The problem is that the vast silent majority of these Moslems are not part of the terror and of the incitement, but they also do not stand up against it.
They become accomplices, by omission, and this applies to political leaders, intellectuals, business people and many others. Many of them can certainly tell right from wrong, but are afraid to express their views.
Sounds like the same could be applied abortion. See, like this:
The problem is that the vast silent majority of Americans are not part of the butchery but they also do not stand up against it.
They become accomplices, by omission, and this applies to political leaders, intellectuals, business people and many others. Many of them can certainly tell right from wrong, but are afraid to express their views.
Can't be, We knew he didn't have them. Bush lied knowing we wouldn't find any so that when we didn't find any we would find out that he was lying, that was his intention all along, it was a ruse to get us to uncover his lie. We went there for oil and the really kick ass date cookies they have there. I mean it's not like we found sarinthat he wasn't supposed to have. Saddam said he didn't have any, that's why he kicked all the inspectors out and broke every tenent of every agreement he ever made. If people can't take his word over the evil Bush who can you trust? I mean Bush is like Hitler.
Meanwhile, Iraq is 6 months from having elections for the first time in 40 years and they have thier own govenrment in the meantime. Friggen imperialist oil grabbers that we are.
I never said everything was going swimmingly, it's not. What's often overlooked is the amazing progress that's been made in a little over a year. Beleive it or not their is progress and positive things happening of course that would actually take the meida doing it's job correctly, oh never mind. I forgot, there's no bias.
Iraq veterans often say they are confused by American news coverage, because their experience differs so greatly from what journalists report. Soldiers and Marines point to the slow, steady progress in almost all areas of Iraqi life and wonder why they don’t get much notice – or in many cases, any notice at all.
Part of the explanation is Rajiv Chandrasekaran, the Baghdad bureau chief for the Washington Post. He spent most of his career on the metro and technology beats, and has only four years of foreign reporting, two of which are in Iraq. The 31-year-old now runs a news operation that can literally change the world, heading a bureau that is the source for much of the news out of Iraq.
Very few newspapers have full-time international reporters at all these days, relying on stringers of varying quality, as well as wire services such as Reuters and Agence France-Presse, also of varying quality. The Post's reporting is delivered intravenously into the bloodstream of Official Washington, and thus a front-page article out of Iraq can have major repercussions in policy-making.
This effect is magnified because of the Post's influence on what other news organizations report. While its national clout lags behind the New York Times, many reporters look to the Post for cues on how to approach a story. The Post interprets events, and the herd of independent minds bleat their approval and start tapping on their keyboards with their hooves.
Chandrasekaran's crew generates a relentlessly negative stream of articles from Iraq – and if there are no events to report, they resort to man-on-the-street interviews and cobble together a story from that. Last week, there was a front-page, above-the-fold article about Iraqis jeering U.S. troops, which amounted to a pastiche of quotations from hostile Iraqis. It was hardly unique. Given the expense of maintaining an Iraq bureau with a dozen staffers, they have to write something to justify themselves, even if the product is shoddy.
This week, Chandrasekaran has a Pulitzer-bait series called "Promises Unkept: The U.S. Occupation of Iraq." The grizzled foreign-desk veteran -- who until 2000 was covering dot-com companies -- now sits in judgment over a world-shaking issue, in a court whose rulings echo throughout the media landscape. He finds the Bush Administration guilty. Such a surprise.
Before major combat operations were over, Chandrasekaran was already quoting Iraqis proclaiming the American operation a failure. Reading his dispatches from April 2003, you can already see his meta-narrative take shape: basically, that the Americans are clumsy fools who don’t know what they’re doing, and Iraqis hate them. This meta-narrative informs his coverage and the coverage of the reporters he supervises, who rotate in and out of Iraq.
How do I know this? Because my fellow Marines and I witnessed it with our own eyes. Chandrasekaran showed up in the city of Al Kut last April, talked to a few of our officers, and toured the city for a few hours. He then got back into his air-conditioned car and drove back to Baghdad to write about the local unrest.
"The Untouchable 'Mayor' of Kut," his article's headline blared the next day. It described a local, Iranian-backed troublemaker named Abbas Fadhil, who was squatting in the provincial government headquarters. He had gathered a mob of people with nothing better to do, told them to camp out in the headquarters compound, and there they sat, defying the Marines of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade.
Chandrasekaran was very impressed with the little usurper: "'We thank the Americans for getting rid of Saddam's regime, but now Iraq must be run by Iraqis,' Fadhil thundered during a meeting today with his supporters in the building's spacious conference room. 'We cannot allow the Americans to rule us from this office'....Fadhil has set up shop in an official building and appears to have rallied support across this city of 300,000 people.
"The refusal of Marine commanders to recognize Fadhil's new title has fueled particularly intense anti-American sentiments here," Chandrasekeran continued. "In scenes not seen in other Iraqi cities, U.S. convoys have been loudly jeered. Waving Marines have been greeted with angry glares and thumbs-down signs."
Readers must have concluded that Kut was on the verge of exploding. The entire city was ready to throw out the despised American infidel invaders and install their new "mayor" as their beloved leader.
What utter rubbish. In our headquarters, we had a small red splotch on a large map of Kut, representing the neighborhood that supported Abbas Fadhil. When asked about him, most citizens of Kut rolled their eyes. His followers were mainly poor, semi-literate, and not particularly well-liked. They were marginal in every sense of the word, and they mattered very little in the day-to-day life of a city that was struggling to get back on its feet.
We knew the local sentiment intimately, because as civil affairs Marines, our job was to help restore the province's water, electricity, medical care, and other essentials of life. Our detachment had teams constantly coming and going throughout the city, and Chandrasekeran could have easily accompanied at least one of them.
Since he didn't, he couldn’t see how the Iraqis outside of the red splotch reacted to us. People of every age waved and smiled as we rumbled past (except male youths, who, like their American counterparts, were too cool for that kind of thing.) Our major security problem was keeping friendly crowds of people away from us so we could spot bad guys.
None of those encouraging things made it into the article. Nor did anything about how we had been helping to fix the city’s problems as soon as we arrived. Just a quick-and-dirty sensationalistic piece about a local Islamist thug bravely going toe-to-toe with the legendary United States Marines. The general reaction to Chandrasekeran’s article was either laughter or dumb bewilderment.
Soon afterwards, a Marine commander met privately with Fadhil and told him he would be forcefully removed if he did not leave the government building. Fadhil, chastened, asked if he could slither into exile without the appearance of coercion, so he could save face. The commander agreed. Suddenly faced with a real confrontation, the "mayor" had backed down, and he left without any riots or bloodshed. The Americans took over the office that Fadhil said we should never occupy. The Post didn't cover any of that, either.
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."
"Beleive it or not their is progress and positive things happening of course that would actually take the meida doing it's job correctly,"
All right. Here's an objective view. The United States and a coalition of nations has, with swiftness and full firepower, taken over a sovereign nation and ousted its leaders, including a brutal dicatator. There is destruction, death and sorrow all around. The Iraqi people have undergone two years of it and there's uncertainty for years ahead. The people of Iraq are mourning their dead. I bet just about eveyone knows someone who died.
What was incorrect about reporting that? Seems to me, that's the facts.
So, now there is an installed government, which may or may not be recognized by the neighboring countries. People from those neighboring countries turn against them in daily attacks. But there's hope it will happen for the good. Here and there, a regular life for the people there is returning. There is hope, but right now, normalcy is about the best you can expect, particularly in the capital. The military carries out its job professionally, as it should.
Where am I, or this news media conspiracy you constantly talk about wrong?
I would say that is a very objective view. (With the exception that the Iraqi's have endured alot more than 2 years of death and destruction.)  Unfortunatley there's not enough of that type of reporting, that's the problem.
The people of Iraq are mourning their dead. I bet just about eveyone knows someone who died.
Are you talking about under Saddam's rule or during/after the war? No one likes to lose someone that they care for, but an accidental loss to get rid of scum who would torture and then kill a loved one, while still a grievous loss, is somewhat more acceptable and understandable. In fact, 15 Iraqi and Iraqi-American groups have issued an open letter to the American people, thanking them for the sacrifices they endured to liberate their country. (see my next post)
Fact is that in less than a year and a half, the United States has invaded Iraq, we have imprisoned Saddam Hussein, killed his murderous sons and restored essential services. Nothing short of amazing. Yes, unfortunately we lost just under a thousand of our heroes there, but that is far less than the 10,000 casualties that some were predicting on just the first day.Â
If we had done this for the oil, we would not have turned over the government of the country like we just did. There is much to plunder there and I believe that we have every right to take some as a form of repayment. Thankfully however, that is not the type of country we are and that was obviously not why we were there to begin with.
The following is the text of a full page ad placed in USA Today.
A letter to the American people
This week in Iraq we are witnessing the birth of a democracy where none has existed before – one that will ensure human dignity for all Iraqis.
While the path to freedom remains difficult, the dream of a stable Iraq, where the law is made by the people and for the people, is within sight. In the past year, Iraqis – for the first time – elected mayors and local council members. Our people are learning the rights of citizens. As one Iraqi woman said, “we might not have democracy in our hands, but we have it in our hearts.”
In Iraq, there is hope again. Hundreds of thousands of refugees have returned home. The economy is growing and businesses are flourishing. Iraqis now have access to the Internet and satellite news, both prohibited under the former regime, and free speech is practiced daily on the pages of more than 150 independent newspapers. Iraqi children now learn from textbooks free of Ba’athist propaganda.
This is also a time to remember the sacrifice of so many. Just as we mourn for the victims of Saddam’s regime, we also grieve for the Americans and Iraqis who were killed or injured during the liberation or by terrorists determined to hold us back. We will honor those who have sacrificed for our freedom by building a new Iraq that lives in peace with the nations of the world, without fear of war, torture chambers or terrorism.
When freedom is born where it has never existed, the desire of all people to live in peace and dignity will only grow. With America’s support, we know that some day soon Iraqi children will dare to dream the same dreams as American children.
As Iraqis assume full sovereignty over our nation, we extend our hands in friendship and gratitude to the American people.
The sacrifices your sons and daughters made for our liberation will never be forgotten. Without those brave young men and women, this day might never have come.
Saddam was finally seen again, months after he was pulled from his hole. He was to enter the first part of his trial today. Here we have one of the most brutal dictators in the last 50 years on trial. Captured after 12 years of defiance and after bloodshed of our troops. So what does NBC run with ?
Katie Couric playing badminton naturally. Now had this been Jacko, Laci or Kobe, we would have gone live. But this. Nah, run with Couric playing badminton.
 NBC Embarrassed by Saddam Court Appearance
Thu Jul 1, 5:27 PM ET
By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer
NEW YORK - NBC's "Today" show was embarrassed Thursday when it aired Katie Couric batting a badminton shuttlecock while its rivals showed the first footage of Saddam Hussein (news- web sites)'s court appearance.
They should be embarrassed.
How many stories have we seen about what life was really like under Saddam ? How many pictures and stories of the people and the mass graves ?
Nah, better to stick with Kobe, Laci and Jacko , had it been one of their lawyers sneezing they would have gone live.
We now go live for a breaking story. Katie Couric has just scored a point on Al Roker, he's down 2 nil. Matt what can you tell us ?
"There is much to plunder there and I believe that we have every right to take some as a form of repayment. Thankfully however, that is not the type of country we are and that was obviously not why we were there to begin with."
This is a confusing statement. What right are you talking about and how did the United States earn it?
Well, since everything is going swimmingly in Iraq, now, I can do my part to vote out Bush in good conscience. His job's done.
Well it is good to know that as long as there is a war on terrror Rick will vote for Kerry but have a bad conscience after. There may be hope for him yet.
you're going to piss of the liberals by posting letters like that.
Makes it that much more fun, doesn't it?
This is a confusing statement.
Sorry Rick, I tried to make my point the best I could. We saved them from a brutal dictator. They obviously owe us something for that. We conquered their nation and the "spoils go to the victor".  However, we are a good enough nation to tell them to invest it in their country instead and build a good democracy so that this hopefully won't happen again.
To me, the best repayment would be to see a stable country with a properly elected government there.
Inquiry will back intelligence that Iraq sought uranium
By Mark Huband in London Published: July 7 2004 22:38 | Last Updated: July 8 2004 0:49
A UK government inquiry into the intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq is expected to conclude that Britain's spies were correct to say that Saddam Hussein's regime sought to buy uranium from Niger.
 The inquiry by Lord Butler, which was delivered to the printers on Wednesday and is expected to be released on July 14, has examined the intelligence that underpinned the UK government's claims about the threat from Iraq...
Bbbbut No, it can't be. Afghanistan was for oil, Iraq too, we're imperialistic, remember. It's a roose cooked up by Cheney to get money for a company he used to work for. Next thing you'll tell me is that Polish troops found 18 or so warheads with chemicals in them. C'mon Dan. Â
"We saved them from a brutal dictator. They obviously owe us something for that. "
It's not obvious to me. The cities are in rubble. Thousands are dead. Insurgents have turned some spots in constant areas of tension. So what do they owe the United States?
Ah yes, the "Saddam in power was better" attitude of liberals. I am not surprised. I don't know if you beleive it or not but it is this kind of thing that will lead to our ultimate demise.
The question is for you and all liberals.  Were Iraqis better off with Saddam in power? Yes? No? And Rick's answer is.................................
You know my answer. The Iraqis are better off now than when Saddam was in power. They should have hope that they can control their own lives. Now there may be some that do not value control of their own lives. Those that do not should get some psychiatric help.
You should have known my answer. But then I laid it out for you. And you still don't know my answer? But I see you won't answer the question becuase then you have to admit that the democraps have lost the issue.
I don't think an exact number can be put on it. I'll settle for a staunch ally in the Middle East other than Israel that can help to set an example for these other despotic regimes spread throughout the ME. Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran come to mind. As luck would have it, Iraq is right in the middle of those.
The Iraqis are better off now than when Saddam was in power. They should have hope that they can control their own lives. Now there may be some that do not value control of their own lives. Those that do not should get some psychiatric help.
They owe the United States for the opportunity to rule themselves. Without the US they wouldn't have it. I know that isn't important to liberals but it is those that believe in self government and true freedom.
Like I said, we got rid of the murderous dictator and his family for them. They no longer live in fear of him gassing them like he has in the past, they no longer fear his boys and their real torture chambers, for the first time they can have honest elections, for the first time they can taste freedom, etc. There is no way for them to repay such a debt to us. Like Luv says, I'll take a stable democracy there.
"There is no way for them to repay such a debt to us."
So one day we'll seeing American tourists sauntering around a bar in Baghdad, the same way they do in France and England taunting the locals about how much they owe us.
Didn't answer. That's OK, jethro. Ididn't answer? By what stretch of your imagination did I not answer the question? Is it the dishonest liberal I see coming out?
You and Crabs are two peas in a pod. Afraid to give a straight answer. How did I not answer the question?Â
And from the day we ransacked and invaded their country. WE OWE THEM.
We ransacked their country? No we invaded Saddam's country. We took from him and we gave it to the people who should have had it but didn't. I was right I did see the dishonest liberal coming out.
So one day we'll seeing American tourists sauntering around a bar in Baghdad, the same way they do in France and England taunting the locals about how much they owe us.
France does owe us. France owes us for saving its ass in two world wars in the last century and for not allowing the Soviet Union to overrun their worthless country. Now they don't have to repay us anything but the least they do can hide their contempt for us.
>And from the day we ransacked and invaded their country. WE OWE THEM.
Many of the Iraqi's don't see it that way either. Troops don't get invited to dinner in local families homes if they felt that way. They resent not being able to do it themselves and perhaps have had their pride bruised but they still know that the only way they were getting rid of him was with our help. Unfortunately, there are some Iraqi's who want everything done for them, but it looks like some are finally stepping up.
Sorry Rick. No way. The country was in 10 times worse shape then when we got there. Besides a brutal dictator who still operated their torture chambers and was imprisoning people and shredding them. The hospitals, schools, roads, infastructure was a shamble. Saying we ransacked it is an insult IMO. We did everything in our power to avoid civilian casualties and damaging infastructure not to mention avoiding Mosques which were used as supply depot's and R&R for the jihadis. The Marines, Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen did that at a greater risk to themselves and I take exception to the term ransacked. Â
Do the we owe the Jews for attacking their countries and freeing them from the Nazi's ? Do we owe the Phillipino's who lived under brutal Japanese dictatorship? Do we owe China for getting rid of the Japanese troops brutalizing cities like Nanking? How about the people in eastern bloc counties and the hundreds of thousands killed or brutalized under communism? We helped end communism and emboldened other nations to rise up and defeat a horrid ideology. In all those cases those people were freed. It wasn't the reason we were there granted, Our goal was to defeat the enemy but they were nonetheless liberated. It sure as hell doesn't mean we owe them.
I'm not saying they need to write a check or bow at us. I'd settle for an ally of a democratic Muslim nation that sits in the middle of Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.
If we didn't we shoudn't have been there. And from the day we ransacked and invaded their country. WE OWE THEM.
How did we ransack their country? Give us some proof of what you speak of.Â
In case you haven't noticed, Iraq is in better shape already than before the war. I would bet that it is in better shape than Kosovo is after how many years now. This war has gone better than any other I can think of. Minimal number of civilian casualties, one of the fastest advances in history, etc.
What would you have prefered Rick? That we just blow it all off? Not get rid of Sadam and his pig latin sons Usay and Qusay? Just sit back and hope that they do not dig up those jets that were found buried in the sand or use all that uranium which was recently reported to have been removed, to finish making a bomb or worse giving it to the terrorist? We are now finding out that they were in fact trying to get uranium from Africa as was claimed, but we should have just turned our heads and looked the other way? How about the oil-for-food scam? Should we have just ignored that so that Sadam could go on throwing his countries people into wood chippers?Â
This and more happened under the "containment" scenario that played out for what, a decade? We are now finding out from official Baathist documents that there was officials meeting with Al Queda members and were even present when the planning of 9/11 took place. Kind of blows a hole in another Democrat lie.
All this took place under the watchful eye of the Clinton/Gore administration, but yet we are repeatedly told that Bush is to blame and this war was about oil. It is sickening at best. Some are still trying to push the "Bush lied" crap on us even as there is a report from an investigation in England that states that Iraq did indeed try to aquire uranium from Africa.
Many Democratic leaders were telling us the same things only to change their stories once President Bush said them.  Lies, inuendo and short term memory loss seems to be the norm for the Democrats these days what with the election coming up and all.
No matter what is done, the Democrats say that the other thing should have been done. When the opposite is done, they cry about that. Now we are hearing inuendo about the timing of the terror warnings, but we should have heard warnings concerning 9/11. They are making it a no win situation all for the sake of getting their party into the picture again.
It is disgusting and I hope that they lose what little power they have left.
- Terrorist groups need to look elsewhere to find a ruler sympathetic to their cause. In addition, we know Saddam had chemical and biological weapons in the past; he used them against his enemies and his own people. However, now that he has been removed from power we’ve eliminated his ability to manufacture chemical, biological, and perhaps even more dangerous WMDs. Moreover, we've also eliminated the possibility of his passing along WMDs and the knowledge to manufacture them to terrorists groups.
- 25 million people have been liberated from Saddam Hussein’s murderous regime. And the thousands of innocent Iraqis who would have been tortured or killed this year by Saddam’s henchmen, won’t be.
- Iraqi children now have a chance to be educated without a barrage of Saddam propaganda. Coalition forces have renovated 2,500 schools and another 800 are scheduled to open soon. Moreover, almost 9 million textbooks have been printed and distributed along with 2 million student packets that contain pens, pencils, notebooks, and other essential materials.
- Communication restrictions have been lifted leaving Iraqis free to communicate without government monitoring or control. As a result, more than 340,000 Iraqis now have cell phones and more than 1/3 of the population owns a satellite dish, allowing them the ability to hear news without Saddam’s filter and control. Internet access is also widely available and is no longer monitored by the government.
- Freedoms we Americans take for granted – such as the right to free speech, the right to demonstrate without the fear of retribution, and the right to vote – have been granted to all Iraqis. Freedom of the press is also thriving. With Saddam gone, 120 papers are now being published nationwide and are free to print what they choose (including complaints and criticism about their government and American involvement). But perhaps the most striking freedom being enjoyed by Iraqis is the idea that the country is governed by the rule of law rather than the opinion of one man. This means for the first time defendants are innocent until proven guilty and are being afforded such rights as the right to remain silent, the right to a speedy, fair, and open trial, and the right to a defense lawyer.
- Basics like clean water and electricity have been made more accessible to all Iraqis. Fifteen million more people have access to clean water than had access under Saddam. And when Saddam was in power Iraqi homes only had electricity for about 7 hours a day, most of which was concentrated in Baghdad. That level has increased to 16 hours a day and now includes the entire country.
- Oil production has risen to over two million barrels per day, which exceeds pre-war levels by 500,000 barrels. This production translates this year alone into $6 billion in revenue.
- The Iraqi Governing Council has chosen an interim president and prime minister and nationwide elections are due to take place in January. All national ministries are now under Iraqi control, meaning Iraqis are the ones making decisions regarding policies, strategies, and budget. But perhaps most importantly, ninety-percent of Iraq’s municipalities are being governed by local councils. Which means for the first time in generations, Iraqis are truly electing their leaders. The importance of these local elections to achieving the final goal of self-rule cannot be overstated. As Victor Davis Hanson reminds us, “each time local elections are held, moderate Iraqis, not Islamic radicals, have won.”
- 240 hospitals and 1,200 health clinics have been renovated making heath care available to all Iraqis, not just the chosen Ba’ath party few. In addition, three million children have been vaccinated and modern medicines, such as cancer drugs, are available for the first time. Spending on health care has also increased. Under Saddam only $16 million a year was spent on health care; the vast majority of which went to Saddam loyalists. That budget has now increased to almost $1 billion and is spread equally amongst all Iraqis.
- Iraqi’s economy has also been strengthened. Under Saddam the currency printing press was fired up whenever he needed cash, resulting in high inflation and depressed living standards. The Iraqi people also used two different currencies – one in the north and one in the south. Since Saddam’s removal, both currencies have been replaced by one central currency that has grown stronger since its introduction.
- The theft from the UN’s Oil for Food program has ended. An investigation revealed that Saddam stole over $11 billion dollars from this program and used it to build almost 50 palaces, all the while criticizing the world, or more specifically the United States, for allowing his people to starve.
All that is not enough for the Ricks of the world, Dan.
Jethro, you certainly DID answer Rick's questions straight up. They just weren't to his liking. He never did answer yours. Funny how libs work that way.
The problem is that the vast silent majority of these Moslems are not part of the terror and of the incitement, but they also do not stand up against it.
They become accomplices, by omission, and this applies to political leaders, intellectuals, business people and many others. Many of them can certainly tell right from wrong, but are afraid to express their views.
Sounds like the same could be applied abortion. See, like this:
The problem is that the vast silent majority of Americans are not part of the butchery but they also do not stand up against it.
They become accomplices, by omission, and this applies to political leaders, intellectuals, business people and many others. Many of them can certainly tell right from wrong, but are afraid to express their views.
Take it to the appropriate board.
I could tell you where I would like to "take it," but I won't.
More WMD's for you http://www.dod.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040630-secdef0949.html
East Side Digger 7/1/04 10:44am
Can't be, We knew he didn't have them. Bush lied knowing we wouldn't find any so that when we didn't find any we would find out that he was lying, that was his intention all along, it was a ruse to get us to uncover his lie. We went there for oil and the really kick ass date cookies they have there. I mean it's not like we found
sarinthat he wasn't supposed to have. Saddam said he didn't have any, that's why he kicked all the inspectors out and broke every tenent of every agreement he ever made. If people can't take his word over the evil Bush who can you trust? I mean Bush is like Hitler.Â
Meanwhile, Iraq is 6 months from having elections for the first time in 40 years and they have thier own govenrment in the meantime. Friggen imperialist oil grabbers that we are.
Well, since everything is going swimmingly in Iraq, now, I can do my part to vote out Bush in good conscience. His job's done.
I never said everything was going swimmingly, it's not. What's often overlooked is the amazing progress that's been made in a little over a year. Beleive it or not their is progress and positive things happening of course that would actually take the meida doing it's job correctly, oh never mind. I forgot, there's no bias.
The Untouchable Chief of Baghdad
By Eric M. Johnson
06/29/2004
printer-friendly version
Iraq veterans often say they are confused by American news coverage, because their experience differs so greatly from what journalists report. Soldiers and Marines point to the slow, steady progress in almost all areas of Iraqi life and wonder why they don’t get much notice – or in many cases, any notice at all.
Part of the explanation is Rajiv Chandrasekaran, the Baghdad bureau chief for the Washington Post. He spent most of his career on the metro and technology beats, and has only four years of foreign reporting, two of which are in Iraq. The 31-year-old now runs a news operation that can literally change the world, heading a bureau that is the source for much of the news out of Iraq.
Very few newspapers have full-time international reporters at all these days, relying on stringers of varying quality, as well as wire services such as Reuters and Agence France-Presse, also of varying quality. The Post's reporting is delivered intravenously into the bloodstream of Official Washington, and thus a front-page article out of Iraq can have major repercussions in policy-making.
This effect is magnified because of the Post's influence on what other news organizations report. While its national clout lags behind the New York Times, many reporters look to the Post for cues on how to approach a story. The Post interprets events, and the herd of independent minds bleat their approval and start tapping on their keyboards with their hooves.
Chandrasekaran's crew generates a relentlessly negative stream of articles from Iraq – and if there are no events to report, they resort to man-on-the-street interviews and cobble together a story from that. Last week, there was a front-page, above-the-fold article about Iraqis jeering U.S. troops, which amounted to a pastiche of quotations from hostile Iraqis. It was hardly unique. Given the expense of maintaining an Iraq bureau with a dozen staffers, they have to write something to justify themselves, even if the product is shoddy.
This week, Chandrasekaran has a Pulitzer-bait series called "Promises Unkept: The U.S. Occupation of Iraq." The grizzled foreign-desk veteran -- who until 2000 was covering dot-com companies -- now sits in judgment over a world-shaking issue, in a court whose rulings echo throughout the media landscape. He finds the Bush Administration guilty. Such a surprise.
Before major combat operations were over, Chandrasekaran was already quoting Iraqis proclaiming the American operation a failure. Reading his dispatches from April 2003, you can already see his meta-narrative take shape: basically, that the Americans are clumsy fools who don’t know what they’re doing, and Iraqis hate them. This meta-narrative informs his coverage and the coverage of the reporters he supervises, who rotate in and out of Iraq.
How do I know this? Because my fellow Marines and I witnessed it with our own eyes. Chandrasekaran showed up in the city of Al Kut last April, talked to a few of our officers, and toured the city for a few hours. He then got back into his air-conditioned car and drove back to Baghdad to write about the local unrest.
"The Untouchable 'Mayor' of Kut," his article's headline blared the next day. It described a local, Iranian-backed troublemaker named Abbas Fadhil, who was squatting in the provincial government headquarters. He had gathered a mob of people with nothing better to do, told them to camp out in the headquarters compound, and there they sat, defying the Marines of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade.
Chandrasekaran was very impressed with the little usurper: "'We thank the Americans for getting rid of Saddam's regime, but now Iraq must be run by Iraqis,' Fadhil thundered during a meeting today with his supporters in the building's spacious conference room. 'We cannot allow the Americans to rule us from this office'....Fadhil has set up shop in an official building and appears to have rallied support across this city of 300,000 people.
"The refusal of Marine commanders to recognize Fadhil's new title has fueled particularly intense anti-American sentiments here," Chandrasekeran continued. "In scenes not seen in other Iraqi cities, U.S. convoys have been loudly jeered. Waving Marines have been greeted with angry glares and thumbs-down signs."
Readers must have concluded that Kut was on the verge of exploding. The entire city was ready to throw out the despised American infidel invaders and install their new "mayor" as their beloved leader.
What utter rubbish. In our headquarters, we had a small red splotch on a large map of Kut, representing the neighborhood that supported Abbas Fadhil. When asked about him, most citizens of Kut rolled their eyes. His followers were mainly poor, semi-literate, and not particularly well-liked. They were marginal in every sense of the word, and they mattered very little in the day-to-day life of a city that was struggling to get back on its feet.
We knew the local sentiment intimately, because as civil affairs Marines, our job was to help restore the province's water, electricity, medical care, and other essentials of life. Our detachment had teams constantly coming and going throughout the city, and Chandrasekeran could have easily accompanied at least one of them.
Since he didn't, he couldn’t see how the Iraqis outside of the red splotch reacted to us. People of every age waved and smiled as we rumbled past (except male youths, who, like their American counterparts, were too cool for that kind of thing.) Our major security problem was keeping friendly crowds of people away from us so we could spot bad guys.
None of those encouraging things made it into the article. Nor did anything about how we had been helping to fix the city’s problems as soon as we arrived. Just a quick-and-dirty sensationalistic piece about a local Islamist thug bravely going toe-to-toe with the legendary United States Marines. The general reaction to Chandrasekeran’s article was either laughter or dumb bewilderment.
Soon afterwards, a Marine commander met privately with Fadhil and told him he would be forcefully removed if he did not leave the government building. Fadhil, chastened, asked if he could slither into exile without the appearance of coercion, so he could save face. The commander agreed. Suddenly faced with a real confrontation, the "mayor" had backed down, and he left without any riots or bloodshed. The Americans took over the office that Fadhil said we should never occupy. The Post didn't cover any of that, either.
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."
Rest of article.
http://www.commentarypage.com/johnson/johnson062904.phpÂ
Â
"Beleive it or not their is progress and positive things happening of course that would actually take the meida doing it's job correctly,"
All right. Here's an objective view. The United States and a coalition of nations has, with swiftness and full firepower, taken over a sovereign nation and ousted its leaders, including a brutal dicatator. There is destruction, death and sorrow all around. The Iraqi people have undergone two years of it and there's uncertainty for years ahead. The people of Iraq are mourning their dead. I bet just about eveyone knows someone who died.
What was incorrect about reporting that? Seems to me, that's the facts.
So, now there is an installed government, which may or may not be recognized by the neighboring countries. People from those neighboring countries turn against them in daily attacks. But there's hope it will happen for the good. Here and there, a regular life for the people there is returning. There is hope, but right now, normalcy is about the best you can expect, particularly in the capital. The military carries out its job professionally, as it should.
Where am I, or this news media conspiracy you constantly talk about wrong?
I would say that is a very objective view. (With the exception that the Iraqi's have endured alot more than 2 years of death and destruction.)  Unfortunatley there's not enough of that type of reporting, that's the problem.
The people of Iraq are mourning their dead. I bet just about eveyone knows someone who died.
Are you talking about under Saddam's rule or during/after the war? No one likes to lose someone that they care for, but an accidental loss to get rid of scum who would torture and then kill a loved one, while still a grievous loss, is somewhat more acceptable and understandable. In fact, 15 Iraqi and Iraqi-American groups have issued an open letter to the American people, thanking them for the sacrifices they endured to liberate their country. (see my next post)
Fact is that in less than a year and a half, the United States has invaded Iraq, we have imprisoned Saddam Hussein, killed his murderous sons and restored essential services. Nothing short of amazing. Yes, unfortunately we lost just under a thousand of our heroes there, but that is far less than the 10,000 casualties that some were predicting on just the first day.Â
If we had done this for the oil, we would not have turned over the government of the country like we just did. There is much to plunder there and I believe that we have every right to take some as a form of repayment. Thankfully however, that is not the type of country we are and that was obviously not why we were there to begin with.
The following is the text of a full page ad placed in USA Today.
A letter to the American people
This week in Iraq we are witnessing the birth of a democracy where none has existed before – one that will ensure human dignity for all Iraqis.
While the path to freedom remains difficult, the dream of a stable Iraq, where the law is made by the people and for the people, is within sight. In the past year, Iraqis – for the first time – elected mayors and local council members. Our people are learning the rights of citizens. As one Iraqi woman said, “we might not have democracy in our hands, but we have it in our hearts.”
In Iraq, there is hope again. Hundreds of thousands of refugees have returned home. The economy is growing and businesses are flourishing. Iraqis now have access to the Internet and satellite news, both prohibited under the former regime, and free speech is practiced daily on the pages of more than 150 independent newspapers. Iraqi children now learn from textbooks free of Ba’athist propaganda.
This is also a time to remember the sacrifice of so many. Just as we mourn for the victims of Saddam’s regime, we also grieve for the Americans and Iraqis who were killed or injured during the liberation or by terrorists determined to hold us back. We will honor those who have sacrificed for our freedom by building a new Iraq that lives in peace with the nations of the world, without fear of war, torture chambers or terrorism.
When freedom is born where it has never existed, the desire of all people to live in peace and dignity will only grow. With America’s support, we know that some day soon Iraqi children will dare to dream the same dreams as American children.
As Iraqis assume full sovereignty over our nation, we extend our hands in friendship and gratitude to the American people.
The sacrifices your sons and daughters made for our liberation will never be forgotten. Without those brave young men and women, this day might never have come.
A.L.I.V.E.
Advisory Committee for Iraqi
Women's Affairs
American Islamic Congress
Assyrian American National
Federation, Inc.
Chaldean Federation of America
Iraqi Democratic Union of America
Iraq Foundation
Iraqi Forum for Democracy
Iraqi Independent Women's Union
Iraqi Physicians Society
Kurdistan Cultural Institute
Kurdistan Women's Union (Znan)
Kurdish American Friendship Society
Women's Alliance for a Democratic Iraq
Unified Women's League
BTW.
Saddam was finally seen again, months after he was pulled from his hole. He was to enter the first part of his trial today. Here we have one of the most brutal dictators in the last 50 years on trial. Captured after 12 years of defiance and after bloodshed of our troops. So what does NBC run with ?
Katie Couric playing badminton naturally. Now had this been Jacko, Laci or Kobe, we would have gone live. But this. Nah, run with Couric playing badminton.
Â
NBC Embarrassed by Saddam Court Appearance
Thu Jul 1, 5:27 PM ET
By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer
NEW YORK - NBC's "Today" show was embarrassed Thursday when it aired Katie Couric batting a badminton shuttlecock while its rivals showed the first footage of Saddam Hussein (news- web sites)'s court appearance.
They should be embarrassed.
How many stories have we seen about what life was really like under Saddam ? How many pictures and stories of the people and the mass graves ?
Nah, better to stick with Kobe, Laci and Jacko , had it been one of their lawyers sneezing they would have gone live.
We now go live for a breaking story. Katie Couric has just scored a point on Al Roker, he's down 2 nil. Matt what can you tell us ?
Â
Â
Â
Â
"There is much to plunder there and I believe that we have every right to take some as a form of repayment. Thankfully however, that is not the type of country we are and that was obviously not why we were there to begin with."
This is a confusing statement. What right are you talking about and how did the United States earn it?
Well, since everything is going swimmingly in Iraq, now, I can do my part to vote out Bush in good conscience. His job's done.
Well it is good to know that as long as there is a war on terrror Rick will vote for Kerry but have a bad conscience after. There may be hope for him yet.
No, jethro, by any definition you might have, I'm hopeless.
Hopeless? About everything?
Geez Dan, you're going to piss of the liberals by posting letters like that.
you're going to piss of the liberals by posting letters like that.
Makes it that much more fun, doesn't it?
This is a confusing statement.
Sorry Rick, I tried to make my point the best I could. We saved them from a brutal dictator. They obviously owe us something for that. We conquered their nation and the "spoils go to the victor".  However, we are a good enough nation to tell them to invest it in their country instead and build a good democracy so that this hopefully won't happen again.
To me, the best repayment would be to see a stable country with a properly elected government there.
Inquiry will back intelligence that Iraq sought uranium
By Mark Huband in London
Published: July 7 2004 22:38 | Last Updated:
July 8 2004 0:49
A UK government inquiry into the intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq
is expected to conclude that Britain's spies were correct to say that Saddam
Hussein's regime sought to buy uranium from Niger.
Â
The inquiry by Lord Butler, which was delivered to the printers on
Wednesday and is expected to be released on July 14, has examined the
intelligence that underpinned the UK government's claims about the threat from
Iraq...
link
Bbbbut No, it can't be. Afghanistan was for oil, Iraq too, we're imperialistic, remember. It's a roose cooked up by Cheney to get money for a company he used to work for. Next thing you'll tell me is that Polish troops found 18 or so warheads with chemicals in them. C'mon Dan. Â
Luv2Fly 7/7/04 8:45pm
<chuckle>
"We saved them from a brutal dictator. They obviously owe us something for that. "
It's not obvious to me. The cities are in rubble. Thousands are dead. Insurgents have turned some spots in constant areas of tension. So what do they owe the United States?
Ah yes, the "Saddam in power was better" attitude of liberals. I am not surprised. I don't know if you beleive it or not but it is this kind of thing that will lead to our ultimate demise.
Care to tackle the question, jethro?
The question is for you and all liberals.  Were Iraqis better off with Saddam in power? Yes? No? And Rick's answer is.................................
You first. What do the Iraqis owe the United States?
You know my answer. The Iraqis are better off now than when Saddam was in power. They should have hope that they can control their own lives. Now there may be some that do not value control of their own lives. Those that do not should get some psychiatric help.
"You know my answer."
No, I don't but that's OK.
You should have known my answer. But then I laid it out for you. And you still don't know my answer? But I see you won't answer the question becuase then you have to admit that the democraps have lost the issue.
What do the Iraqis owe the United States?
I think they owe it to the US to help pay for their reconstruction.
I don't think an exact number can be put on it. I'll settle for a staunch ally in the Middle East other than Israel that can help to set an example for these other despotic regimes spread throughout the ME. Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran come to mind. As luck would have it, Iraq is right in the middle of those.
Come on, Rick, answer question.  Were Iraqis better off with Saddam in power? Yes or No?Â
Rick? You there Rick?Â
Why should I answer if you don't feel the need?
I did answer. This is what I wrote in post #4306:
What do they owe the United States?
Last time.
They owe the United States for the opportunity to rule themselves. Without the US they wouldn't have it. I know that isn't important to liberals but it is those that believe in self government and true freedom.
What do the Iraqis owe the United States?
Like I said, we got rid of the murderous dictator and his family for them. They no longer live in fear of him gassing them like he has in the past, they no longer fear his boys and their real torture chambers, for the first time they can have honest elections, for the first time they can taste freedom, etc. There is no way for them to repay such a debt to us. Like Luv says, I'll take a stable democracy there.
Didn't answer. That's OK, jethro.
You and Crabs are two peas in a pod. Afraid to give a straight answer.
"There is no way for them to repay such a debt to us."
So one day we'll seeing American tourists sauntering around a bar in Baghdad, the same way they do in France and England taunting the locals about how much they owe us.
Can't wait to see that.
Brass tacks on Iraq: We did this incursion and war for the UNITED STATES.
If we didn't we shoudn't have been there. And from the day we ransacked and invaded their country. WE OWE THEM.
Didn't answer. That's OK, jethro. Ididn't answer? By what stretch of your imagination did I not answer the question? Is it the dishonest liberal I see coming out?
You and Crabs are two peas in a pod. Afraid to give a straight answer. How did I not answer the question?Â
And from the day we ransacked and invaded their country. WE OWE THEM.
We ransacked their country? No we invaded Saddam's country. We took from him and we gave it to the people who should have had it but didn't. I was right I did see the dishonest liberal coming out.
So one day we'll seeing American tourists sauntering around a bar in Baghdad, the same way they do in France and England taunting the locals about how much they owe us.
France does owe us. France owes us for saving its ass in two world wars in the last century and for not allowing the Soviet Union to overrun their worthless country. Now they don't have to repay us anything but the least they do can hide their contempt for us.
>And from the day we ransacked and invaded their country. WE OWE THEM.
Many of the Iraqi's don't see it that way either. Troops don't get invited to dinner in local families homes if they felt that way. They resent not being able to do it themselves and perhaps have had their pride bruised but they still know that the only way they were getting rid of him was with our help. Unfortunately, there are some Iraqi's who want everything done for them, but it looks like some are finally stepping up.
Sorry Rick. No way. The country was in 10 times worse shape then when we got there. Besides a brutal dictator who still operated their torture chambers and was imprisoning people and shredding them. The hospitals, schools, roads, infastructure was a shamble. Saying we ransacked it is an insult IMO. We did everything in our power to avoid civilian casualties and damaging infastructure not to mention avoiding Mosques which were used as supply depot's and R&R for the jihadis. The Marines, Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen did that at a greater risk to themselves and I take exception to the term ransacked. Â
Do the we owe the Jews for attacking their countries and freeing them from the Nazi's ? Do we owe the Phillipino's who lived under brutal Japanese dictatorship? Do we owe China for getting rid of the Japanese troops brutalizing cities like Nanking? How about the people in eastern bloc counties and the hundreds of thousands killed or brutalized under communism? We helped end communism and emboldened other nations to rise up and defeat a horrid ideology. In all those cases those people were freed. It wasn't the reason we were there granted, Our goal was to defeat the enemy but they were nonetheless liberated. It sure as hell doesn't mean we owe them.
I'm not saying they need to write a check or bow at us. I'd settle for an ally of a democratic Muslim nation that sits in the middle of Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.
Â
We owe Iraq a stable country, and that is all.
If we didn't we shoudn't have been there. And from the day we ransacked and invaded their country. WE OWE THEM.
How did we ransack their country? Give us some proof of what you speak of.Â
In case you haven't noticed, Iraq is in better shape already than before the war. I would bet that it is in better shape than Kosovo is after how many years now. This war has gone better than any other I can think of. Minimal number of civilian casualties, one of the fastest advances in history, etc.
What would you have prefered Rick? That we just blow it all off? Not get rid of Sadam and his pig latin sons Usay and Qusay? Just sit back and hope that they do not dig up those jets that were found buried in the sand or use all that uranium which was recently reported to have been removed, to finish making a bomb or worse giving it to the terrorist? We are now finding out that they were in fact trying to get uranium from Africa as was claimed, but we should have just turned our heads and looked the other way? How about the oil-for-food scam? Should we have just ignored that so that Sadam could go on throwing his countries people into wood chippers?Â
This and more happened under the "containment" scenario that played out for what, a decade? We are now finding out from official Baathist documents that there was officials meeting with Al Queda members and were even present when the planning of 9/11 took place. Kind of blows a hole in another Democrat lie.
All this took place under the watchful eye of the Clinton/Gore administration, but yet we are repeatedly told that Bush is to blame and this war was about oil. It is sickening at best. Some are still trying to push the "Bush lied" crap on us even as there is a report from an investigation in England that states that Iraq did indeed try to aquire uranium from Africa.
Many Democratic leaders were telling us the same things only to change their stories once President Bush said them.  Lies, inuendo and short term memory loss seems to be the norm for the Democrats these days what with the election coming up and all.
No matter what is done, the Democrats say that the other thing should have been done. When the opposite is done, they cry about that. Now we are hearing inuendo about the timing of the terror warnings, but we should have heard warnings concerning 9/11. They are making it a no win situation all for the sake of getting their party into the picture again.
It is disgusting and I hope that they lose what little power they have left.
WE OWE THEM.
How's this for repayment then:
- Terrorist groups need to look elsewhere to find a ruler sympathetic to their cause. In addition, we know Saddam had chemical and biological weapons in the past; he used them against his enemies and his own people. However, now that he has been removed from power we’ve eliminated his ability to manufacture chemical, biological, and perhaps even more dangerous WMDs. Moreover, we've also eliminated the possibility of his passing along WMDs and the knowledge to manufacture them to terrorists groups.
- 25 million people have been liberated from Saddam Hussein’s murderous regime. And the thousands of innocent Iraqis who would have been tortured or killed this year by Saddam’s henchmen, won’t be.
- Iraqi children now have a chance to be educated without a barrage of Saddam propaganda. Coalition forces have renovated 2,500 schools and another 800 are scheduled to open soon. Moreover, almost 9 million textbooks have been printed and distributed along with 2 million student packets that contain pens, pencils, notebooks, and other essential materials.
- Communication restrictions have been lifted leaving Iraqis free to communicate without government monitoring or control. As a result, more than 340,000 Iraqis now have cell phones and more than 1/3 of the population owns a satellite dish, allowing them the ability to hear news without Saddam’s filter and control. Internet access is also widely available and is no longer monitored by the government.
- Freedoms we Americans take for granted – such as the right to free speech, the right to demonstrate without the fear of retribution, and the right to vote – have been granted to all Iraqis. Freedom of the press is also thriving. With Saddam gone, 120 papers are now being published nationwide and are free to print what they choose (including complaints and criticism about their government and American involvement). But perhaps the most striking freedom being enjoyed by Iraqis is the idea that the country is governed by the rule of law rather than the opinion of one man. This means for the first time defendants are innocent until proven guilty and are being afforded such rights as the right to remain silent, the right to a speedy, fair, and open trial, and the right to a defense lawyer.
- Basics like clean water and electricity have been made more accessible to all Iraqis. Fifteen million more people have access to clean water than had access under Saddam. And when Saddam was in power Iraqi homes only had electricity for about 7 hours a day, most of which was concentrated in Baghdad. That level has increased to 16 hours a day and now includes the entire country.
- Oil production has risen to over two million barrels per day, which exceeds pre-war levels by 500,000 barrels. This production translates this year alone into $6 billion in revenue.
- The Iraqi Governing Council has chosen an interim president and prime minister and nationwide elections are due to take place in January. All national ministries are now under Iraqi control, meaning Iraqis are the ones making decisions regarding policies, strategies, and budget. But perhaps most importantly, ninety-percent of Iraq’s municipalities are being governed by local councils. Which means for the first time in generations, Iraqis are truly electing their leaders. The importance of these local elections to achieving the final goal of self-rule cannot be overstated. As Victor Davis Hanson reminds us, “each time local elections are held, moderate Iraqis, not Islamic radicals, have won.”
- 240 hospitals and 1,200 health clinics have been renovated making heath care available to all Iraqis, not just the chosen Ba’ath party few. In addition, three million children have been vaccinated and modern medicines, such as cancer drugs, are available for the first time. Spending on health care has also increased. Under Saddam only $16 million a year was spent on health care; the vast majority of which went to Saddam loyalists. That budget has now increased to almost $1 billion and is spread equally amongst all Iraqis.
- Iraqi’s economy has also been strengthened. Under Saddam the currency printing press was fired up whenever he needed cash, resulting in high inflation and depressed living standards. The Iraqi people also used two different currencies – one in the north and one in the south. Since Saddam’s removal, both currencies have been replaced by one central currency that has grown stronger since its introduction.
- The theft from the UN’s Oil for Food program has ended. An investigation revealed that Saddam stole over $11 billion dollars from this program and used it to build almost 50 palaces, all the while criticizing the world, or more specifically the United States, for allowing his people to starve.
All that is not enough for the Ricks of the world, Dan.
Jethro, you certainly DID answer Rick's questions straight up. They just weren't to his liking. He never did answer yours. Funny how libs work that way.