१५ जून, २००६
"The gloomy present situation" in Iraq.
You're not one of those people whose heart lifts at bad news from Iraq, are you? But cheer up, this quote is from al Qaeda's perspective.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४३ टिप्पण्या:
I think the actual document is here.
There are two things I find interesting about this document.
One, that the media strategy is the most important thing. Getting news sources to give the impression they would like is most important. All the other stuff, i.e. actual violence is secondary.
Two, that the author doesn't think Iran has WMDs, but that getting the U.S. to believe it does, and getting the U.S. into a shooting war with Iran will lower the crushing pressure on Al Qaeda in Iraq, by moving U.S. troops out of the country and alienating portions of the Shia.
I have the impression from years of news reports that Iran is working feverishly on creating nuclear weapons and will get them sooner or later. (I mean, how hard could it be? We had them in the 1940s.) Why does this Al Qaeda analyst think otherwise? Does he have special knowledge? Does he think the Iranians are doing a Saddam and bluffing? Is this document itself a plant to cause us doubt in our dealings with Iran?
You're not one of those people whose heart lifts at bad news from Iraq, are you?
I don't know anyone disgusting enough to cheer for bad news from Iraq. Do you actually know a single person that actually wishes for bad news from Iraq?
Everyone I know wants the war over as soon as possible and a democracy to flourish there.
Okay, I confess, I know of two people that look for bad news in Iraq and the United States:
"I hit the Trifecta!" "I am a war President"
and from Faux news:
"And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead."
This gloomy news from Iraq gladdens my heart! Thanks for passing it along.
As a total aside that I don't intend to follow up with any further comment, it just cracks me up that Bill O'Reilly said that about Coit Tower. Coit Tower? I live in San Francisco, and I never think about Coit Tower. It's a beautiful structure that represents a beautiful sentiment and I suppose it has some iconic force, but the destruction of Coit Tower would not strike at the heart. O'Reilly just pulled that out of his ass or something. Too funny.
I don't know anyone disgusting enough to cheer for bad news from Iraq.
You should hear the delighted lip smacking way my college-age brother says the word quagmire. But if you asked him, he'd probably deny hoping for bad news.
There are plenty of people who wish for bad news from Iraq -- almost all of them on the left. Heck, just look at the leftist blogs out there.
Yes, those dirty leftists. Please continute to paint half the country with the same brush, it is ever so helpful. Of course, the other half of the country is drinking the Coulter Kool-Aid, so what can I expect?
I'm with quxxo -- I know of no one who cheers (or has a lifted heart) when bad news comes out of Iraq. Wince, yes. Moan, yes. Mumble, yes. Cheer, no.
I don't know anyone who stands up and cheers (in public) BUT I know plenty that did not get elated when Zarquawi was killed.
That tells me a lot cause the next question out of their mouths is what about OBL?
TWM - you nailed it. Not only are there many who revel in bad news related to anything they can stick to this administration, but your second point is even better. We already have potential Democratic candidates 'positioning' themselves for their chance at the helm and realize that an immediate withdrawal would be foolish and -worse - immediately relegate them to a one-term presidency.
As for Al Qaeda not believing Iran has WMD, I think it shows two things: 1) no one has great intelligence; and 2) actually having them isn't their only goal. Making others believe, can be as powerful. What needs to done, as Saddam learned, is receive the consequences for playing that game or show their hand and learn to play nicely with the rest of the world.
O'Reilly just pulled Coit Tower out of his ass....
What an image!
....
I said "You're not one of those people whose heart lifts at bad news from Iraq, are you?" Why are so many people hearing a reference to themselves in that? Guilty conscience? Why did I write it that way? Partly to see who would come forward and feel it was about them, but partly because I've read enough blogs and heard enough talk around Madison that I know some people revel in the bad news from Iraq. Most of them are just people who are overeager to get ammunition to use against Bush and various Republicans, but a few of them actually want to see the U.S. defeated in the war. If that's not you, then you're not one of those people... which is exactly what I said.
I wish I could agree with you, MadisonMan, I really do, but I can't. Unfortunately, I do know people who express glee upon receipt of bad news from Iraq, and yes, they are all self-proclaimed leftists living in the Berkeley area. I also believe that they are atypical and that their hatred for George Bush has definitely pushed them over the edge. It seems to me that they take their cues from people like George Galloway and ANSWER. I am surprised you have never run across one in Madison much less the internet.
Does this mean that everyone left of center agrees with them? Of course not. But the heat with which others respond whenever someone mentions people like that makes me think of guilty consciences and that old saying about those who protest a bit too much.
"Auntie M.", how many times are you going to change your name? "Reasonator", "Lurketto", a few others I can't remember... are you such a dumbass that you don't notice that even if you change your screen name, your Blogger profile page link stays the same?
Can you be defensive about something you claim doesn't happen?
The document is fascinating. I heard that it was found on Zarqawi's flash card that he kept in his pocket. Zarqawi knew is technology.
Here are two nuggets fromt he document: 1) That it points out as its number 1 concern the damage the Iraqi "national Guard" has done to its efforts. Many in this country don't believe the Iraqi army is doing anything.
2) That a leader in the "Sunni" resistance admits that Sunnis are a minority (although the claims 30%). Many sunnis in Iraq believe that they are actually the majorty.
The desire to see Bush fail has turned much of our media into a fifth column for the terrorists, and they clearly know it.
P.S. Being a fifth column for terrorism does not mean the media want to serve in this capacity. That is, it is not a fifth column in the sense of corrdination, but rather in serving as useful idiots, just as Lenin described them.
Pogo: So, in light of your follow-up, by "they," do you mean: (1) the media, (2) the terrorists, or (3) both?
Plutonium-Q36, You are an idiot. Just try following the links and you'll see immediately that you are posting out of your butt.
Ann, I don't see anyone here feeling guilty about what they write, even the ones (like YOU) that should.
Anytime anyone writes anything like, "lefties living in Berkeley", or Madison, or "all those lefties", we know where that comes from. More importantly the folks that will come here from google to understand Ann Althouse knows where that comes from. It's the bigotry of small minds of people that cannot formulate an argument. It is bullying. It is the kind of crap I once thought we had left behind after WWII, or possibly after jr. high school.
Jeez, 65%-70% of America disagrees with Bush. You folks love to make this claim that 30-35% of America LOVES America and the rest of us are Stalinists and Terrorist Sympathizers.
Bush is deeply deeply unpopular. Most people consider him incompetent. Instead of railing at your fellow citizens, all of whom love this country as much if not more than you do, just deal with the fact that you back an incompetent, corrupt, lying fool.
Deal with it, and let's move on.
Pogo: What I'm asking is, do you think that a prominent portion of the MSM is a fifth column, knows it, doesn't want it, but carrys on anyway out of self-interest?
That's what I think.
Er, fifth column in the broadest sense of the term.
Bissage:
The documents found in Zarqawi's hideout clearly show the terrorists are aware of the fifth column: "To use the media for spreading an effective and creative image of the resistance. ".
Are the mainstream media aware of their own role in this? If aware, do they reject it? If aware, do they go along anyway?
I don't pretend to know for sure. I think some are merely useful idiots, as I said. Some are appeasers, falsely believing that helping the terrorists will help us in the long run. In effect, both groups are functioning as a fifth column, yes.
I hope the anti-US faction so virulent in the 1960s and 1970s, many of whom became members of the Establishment, is not actively complicit here. But like the communist spies in the US government in the 1950s, I wouldn't really be surprised to find out it was true.
Abraham. Interesting choice of award.
Strawman at Wickepedia includes this: The straw-man technique is also used as a form of media manipulation.
"Plutonium-Q36, You are an idiot. Just try following the links and you'll see immediately that you are posting out of your butt."
You've proven yourself, by your conduct here, to be borderline mentally impaired so I'll spell it out for you: the blogger profile is unavailable, yes (cowards are a dime a dozen!) but there is still a unique id for the account, in this case 18591647. Hover over the link to "Reasonator's" unavailable profile page in this thread and what do you see? Why it's a link to Blogger profile page number 18591647. Same for "Lurketto" in other threads. You, as much as anyone, should know you can change your screen name without changing your Blogger account. I know some people think that the various names used for account 18591647 are your various other personalities but I'm not sure you're clever enough for something like that, though I admit that there's plenty of circumstantial evidence to support the theory (like the fact that you love to quote Reasonator/Lurketto/etc on your pathetic stalker blog).
Anyway, I don't usually choose to acknowledge you, because you're a sociopathic vandal as well as being a crushing bore, but this was a great opportunity to mock you so I bent the rules a little.
Palladian: Ouch!
Pogo: Thank you.
Well then Marvin, I apologize, because my original complaint was because I thought you had thrown quxxo into the list of Lurketto, Reasonater and Auntie M.
On the otherhand, your upset with Auntie M. is really an upset with Blogger.
If Blogger wants to let people change their screen names, why should you care. As you point out, it is trivially easy to detect that. And it is not the same at all as someone running a sock-puppet (though I have never seen you or Maxine Weiss in the same room at the same time).
I don't know why Lurketto is changing his screen name and I don't care. She is enjoying the freedom blogger gives us, so it is really unimportant.
Coc:
We musn't forget that, after Saddam was captured, CNN admitted to covering up the atrocities and lies Saddam had spread while President-for-life, merely to maintain "access". I think this clearly falls into fifth column behavior, of the "knows it, doesn't want it, but carrys on anyway out of self-interest" kind.
And via Instapundit today, WaPo's Richard Morin writres in What's Black and White and Red All Over?:
"More ink equals more blood, claim two economists who say that newspaper coverage of terrorist incidents leads directly to more attacks.
Both the media and terrorists benefit from terrorist incidents," their study contends. Terrorists get free publicity for themselves and their cause. The media, meanwhile, make money "as reports of terror attacks increase newspaper sales and the number of television viewers."
Hence, useful idiots.
Re: "And so I ask the question - what is the media supposed to do when a terrorist act occurs? NOt report it?"
I would only ask that you contrast the reporting for this war with that during WW2. The difference is immediate and startling. Information, including bad news, was frequently suppressed.
The mainstream press now takes the "drive-by shooting" approach common to the local news. One is often left wondering if there is a US military response. Did we get any bad guys? Where are we? What are the goals? Are we reaching any of them?
But forget about gathering that knowledge from the NYT today, something they were quite capable of doing in the 1940s. Only when one reads the military blogs does a coherent sense of strategy and progress seem evident.
I make that out to be useful idiocy, although on some days it appears to be outright complicity. The problem is larger than reporting on indiviual car bombs. It's ignoring which side you're on. And if the NYT can't find the stones to be on our side, it also must recognize that such a stance isn't a neutral one.
Do we not report it?
Did we report the true outcomes of D-Day or Guadalcanal when they happened? The answer to the first question is contained in the second.
Coco - I don't think anyone is suggesting the media not run accurate reports on terrorist attacks, etc. I think what people are suggesting is that the media also report on progress made by the US military, etc. While I sometimes wonder if the military is effective in getting positive information into the hands of reporters, I assume the media doesn't hear directly from Al Qaeda. So, it likely comes down to a preference for investigating and reporting the negative.
Its illuminating to note that soldiers (especially milbloggers) are quite frustrated with media coverage while Al Qaeda appears to be satisfied. On the other hand, soldiers (especially milbloggers) are positive about actual progress while Al Qaeda appears to be frustrated.
quxxo got schooled!
Hee - see, this is why I have a little web crush on Palladian!
dick - I just looked up stringers - I had no idea the major news outlets operated that way. It explains a lot. Thanks!
Jen,
That's Iraqi stringers, some with questionable ties to the bad guys that seem to get them to terrorist events in time to shoot good film.
oh, and not worry about being shot as a tool of the Americans at the same time.
hard to straddle both circumstances without connections
Coco,
Additional instances of useful idiocy would include the use of stringers in Iraq who seem to be in league with the terrorists, such as the stringer who "happened" to be on Haifa Street at the exact time when terrorists pulled an Iraqi official out of his car and assassinated him. This stringer had many such coincidences and was subsequently arrested.
Also, the men of iraqthemodel.com commented on Bremer's wonderful farewell speech--on the same day that our newspapers reported that Bremer snuck out of Iraq in shame without saying a word.
They wrote too that the papers also recently published an erroneous translation of an Iraq minister's words to imply he was supporting Iran. You may want to start reading their blog.
Newsweek published the Koran flushing incident without an iota of proof.
And on and on. IMO these errors are too numerous to be honest errors. To me, it is a pattern which suggests an agenda, probably not one I would concur with.
"do you mean that if a terrorist group sets off a series of car bombs in the middle of a populated and guarded area and 10 people are killed that only a "useful idiot" would report that this event actually ocurred?"
No, but a useful idiot might portray violent events in an area with concentrated enemy activity explicitly for the purpose of influencing the media as representative of an entire country.
My observation has been that reporters are extremely ignorant about things I have some expertise in (and I'll bet that's been your experience to), and I have to assume that ignorance extends to areas I don't know much about. They also tend to spout conventional wisdom without questioning it, and are easily manipulated by people with greater knowledge and an agenda, particularly when that agenda fits the reporter's worldview.
Here's a great, nonpolitical example I've seen. This article (http://www.seacoastonline.com/2005news/11202005/news/74066.htm) contains this statement:
"Part of the stability in air fare comes from nonunion regional airlines, like Southwest and Jet Blue, having competitive rates"
Similar statements have appeared in the Wall Street Journal and The Street.com. I can't speak for JetBlue, but over 80 percent of Southwest employees are in a union. I'm pretty sure SWA is the most heavily unionized air carrier in the US, if not the world. A reporter making this statement relied on conventional wisdom and failed to do any fact checking at all.
I've seen a number of surveys indicating that the vast majority of journalists have political views well to the left of center, and it's hardly surprising that their work generally reflects that worldview. Failure to question their own biases and misconceptions frequently does make them useful idiots.
knoxgirl said...
quxxo got schooled!
Yes, I got schooled! I got schooled by SlipperyCheese a few days ago to, when Karl walked.
When quxxo gets schooled, what does quxxo do? Acknowledges it.
When NoxieGirl and the other Ann functionaries get schooled what do they do? "Ban quxxo! Ban quxxo!"
And when Ann gets schooled, rather than acknowledge it, what does she do?
This post has been deleted by the blog administrator
Momxxo never taught little quxxo to lose gracefully.
coco:
plenty of people have answered your questions and provided excellent examples of press bias,useful idiocy, or laziness. I would add this quote from the Baron WSJ article Ann refers to in a post up top:
America's newsrooms are populated largely by liberals who regard the Vietnam and Watergate stories as the great achievements of their profession. The peak of their ambition is to achieve the fame and wealth of great reporters like David Halberstam and Bob Woodward.
A lot of people who go to school in journalism aren't going to do the hard, and often tedious work it takes to cover a story in a straightforward, thorough, just-the-facts manner. They go to "change the world"!!! Instead of realizing that the job of a journalist is to sit quietly on the sidelines and report on the changers....
To dick, pogo, jennifer, patca, drill sgt, and others who replied to coco:
The innacuracy of the media coverage of the war is a very hard thing to explain, because you're trying to convince people who truly hear no good news that progress is happening. It's very easy to only hear the bad news, as we all know!!
It's like trying to convince someone that there's, I don't know, another person living in their house they've never noticed... why should they believe it!? They never see it... it seems absurd on its face.
Knoxgirl: Whenever subjects like this come up, I can't help thinking of Justice Potter Stewart's comments about pornography in 1964: "I know it when I see it . . . "
Yet, some never do and never will.
For those that don't read Cox and Forkum they had a cartoon a couple of days ago that put the media bias in America in the proper perspective.
Mike,
It often is willfull, as you discovered. I was a minor Democrat worker years ago, and when asked by a reporter how I felt about a certain election, I answered in one sentence. Next day, I found my one sentence, changed completely, with the addition of a whole paragraph! What in hell do they do to quotes from important people, I thought?
I recently emailed a reporter questioning a somewhat racist caption on one of the photographs accompanying her story. She wrote back saying her editors put that in, over her objections and tearful argument. The quote IMO was meant to appeal to readers of the Vietnamese paper they own, which is gaining readership, while the circulation of the regular Caucasian paper is dropping.
Coco, thanks for being gracious. I think the left blogs use this meme to avoid answering these rightful charges. The best defense is a good offense.
"How are things going in Iraq?"
"What can we do that will make things better, and not worse?"
These are the two big questions. I suspect that no thoughtful person has the answer to either of those questions. (That is the position we find ourselves in). We could set a timetable for withdrawal and it could result in a heartened insurgency, more terrorism, and the need for more intervention. Or we could "stay the course", and the opposition could continue to grow, the government could continue to flounder, and the U.S. military could be weakened and our budget destroyed. . Too often, both sides assume that one or the other event could be true. Why can't both be true?
Ann Althouse: Most of them are just people who are overeager to get ammunition to use against Bush and various Republicans, but a few of them actually want to see the U.S. defeated in the war.
It really saddens me that this goes on so much. I think there are people in both parties who act this way when the president is from the opposing party. I'm not a member of a political party and I always want my country and the world at large to be doing well and better, so I don't really relate.
With Iraq, there's so many people INVESTED in things turning out terribly that deep down some of them feel they don't wanna be wrong. It's still up in the air how Iraq will turn out, which I think makes this happen even more, but also makes it even more deplorable than some want it to be a failure. I don't dislike all of the Bush haters and some of them have been right about some things. I just dislike the ones who seem to be in bad faith, and they shouldn't act surprised when their bad faith is noticed.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा