers have no concept of what war realy is. I've seen it, researched it and studied it and learned that all is fair in love and war.I'm going to leave it at that before I get on a whole other rant. Hi Buck, how goes it??
ReplyDeleteI read your post the day you put it up, Barb. And while I don't agree with you, I admire your guts for saying what you think.
ReplyDeleteWe (US forces) have never been allowed to torture prisoners. While "the rules" allow for coercive interrogation techniques that include physical and mental stress, torture has never been permitted. From where I'm coming from it's not a matter of being namby-pamby about the subject. I just wouldn't want to bunk next to (or to otherwise be associated with) an interrogator who was also a torturer. Someone who inflicts intense and sustained pain on another human being, even scum like our enemies, isn't right in the head, to put it mildly.
That said, I would support a change in the rules of engagement where Jihadi terrorists and torturers are concerned: take no prisoners. Simply shoot the bastards on the spot. And no head-shots, either. Gut shots. And make sure they die before you move on.
Just sayin'.