The Washington Post's failures in Iraq

[Lizard_King]

So, just to provide a break from the now generic ranting about how Bush is messing up X in Iraq, let's see a different take on the sort of quality reporting the WaPo is providing in Iraq these days (www.commentarypage.com/johnson/johnson062904.php).
Don't take my word for it that the Post’s reporting is substandard and superficial. Take the word of Philip Bennett, the Post's assistant managing editor for foreign news. In a surprisingly candid June 6 piece, he admits that "the threat of violence has distanced us from Iraqis." Further, "we have relied on Iraqi stringers filing by telephone to our correspondents in Baghdad, and on embedding with the military. The stringers are not professional journalists, and their reports are heavy on the simplest direct observation." Translation: we are reprinting things from people we barely know, from a safe location dozens of miles away from the fighting.

Bennett flatly concedes that they have a “dim picture” of what is happening in Iraq, (not that you would know it from the actual news articles he approves for publication.) "The people of Iraq...are leading their country, and ours, down an uncertain path. This is a story waiting to be told."

[Andrew Mayer]

Waiting to be told? They have four or five full-time reporters there at any given time. What are they doing, if they're not telling the story of Iraq's new birth?

There's a huge assumption there. It assumes that the "stories waiting to be told" are positive ones.

Meanwhile reporters are dying at an atriocious rate. As are soldiers.

I'm sure there are lots of people that wish the press could be a pollyanna chorus. But unless there's a mass deception going on by the media across the world, an event without precident or motive, things are dangerous and unstable in Iraq. Our leadership's lack of direction and clear goals conintues to translate into a mess on the ground. The people I read and believe paint a picture that is consistant with the results, and that's the yardstick by which I measure my media.

[Jason McCullough]

Mmm hmm.

Predictably, the original washington post article doesn't read too much like the one-line quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17420-2004Jun5.html

One bright morning last week, Post correspondent Williams looked out the window of an office during an interview to see a small circle of men raise and fire a mortar from the banks of the Tigris River. In a car a short distance away near the American occupation headquarters, our colleague Ed Cody watched the same mortar explode in front of him.


Correspondents try to keep a low profile. Post reporters and photographers do not conduct interviews with armed escorts, as do some media organizations. Journalists do not wear body armor in most settings so as not to appear to be government contractors or paramilitaries. Carefully calculated risks still seem reasonable. Over the past week, Williams, Cody and photographer Andrea Bruce Woodall of The Post have traveled independently to Baqubah and Sadr City for stories about anti-American sentiment -- but only after careful discussion and, in the case of Sadr City, a preliminary trip to test the mood.

But there are areas where firsthand, independent reporting is not possible. This has made us more reliant on official sources, especially on American authorities. Such was the case after a U.S. attack on a village in western Iraq on May 19 killed about 40 people. Witnesses said that the victims, among them women and children, were attending a wedding; U.S. officials said they were insurgents. We tried for days to figure out a safe route to the village to resolve this dramatic discrepancy. Our Iraqi employees agreed that they, too, would be at risk if they reported from the scene.

[CindySue22]

Meanwhile reporters are dying at an atriocious rate. As are soldiers.


Andrew, not picking on you here, this is a sentiment stated over and over here, your's just happened to be the one that did it for me.

What is a non-atrocious rate? How many armed conflicts in all of recorded history have had a "non-atrocious" rate of casualties? What would the state of the world be today if the first time someone's "atrocious" rate was reached, that side just gave up? What if Britain had given up the first time London was bombed? What if the US had surrendered to the Japanese after Pearl Harbor, saying, "OK, we can't abide these casualties, we give up"? What if the Soviet Union had given up after the first day of the German invasion in WW2?

Constantly negative reporting has a demorilizing effect on a civilian populace, and could effect the war effort in a negative way. Don't you want the Coalition to win (i.e., a stable democratic Iraq)? Good for us and good for the Iraqi's. Or don't you think democracy is a good form of government, that a dictatorship or a theocracy is better?

[CindySue22]

Over the past week, Williams, Cody and photographer Andrea Bruce Woodall of The Post have traveled independently to Baqubah and Sadr City for stories about anti-American sentiment

Exactly! Where does it mention seeking out stories about pro Americansentiment??

[Jason McCullough]

Constantly negative reporting has a demorilizing effect on a civilian populace, and could effect the war effort in a negative way. Don't you want the Coalition to win (i.e., a stable democratic Iraq)? Good for us and good for the Iraqi's. Or don't you think democracy is a good form of government, that a dictatorship or a theocracy is better?

Negative reporting kills soldiers?

[Tim Partlett]

I don't see that the reporting is "constantly negative", but I can understand that you might view it that way when comparing it the near blanket support the war in Iraq received, at least from US news agencies, last year. It's just that the major negatives, Abu Graib, the Fallujah debacle, the Shia insurgency, the increased bombing attacks, etc. heavily outweigh the few major positives, like the handover of power and Saddam's trial. It's not the fault of the news agencies if the situation is so bad that there is little good to report, that's the fault of the politicians who botched it up.

[Jason McCullough]

Over the past week, Williams, Cody and photographer Andrea Bruce Woodall of The Post have traveled independently to Baqubah and Sadr City for stories about anti-American sentiment

Exactly! Where does it mention seeking out stories about pro Americansentiment??

I don't know, walking into these cities asking "who likes the americans!??!?!" sounds like a way to get yourself killed. I'm sure if there was pro-American sentiment they'd find it when looking for the anti, no?

It's all jumping on one-liners anyway; every article I've seen that had Iraqi interviews had people how a range of opinions. It's just that the pro-American people also aren't very happy with us.

[Brian Rucker]

The reason, and I gather this from the preponderance of sources I read, that reporters can't get out in the field as much as they'd like is because it's freakin' dangerous out there. Not because they're in love with air conditioning. You don't go into combat reporting like this if you don't love doing it and feel compelled to get the grittiest stories before the next guy does. Nobody I've read is happy about the situation and admitting it isn't a bad thing. "Iraq Is Not Safe" isn't going to work as a daily headline but it really is the story here right now.

I've read some of this guy's Q&A live at The Post website on occasion and he seems a pretty bright guy who's also quite honest about the difficulties of reporting. Difficulties that are universal. Frankly the trial of Saddam as it's being handled by Americans through Iraqi proxies seems to be raising more questions and resentment, at least in the wider Arab world, than it is joyous songs of "Ding, Dong, The Witch Is Dead." That the handover of power had to transpire in complete secrecy says more about the situation in Iraq than than handover itself.

That said things seem to be calmer now as everyone's waiting to see what happens. The Kurds are holding their breath to see how centralized the government will be before making a move either way. The Sunni seem to be going along to get along on the surface while still dealing with foreign fighters and making alliances with Shiia radicals. And the Shiia themselves, well, for the most part that situation seems stable for now. They're large and in charge. Even Sadr's toned his act down. But it's important to keep in mind we had to back down from pressing those charges or taking him into custody. The power isn't really in our hands. We're a convenient scapegoat for all parties to blame and to the degree that unified the various Shiia factions (secular, pro-Iranian fundamentalist, Nationalist moderate) we're useful to Sistani and the others. Just so long as they're willing to extend benefit of the doubt that we really are leaving and not trying to create a permanent satellite state.

Right now I'm in wait and see mode myself. I don't have very rosey hopes at all but it's in the hands of the Iraqis now. I do hope they surprise me. Can't be worse than the clowns in this administration calling the shots.

[The Chinese Lawyer]

Constantly negative reporting has a demorilizing effect on a civilian populace, and could effect the war effort in a negative way. Don't you want the Coalition to win (i.e., a stable democratic Iraq)? Good for us and good for the Iraqi's. Or don't you think democracy is a good form of government, that a dictatorship or a theocracy is better?

Speaking badly about things you believe to be bad shouldn't mean you get accused of being an enemy of your country. Here in China we've been fighting to allow dissenting opinion for a while. Standing in front of tanks sometimes. Ok once.

[CindySue22]

True as far as that goes, CL, but ignoring the good things your gov't is doing is just as bad, IMO. Not referring to China, I don't have a clue what it must be like to live there.

You have, I believe, gov't control of the media, we have....hell, I don't know what, but it sure isn't the government. (Which is good!)

[quatoria]

I'm sorry, wait - "ignoring the good things your government has done" is "just as bad" as being deported to a camp or killed if you express dissent? Are you for fucking real, Cindy? Tell me that you just expressed yourself poorly, as usual.

[Lizard_King]

I don't see that the reporting is "constantly negative", but I can understand that you might view it that way when comparing it the near blanket support the war in Iraq received, at least from US news agencies, last year. It's just that the major negatives, Abu Graib, the Fallujah debacle, the Shia insurgency, the increased bombing attacks, etc. heavily outweigh the few major positives, like the handover of power and Saddam's trial. It's not the fault of the news agencies if the situation is so bad that there is little good to report, that's the fault of the politicians who botched it up.
The point being that the situation is, if not good, certainly a lot more ambiguous than newspaper headlines like the Washington Post's create as a trend. Of course there was no excuse for the cheerleading that took place during the invasion itself, but that does not make the current focus on negatives acceptable.
I think the profile of the WaPo's bureau chief there makes it quite clear what is going on, at least in that case: Iraq is being handled just as you would handle salacious political scandals at home, where no lives are literally at stake. That part at least seemed very telling to me.

And then there are flat out questionable decisions, such as not airing decapitations of Americans and the like (just like back in the day the 9/11 jumpers were taboo all of a sudden), and then turning around and deciding that the most distasteful (so far) of the Abu Ghraib photographs are perfectly palatable.

Certainly the picture on the ground there is no more accurate when coming as anecdotal accounts from returning Marines, but from what I have been able to piece together, the situation is both a lot worse and a lot better. That is, the real violence is happening far beyond where any media presence exists, and the real victories, both combatwise and otherwise, are slipping under the radar daily.

[quatoria]

What lives are placed at stake by the tone of the reportage about Iraq? If the news takes a pollyanna tone, more troops live? If they accurately report failures, troops die? Is that actually your assertion? Wow. How many people died from CNN's coverage of Abu Graib?

[Lizard_King]

What lives are placed at stake by the tone of the reportage about Iraq? If the news takes a pollyanna tone, more troops live? If they accurately report failures, troops die? Is that actually your assertion? Wow. How many people died from CNN's coverage of Abu Graib?
If you are speaking to me, I have no idea what you are babbling about. I'd forgotten how quickly you could turn the simplest discussion into angry incoherence.

I'll say it again, even shorter: everyone would benefit from a more nuanced approach to reporting Iraq, no matter whether it be a conceivably pro American news item or a negative one.

[Jason McCullough]

Um, they didn't air the decaptation photos because they were *much more disgusting* than the torture photos.

[steve]

I'll say it again, even shorter: everyone would benefit from a more nuanced approach to reporting Iraq, no matter whether it be a conceivably pro American news item or a negative one.
Are you really arguing that it's in the interest of the greater good to sugarcoat reality? How would everyone benefit from that? I can understand how it might improve morale of the troops not to see any negativity at all, but I'm thinking they have much greater worries than the American media. Should newspapers make sure that for every Abu Graib story they find an equally huge "Marines are helping babies" story?

How about the coverage of the first few months of the war? That was almost uniformly positive; aren't the stories now providing the balance to the Polyanna "they're welcoming us with open arms" stories that dominated the news?

I'm also curious if you were you making this same argument when FoxNews and CNN were repeatedly saying, "Whoa, check this shit out, I'm embedded with the troops and it's COOL?" Where was the cry for "fair and balanced" reporting then?

The unfortunate reality of Iraq is that the fuck-ups have been considerably bigger than the positives since Bush declared the war was over. It's not going well; everyone knows it, and only now the media is reporting it.

[Lizard_King]

I'll say it again, even shorter: everyone would benefit from a more nuanced approach to reporting Iraq, no matter whether it be a conceivably pro American news item or a negative one.
Are you really arguing that it's in the interest of the greater good to sugarcoat reality? How would everyone benefit from that? I can understand how it might improve morale of the troops not to see any negativity at all, but I'm thinking they have much greater worries than the American media. Should newspapers make sure that for every Abu Graib story they find an equally huge "Marines are helping babies" story?
No. I didn't say anything like that. Thank you, and drive through.
How about the coverage of the first few months of the war? That was almost uniformly positive; aren't the stories now providing the balance to the Polyanna "they're welcoming us with open arms" stories that dominated the news?
The excesses in one direction do not excuse the later excesses in another. Are you really suggesting that inaccurate reporting in the first place is something that can really be dealt with by more inaccurate reporting?

I'm also curious if you were you making this same argument when FoxNews and CNN were repeatedly saying, "Whoa, check this shit out, I'm embedded with the troops and it's COOL?" Where was the cry for "fair and balanced" reporting then?
Well, to be honest I was a little overwhelmed with the war, period, for it to be the primary focus of discussion back then. But you are dead wrong if you think I was anything but nauseated and surprised by the horribly wrong turn networks took their level of access to...it would have been one thing had it been the embedded reporters who were all moist about the war, but it was really the homebase flag waving that concerned me.

The unfortunate reality of Iraq is that the fuck-ups have been considerably bigger than the positives since Bush declared the war was over. It's not going well; everyone knows it, and only now the media is reporting it.
And you know this because you've been there. Or know plenty of people that have, right? This is precisely my argument, that it is an excessively negative, apocalyptic scenario that is conveyed by the media presence now.

[CindySue22]

I'm sorry, wait - "ignoring the good things your government has done" is "just as bad" as being deported to a camp or killed if you express dissent? Are you for fucking real, Cindy? Tell me that you just expressed yourself poorly, as usual.

Why don't you quit being so anal? I probably do express myself poorly, but it still shouldn't take a rocket scientist to understand the meaning of my post.

Is this a discussion board, or an online English class?

[steve]

The excesses in one direction do not excuse the later excesses in another. Are you really suggesting that inaccurate reporting in the first place is something that can really be dealt with by more inaccurate reporting?
Not at all, but if you're looking at the big picture, as in war coverage from day 1, the coverage is probably pretty balanced. It's just right now, today, it's very negative. We're in a quagmire, to use a term others who have been there have referred to it as.

it would have been one thing had it been the embedded reporters who were all moist about the war, but it was really the homebase flag waving that concerned me.
I hold the reporters to a much higher standard than flag-waving yahoos. Because of our past history of protest with Vietnam, people go batshit in the opposite direction to "support our troops."

It probably didn't help that in those early days of the war, the right-wing talking heads equated dissention to treason.

And you know this because you've been there. Or know plenty of people that have, right? This is precisely my argument, that it is an excessively negative, apocalyptic scenario that is conveyed by the media presence now.
Brilliant argument. And you know this "apocalyptic scenario" isn't true because you've been there, or know plenty of people that have, right?

Considering the quantity of media over there, from all stripes, with all biases, the fact that even the more conservative media outlets are having trouble finding positive things to spin makes me believe that yeah, things are pretty shitty right now.

But I could be wrong; it could be all sunshine and cupcakes in Iraq, and all media is lying. And boy, if that's true, I'll be pissed.

[Lizard_King]

Not at all, but if you're looking at the big picture, as in war coverage from day 1, the coverage is probably pretty balanced. It's just right now, today, it's very negative. We're in a quagmire, to use a term others who have been there have referred to it as.
Well, I guess that's the difference right there. I don't call that a balance at all, I call it a continuing trend of disingenuousness above and beyond the norm. But I guess so long as we can keep broadening timelines indefinately for "balance" to be achieved in the media, I guess the coverage now in Iraq is merely making up for Hearst's excesses in the Spanish American War. So it all evens out.

it would have been one thing had it been the embedded reporters who were all moist about the war, but it was really the homebase flag waving that concerned me.
I hold the reporters to a much higher standard than flag-waving yahoos. Because of our past history of protest with Vietnam, people go batshit in the opposite direction to "support our troops."
Of course, but I also expect them to have some sort of emotional attachment to the troops they are with, and the like, be it a natural outgrowth of their original notions as with most reporters or a sort of Stockholm Syndrome on the part of some of the more antiwar/military types. Which is exactly what happened. On the other hand, the people sitting in nice safe studios had no compunction about going on whatever ratings garnering tangents were required to keep up with the others, just as they are doing now.

It probably didn't help that in those early days of the war, the right-wing talking heads equated dissention to treason.
Yeah, like that's a novelty. I suppose Rush Limbaugh's standard for loyalty was instantly universalized by 9/11, then, right?


Brilliant argument. And you know this "apocalyptic scenario" isn't true because you've been there, or know plenty of people that have, right?
The latter, actually. A good third of my school of infantry class has just been deployed, and about one half of my current battalion is composed of recently returned combat veterans. So, yeah. It's not a perfect picture, but like I said earlier, it is one composed of extremes in both directions that the news media is ignoring. They may have valid reasons for beign unable to report it, but it makes the images they create no less inaccurate.

Considering the quantity of media over there, from all stripes, with all biases, the fact that even the more conservative media outlets are having trouble finding positive things to spin makes me believe that yeah, things are pretty shitty right now.
Right, and what I've been getting at all along is that receiving reports from Iraqi sources while sitting in Baghdad is not the same as actually being out there where the real action is. For whatever reasons, that is not happening, and thus the media imagery presented is a lot more lopsided than the situation on the ground would dictate.

But I could be wrong; it could be all sunshine and cupcakes in Iraq, and all media is lying. And boy, if that's true, I'll be pissed.I bet you will. Is it really that much fun to exaggerate the positions of those you disagree with into absurdity as the main thrust of your argument?

[Doug Erickson]

http://www.theonion.com/opinion/index.php?issue=4026

That about says it all.

[chet]

First, I think it is silly to think that every single US news source follows the washington post. Not even fox is filled with the good news from iraq, are we to believe that one single man controls all the media coming from Iraq?

And I have asked this at poe, I will ask it here, using the big old internet, using any of the thousands of world news sources available. Post some positive news from iraq that is not getting wide spread coverage.

Is the conspiracy world-wide? Chandrasekaran must be the most powerful man in the media, ever.

Chet

[Lizard_King]

First, I think it is silly to think that every single US news source follows the washington post. Not even fox is filled with the good news from iraq, are we to believe that one single man controls all the media coming from Iraq?

And I have asked this at poe, I will ask it here, using the big old internet, using any of the thousands of world news sources available. Post some positive news from iraq that is not getting wide spread coverage.

Is the conspiracy world-wide? Chandrasekaran must be the most powerful man in the media, ever.

Chet
Which, for the last time, has nothing to do with what I said. The Post was just one example.

In any case, it's not exciting, releasing children from Saddam's prison's type shit; it's just everyday small scale military and civil achievements. It's that while official estimates are clearly below the actual number of insurgents, it is a a far cry from that to the estimates that are being created by implication by the media, for instance...people forget that far less fucked up countries were held hostage by tiny groups of terrorists in the past.

[chet]

I was not talking about your posts, I didn't bother reading those, I was actually commenting on the article, sir giant ego.

But thanks for not being able to find any articles and instead back up my point.

Chet

[Case]

I'm sorry, wait - "ignoring the good things your government has done" is "just as bad" as being deported to a camp or killed if you express dissent? Are you for fucking real, Cindy? Tell me that you just expressed yourself poorly, as usual.

Why don't you quit being so anal? I probably do express myself poorly, but it still shouldn't take a rocket scientist to understand the meaning of my post.

Is this a discussion board, or an online English class?

To diverge slightly, CindySue, many of us are in fact, writers. So the way things are phrased are indeed important (to us, anyway).

The way words are put together are important. What might seem obvious to you may not be when someone doesn't know you.

[steve]

But I guess so long as we can keep broadening timelines indefinately for "balance" to be achieved in the media, I guess the coverage now in Iraq is merely making up for Hearst's excesses in the Spanish American War. So it all evens out.
"Is it really that much fun to exaggerate the positions of those you disagree with into absurdity as the main thrust of your argument?"

They may have valid reasons for beign unable to report it, but it makes the images they create no less inaccurate.
Your anecdotal evidence is better than my anecdotal evidence. You win!

But seriously, isn't it entirely possible that they're unable to report all of that good stuff happening in and outside of Baghdad because it's not particularly safe anywhere in the country? And if that's the case, that environment isn't exactly condusive to finding positive stories because, in fact, the real story is that the environment isn't safe. And until it is safe, there will be very few happy stories. It'd be like expecting news reporters to search crack houses for positive crack addict stories. (Er, or maybe not.)

[Lizard_King]

But seriously, isn't it entirely possible that they're unable to report all of that good stuff happening in and outside of Baghdad because it's not particularly safe anywhere in the country? And if that's the case, that environment isn't exactly condusive to finding positive stories because, in fact, the real story is that the environment isn't safe. And until it is safe, there will be very few happy stories. It'd be like expecting news reporters to search crack houses for positive crack addict stories. (Er, or maybe not.)
It is entirely possible. It may even be likely. But just as in Vietnam where the media imagery led to a wholly different perception from a much more ambiguous situation on the ground, I think the serious perception gap between people commenting on the situation back home and people who have actually been there means something.

[Lizard_King]

As for you, Chester, I apologize. It is surely I who have the ego problem and not you. At any rate, this is more of the news I am referring to:
300 (out of 2200) Abu Ghraib detainees released, implying that perhaps we just may give that whole "proof" thing a whirl, when added to the 2000+ released in recent months (www.apnews.myway.com/article/20040705/D83KQSIO0.html) An opening shot at rule of law...and I seriously doubt we'd be releasing potential militants in the throes of the massive media quagmire/deathtrap.
Jordan (whoopee) willing to send troops to Iraq (www.story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20040701/ap_on_re_mi_ea/britain_iraq_jordan), which with Yemen makes 2 bizarre local offers to help out.
Marine not (yet?) beheaded (www.story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=1&u=/ap/20040705/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_marine), and it looks from all the scrambling to deny it happened that someone at least is scared. I'm sure the whole desertion thing is just a cover, since he was a deserter in the first place.

And now for something completely different
France apparently developing big dick mentality in absence of actual member (www.eubusiness.com/afp/040705092601.9zu336m8)
But America is the cowboy, right?
Finally, those ghastly Canadian youths have accused America of being right up there with "kids who tear the legs off baby spiders." when it comes to raw evil, a sign we must be doing something right (www.torontofreepress.com/2004/weinreb063004.htm)

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

And now for something completely different
France apparently developing big dick mentality in absence of actual member (www.eubusiness.com/afp/040705092601.9zu336m8)

How's that any different from what certain other nuclear powers are saying?

[Brian Koontz]

And now for something completely different
France apparently developing big dick mentality in absence of actual member (www.eubusiness.com/afp/040705092601.9zu336m8)

It will be a sad sad day if no state can invade another without fear of nuclear reprisal. The only recourse in cases of extreme hate or desperation is mutual nuclear exchange. A state gains carte blanche to do whatever the hell it wants (as long as its OWN people agree, under threat of civil war) while sneering at the opinions of anyone else and threatening whoever stands against them with nuclear annihilation.

Nuclear weapons should not exist anywhere on the planet. The idea that they are noble because they deter "unjust aggression" is a fool's game. Who decides what is "unjust"? Oh yeah, the guys with the nukes.

Its a good thing those genocidal countries don't have nukes. Perhaps they would think that the UN coming in is "unjust aggression" and the missiles would fly.

A world embroiled in some kind of long-term standoff where no diplomacy can be backed up by force and no force can be undertaken for fear of nuclear reprisal is a decaying one. Solution: Get rid of all the fucking nukes.

Granted, what will happen before that is global machination whereby state governments vie for control of the men who have their fingers on the red buttons. They want to keep nukes themselves for the sake of power and want to control the other nuke-rich men for the sake of additional power.

[Jason McCullough]

But seriously, isn't it entirely possible that they're unable to report all of that good stuff happening in and outside of Baghdad because it's not particularly safe anywhere in the country? And if that's the case, that environment isn't exactly condusive to finding positive stories because, in fact, the real story is that the environment isn't safe. And until it is safe, there will be very few happy stories. It'd be like expecting news reporters to search crack houses for positive crack addict stories. (Er, or maybe not.)
It is entirely possible. It may even be likely. But just as in Vietnam where the media imagery led to a wholly different perception from a much more ambiguous situation on the ground, I think the serious perception gap between people commenting on the situation back home and people who have actually been there means something.

The lesson of Vietnam was that you can't lie to people about the situation for a decade and expect them to support you, regardless of whether the cause is just or not. Complaining that the media didn't get the military strength of the VC right after Tet is ridiculous; *the military had said previously they were already practically defeated, yet they proved capable enough to launch an enormous synchronized assault*.

LK: conservatives think the entire world is full of morally corrupt cowards, don't they? That explains the polls.....

[shift6]

Why don't you quit being so anal? I probably do express myself poorly, but it still shouldn't take a rocket scientist to understand the meaning of my post.

Is this a discussion board, or an online English class?
To diverge slightly, CindySue, many of us are in fact, writers. So the way things are phrased are indeed important (to us, anyway).

The way words are put together are important. What might seem obvious to you may not be when someone doesn't know you.
While I agree totally, I think the writers and the non-writers among us (in other words, everyone) could all relax a touch and cut each other a bit of slack language-wise in this forum. Many threads degenerate into pages of "you said X and I interpreted as Y, therefore Y is what you said!", "Shut up you unintelligible nerf herder!" when a simple "what did you mean" would have sufficed. In other words, if something isn't clear or seems obviously way out in left field, investigate it before putting on the Usenet Smoking Jacket +5 vs. Chaotic-Neutral posts.

Incidently, I'm directing this vaguely hopeful suggestion to everyone including myself, not you (Loyd) in particular, although I replied to your post. I continue to try and remember to tone my shit down a bit by working on it and I remember most of the time. :wink:

[Midnight Son]

Well, just don't ever use the word "censorship," cuz they're real sensitive about that....... :wink:

[Tim Partlett]

As for you, Chester, I apologize. It is surely I who have the ego problem and not you. At any rate, this is more of the news I am referring to:
300 (out of 2200) Abu Ghraib detainees released, implying that perhaps we just may give that whole "proof" thing a whirl, when added to the 2000+ released in recent months (www.apnews.myway.com/article/20040705/D83KQSIO0.html) An opening shot at rule of law...and I seriously doubt we'd be releasing potential militants in the throes of the massive media quagmire/deathtrap.
Jordan (whoopee) willing to send troops to Iraq (www.story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20040701/ap_on_re_mi_ea/britain_iraq_jordan), which with Yemen makes 2 bizarre local offers to help out.
Marine not (yet?) beheaded (www.story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=1&u=/ap/20040705/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_marine), and it looks from all the scrambling to deny it happened that someone at least is scared. I'm sure the whole desertion thing is just a cover, since he was a deserter in the first place.

The release of Abu Ghraib prisoners is not big news any more, being as over 2000 have been released over the past two months. The first releases got big news coverage, and in the UK we had film footage of them on the major news channels for a number of days. The Jordan agreement was again big news on the BBC, and in fact it was the BBC that broke the news, as King Abdullah said in an interview with them that he would give "110%" support, including troops, to the new Iraqi government if they asked him. And Wassef Ali Hassoun is getting huge coverage in all the news agencies. Google's news search even has a special category, just for news about him.

And now for something completely different
France apparently developing big dick mentality in absence of actual member (www.eubusiness.com/afp/040705092601.9zu336m8)

France's "Force de Frappe" is actually a seriously big "member", and generally considered the third most powerful in the world ahead of China. The French submarine launched nuclear missile fleet is particularly formidable, allowing it to destroy any country anywhere in the world, including the US. Unlike Britain, which stores its nuclear missiles in Georgia (US), the French nuclear arsenal is completely independent of any other nation, and guided by France's own satellite GPS network.

But America is the cowboy, right?
Finally, those ghastly Canadian youths have accused America of being right up there with "kids who tear the legs off baby spiders." when it comes to raw evil, a sign we must be doing something right (www.torontofreepress.com/2004/weinreb063004.htm)

What your article didn't point out was the survey found not that Canadian teenagers thought that all Americans are evil, but that they considered the US to be a force for evil in global terms. That's a significant difference. Teenagers tend to have a very black and white view of the world, especially global politics, with everything being either good or evil. I can't imagine many Canadian teenagers thinking Bush's policies are creating a force for good in the world, so their polarised viewpoint perhaps isn't so surprising, when put into proper context.

I had to search for that last one, but the news isn't that amazing. Hardy headline worthy to pronounce "Canadian teenagers find Bush's foreign policy to be evil!" :D

[Derek Meister]

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v291/dmeister/qt3/db040707.gif

[Lizard_King]

The lesson of Vietnam was that you can't lie to people about the situation for a decade and expect them to support you, regardless of whether the cause is just or not. Complaining that the media didn't get the military strength of the VC right after Tet is ridiculous; *the military had said previously they were already practically defeated, yet they proved capable enough to launch an enormous synchronized assault*.
Which was a massive, unequivocal defeat for the Vietcong in military terms, and by the way it was the political leadership at home, that is, LBJ and his kowtowing military bigwigs that said absurd things like "they are done for!" just prior to the offensive.

Anyhow, the practical lesson of Vietnam was the same lesson Machiavelli had offerred hundreds of years before: Do your worst as soon as possible, and then taper off the damage. Don't scale it upwards, and for chrissakes don't allow it to stagnate.

This, of course, is radically different from the political/pr lesson which is what I think you are driving at. That is one lesson Bush learned a little bit, by being fairly grim and "it's going to take a really long time" rather than promising home by Christmas. Not a huge improvement, to be sure, but nevertheless a step up from the usual American war rhetoric.

LK: conservatives think the entire world is full of morally corrupt cowards, don't they? That explains the polls.....
Some do, I'm sure. What's your point? The leftist alternatives for sneering superiority complexes are no more appealing.

[Jason McCullough]

LK, it wasn't just the politicans. Everyone halfway up or higher on the military food chain told the most outlandish lies about the situation in Vietnam. Example one: westmoreland.

My point was that Bush fed us a total line of horseshit on how easy it was going to be. He's been honest about how hard and long fighting terrorism is going to be, but it was all "they'll great us with rose petals and we'll be out in a year" from him and his surrogates on Iraq. Predictable, conservatives have insisted since then that everything's going just fine as some sort of Iraqi intifada breaks out. Would it take to have you guys acknowledge that the media is mostly reporting reality over there? A nuclear detonation?

Wishful thinking and your own private fantasies about media bias aren't going to establish a stable democracy in Iraq; they'll just get ever-more soldiers killed.

Agreeing on the Machiavelli, although I don't think the war would have been winnable then either. We couldn't find a leader anyone liked more than the VC, and without that we wouldn't have won short of genocide.

Some do, I'm sure. What's your point? The leftist alternatives for sneering superiority complexes are no more appealing.

My point was that if the population of literally the entire world except the US and Israel thinks it was wrong to invade Iraq, that's a big red flag. I honestly don't know how conservatives explain it away.