Milblogger Taken Offline for Telling Truth Without Asking Permission First
Teflon Don reports that one of his favorite bloggers from on the ground in Iraq has been ordered to stop posting to his blog. The blogger explains here:
Though I committed no OPSEC violations, due to a series of extenuating circumstances – the least of which was me being on leave – my “The Only Difference Between Martyrdom and Suicide is Press Coverage” post on May 28 did not go through the normal vetting channels. It’s totally on me, as it was too much unfiltered truth. I’m a soldier first, and orders are orders. So it is.
Read the post with too much unfiltered truth here. Teflon Don calls the post a
too-real look at the struggle of a combat lieutenant to stay out of the mind-draining quagmire. No, not the media’s Iraq: that quagmire is contrived and belied by the situation on the ground. This quagmire was the grind of the Tactical Operations Center, of the FOB life. LT G did not want to be a company executive officer. For a combat troop, that would be as good as suicide. The post he wrote about it got his blogging canned.
This is a common reason for government censorship: to keep the government from looking bad.
I have a different take, Patterico. I’m more sympathetic to Lt G.’s command in this case. Military units work a bit different in terms of discipline and focus on teamwork – suppression of dissenting or critical viewpoints are often necessary to maintain that.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/28/2008 @ 6:07 pmXO’s who understand what is going on outside the wire are very valuable. Yes it is not as sexy or glamorous, and guys going outside the wire don’t want to take those jobs inside the wire, and I understand that. But we need good people pushing the beans and bullets. Someone thought enough of LT G to ask him to be an XO. His attitude was immature and his posting equally so.
Now I like his blog; he is good writer and a patriot. And maybe his command overreacted by telling him to stop blogging; I would not have made that choice. Nonetheless he made some questionable choices in both turning the job down and the way he wrote about it.
Eric Coulson (fcaf4a) — 6/28/2008 @ 6:22 pmI have a different take on it as well.
LT G has different priorities than the officer who wanted (wants?) him to take the XO job. LT G is thinking about the men in his immediate unit and his life after the military, the officer is thinking about the company or the regiment or battalion or whatever and the campaign. So what that the officer was a hardass about it. And LT G should be able to vent about the situation, but maybe doing it in a public forum isn’t the best way.
chaos (9c54c6) — 6/28/2008 @ 6:39 pmthis episode unfortunately relates to the overall credibility of milblogs. they’re only telling you that part of the story that the higher-ups want you to hear.
assistant devil's advocate (5de0b5) — 6/28/2008 @ 7:29 pmADA, isn’t neat that when you put that “part” together with the “part” that the biased MSM wants me to hear that blogging means I end up with more of the story?
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/28/2008 @ 7:34 pmmaybe you’re right spqr, there’s no substitute for being there to learn what’s going on, and i frankly don’t want to go there.
assistant devil's advocate (5de0b5) — 6/28/2008 @ 7:40 pmSigh. So every job has bullshit. It is remarkable how similar it all is – a variation on (superior stating) “Give me a blowjob or I’ll tell everyone you are a whore.”
Californio (f08de7) — 6/28/2008 @ 8:07 pmorly? And how did you draw that conclusion? Because LT G made public the contents of a private conversation?
If he was an employee in any other institution than the military, odds are he’d be given a pink slip for refusing to take on new responsibilities. Instead, he gets the cold shoulder from his superiors for it. How terrible!
chaos (9c54c6) — 6/28/2008 @ 9:07 pmThe Lt. followed the Harry Callahan code: man’s gotsta know his limitations.
He’s getting out. Others need to advance the ball.
Ed (6058ab) — 6/28/2008 @ 11:28 pmada finds evidence in this story to fit his preconceived notions.
Did you even read his blog? I didn’t read everything because so much of it was so moving.
There’s not a big conspiracy to keep bad news out of the blogs, ADA. But just like your employer might have issues with any blog you write, his supervisors had issues with what he did. Surprise, you break the rules, you get punished. I know that’s an odd concept to a liberal, but there you have it.
I’ll miss LT G’s writings. The man has a talent. Furthermore, I didn’t think the post in question was that big a deal. Perhaps he can return to it at another time. But I’ll tell you this, I’m very surprised there was any discussion at all about him transferring from his platoon to be the XO.
Normally a conversation like that is pretty brief:
Boss- You’re gonna be the XO.
XBradTC (c2f266) — 6/29/2008 @ 12:07 amLT G- But I want to stay with my platoon.
Boss- I know. That’s speaks well of you. That’s why you’re gonna be the XO.
“I got soul but I’m not a soldier…”
steve (041dda) — 6/29/2008 @ 12:16 amI don’t read his blog, too busy.
I was asked to act as acting XO in combat area and had no problems with that because it let me extend my span of control and best way of keeping everybody alive and focused on what we were doing at little to no expense to me, other than the time that it burned.
This Lt passed on a chance to benefit a company of his superior leadership, talent and experience and tried to pass it off as …whatever.
Selfish bastard.
Curtis (e21caf) — 6/29/2008 @ 2:15 amHe screwed up and now he can’t blog. Big deal. He’ll get over it. At least he’s still got a job, which would not be the case in most civilian jobs.
Donna B. (30eeb0) — 6/29/2008 @ 3:01 amif you’ve ever been a leader in combat, you understand where the LT’s coming from. He stepped on his pecker, and if anyone bothered to read his full post, took responsibility for it. Whose more at fault here though – the fire-eating junior officer, or the senior officer who lets a freaking lt’s blog get under his skin so much that he orders it shut down?
horace (ab22b3) — 6/29/2008 @ 5:19 amThinking like a civilian while in combat can get you into a world of hurt. Your people are resources, to be carefully tended and carefully used. Becoming the XO gives you a bigger garden.
htom (412a17) — 6/29/2008 @ 7:16 amUm, duh?
Where were you a few months ago when we found out the ‘liberal media’ was cramming the airwaves with retired officers that were being compensated to just uncritically shill for this administration’s war?
Levi (74ca1f) — 6/29/2008 @ 8:15 amActually, I read his blog, and while its very subtle, there is a reason he was told to pause or needs to get his stuff approved. It’s not a big deal, he’s not trying to make a big deal out of it either. It’s not censorship by the government.
Charlie (03643a) — 6/29/2008 @ 8:28 amI was here in reality. Where were you? And who told you this?
Pablo (99243e) — 6/29/2008 @ 8:48 amA point on media and control. This has to do with Desert Fox German general Erwin Rommel. Here’s the real truth, the Germans gained a foothold in Africa and Rommel was given the command by his OLD PAL Hitler. He was instructed by general staff not to attempt a breakout and head for Alexandria because there was not enough fuel. He contradicted orders and broke out, approached Alexandria, and ran out of gas, which sealed the deal for the Allies. But here’s the press angle. Undermanned and under equipped Rommel was kicking Brit General Montgomery’s ass. In order to bolster Allied morale we created Rommel as a military mastermind, a superman who had never lost a battle. Fact: Rommel had zero battle experience, had never ever commanded much more than a battalion, and was strictly small potatoes until Hitler gave him a command. How would it have looked if the press was writing stories about a rookie general kicking the shit out of a much decorated seasoned professional like Monty? Monty was a bumbler, had no courage to attack anybody, and unfortunately was the best we had (til Patton stepped into battle in West Africa). The image of an educated elite warrior with perfect manners was further advanced by a terrific movie called Five Graves to Cairo(rent it), a movie in which Rommel was perfectly played by Erich von Stroheim as an opera loving sophisticate always protective of women (the young and red hot Anne Baxter) who didn’t so much as utter the word “Nazi.”
This false picture exists to this day even though any Google of Rommel would reveal the truth, and while Rommel never actually joined the Nazi party, his friendship with Hitler went all the way back to the failed “putsch” in Munich.
Howard Veit (cc8b85) — 6/29/2008 @ 9:10 amHoward – Interesting information about Rommel. I had always thought his rep was largely due to PR because he was kicking Monty’s butt, based on the fact that there were much better German generals (Manstein or Guderian, for example) that nobody ever heard of.
As for Lt. G., back when I was a jock in a squadron I fought like a rat to keep myself from getting kicked upstairs to Group. It is a fight that every junior officer loses, sooner or later.
Roscoe (bf8c3c) — 6/29/2008 @ 9:56 amVeit, your view of Rommel and Monty is more than a bit exaggerated. Rommel commanded a battalion on the Italian front in WWI – his memoir of those days is a classic. In Poland, he again commanded a battalion. As a result of Hitler’s favor, he was indeed promoted to command a panzer division in the invasion of France, which he handled well. In Africa, Rommel did well with a mixed bag of forces and poor logistics. There was indeed a significant amount of press in his reputation as much among Allied newspapers as Axis. While David Irving’s reputation has rightly suffered from his nazi apologia, his biography Desert Fox remains well regarded. Rommel was probably at his best as a Corps commander, plateauing in skill as a Army commander. Guderian was probably his equal and any serious student of warfare would agree to Manstein as the best German general.
Monty was not a bumbler but in fact a very skilled general who knew how to get the most out of the British army’s strengths and weaknesses. Monty’s biggest problem was that he was an egotist to the point of probably being mentally ill – so he could never admit that a battle did not go as planned and would tell the most ludicrous falsehoods in support.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/29/2008 @ 10:29 amMontgomery did not command British forces in North Africa until just before El Alamein. Before that Cunningham and Auchlinchek were consistently beaten by Rommel.
chaos (9c54c6) — 6/29/2008 @ 10:32 amAnd Rommel never got a chance to show whether he would be a good Army commander, when Hitler sent him to France he got into a power struggle with von Rundstedt. Rommel’s plan to keep division-sized units within a few miles of Calais and Normandy and counterattack as soon as the landings occurred was shot down in favor of von Rundstedt’s plan to counterattack in Corps or greater strength with the units starting off at least 20 miles behind the beaches. Rundstedt’s plan did not take into account the fact that total Allied air supremacy would make it impossible to move large units over a distance of more than ten miles or so without being mauled from the air. If Rommel had been in full command in France from the time he was appointed to the area, there’s a fair chance that Normandy would have failed.
Rommel’s common-sense plan to basically withdraw from most of France as soon as it was clear that the Allies wouldn’t be driven into the sea was then rejected by Hitler in favor of fighting the battles in the hedgerows that held up the Allies for a month at most and ultimately resulted in the German armies in the West being ground into nothing.
Same thing happened in Italy, Rommel recommended withdrawing to a defensive line north of Rome on basically the same ground that would become the Gustav Line, Hitler rejected it in favor of defending the entire peninsula, the end result was 450,000 German casualties to only 350,000 Allied. Rommel, Manstein and a few others were the minority of German generals advocating standing completely on the defense and trying to bleed the Allies white while Hitler kept destroying German divisions in pointless counterattacks.
chaos (9c54c6) — 6/29/2008 @ 10:41 am#16…
Another Drew (8018ee) — 6/29/2008 @ 10:59 amJust who were these officers, and how were they being compensated?
Please respond with facts and links, and not opinion.
Monty was a twit, and so was DeGaul. The lefty US presidents propped them both up, thinking that he would gain allies after the war. Maybe it worked with the Brits, but it sure didn’t with the Frogs.
martin (0bd3dd) — 6/29/2008 @ 11:28 amLefty blogs and the ACLU. Conservatives never talked about it, and the media blacked it out, for obvious reasons.
You miss a lot of shit over there ‘in reality.’
Levi (74ca1f) — 6/29/2008 @ 12:12 pmYeah, Levi, we just don’t get all the latest looney conspiracy theories.
Thankfully.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/29/2008 @ 12:19 pmLevi is referring to the DOD having retired officers who are now “military analysts” for the media come in to the DOD and get briefed on the state of the war. Is the DOD pushing a line? Sure, but they at least have a basis in the truth. Given the credibility issues the services had after Vietnam, they can’t afford to be caught lying.
XBradTC (e3b00a) — 6/29/2008 @ 12:36 pmWere the “military analysts” compensated? Dunno, but there’s a strong possibility that travel, acomodations and meals were provided. Were they paid? I sincerely doubt it.
Most of the regular “military analysts” are on contract to the media outlets they appear on. Witness Col. Ken Allard’s resignation.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/29/2008 @ 12:48 pm“Just who were these officers, and how were they being compensated?
Please respond with facts and links, and not opinion.”
“Yeah, Levi, we just don’t get all the latest looney conspiracy theories.”
Holy Cannoli! What hole did you just pop out of. Or is it that I just fell into one??
“Even with countless media outlets available these days, a Sunday New York Times cover story could always be counted on to send a jolt through the television news cycle.
But apparently that’s no longer the case. Indeed, reporter David Barstow’s 7,600-word investigation of the Pentagon’s military analyst program — whereby ex-military talking heads, often with direct ties to contractors, parroted Defense Department talking points on the air — has been noticeably absent from television airwaves since the story broke on April 20.”
The article itself is here
JAR (864b31) — 6/29/2008 @ 1:12 pmIf you pay attention to these things then this is stale bread. Your host knew about this report, but I guess it’s not something he wanted to mention. Or maybe he did and you’ve forgotten?
JAR, the reason that the story was largely ignored is that it is a lot of smoke but not much fire. The article blows a lot of accusation but does not substantiate it.
The “problem” of talking heads not being objective reporters is not unique to military analysts. The media almost never put any talking head on TV who meets the standards that the article implies they should meet.
The NYT piece is filled with an astonishing amount of faux outrage that it is just a bunch of BS. Wow, the administration actually briefs people about its policies and positions. Wow, there is news.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/29/2008 @ 1:20 pmNice try, SP, though it’s not clear you actually read the article. Maybe this will help
JAR (864b31) — 6/29/2008 @ 1:41 pmI did read the article, JAR. It was very amusing that the same newspaper that saw no issue that it had a supreme court reporter who was reporting on cases that her husband was filing briefs on.
Note that your more recent link does not quite make your case either.
Amusing that you brought those in in defense of Levi – who has a long history of not even bothering to read the links he cites.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/29/2008 @ 1:49 pmJust read the link to Opinio Juris. You’ll get a better idea of the issues you’re pretending to argue.
JAR (864b31) — 6/29/2008 @ 1:52 pmI did read it, JAR. It does not quite say what you want it to, amusingly enough.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/29/2008 @ 1:53 pmI read the article when it first came out, and I skimmed over it again now. Where’s the conspiracy? Right off the bat the NYT makes sure you know that many of the analysts work for defense contractors. So what? If that’s a credibility problem, it’s the MSMs problem, not DOD. DOD is bringing these guys in because they are the ones on TV. Who else should DOD be telling its story to?
XBradTC (e3b00a) — 6/29/2008 @ 1:58 pmAnd the article implies that the networks are duped and don’t know the analysts are getting briefings from DOD. Wrong. The networks hire these guys precisely because they have access to sources of information at DOD. If they think they are getting snowed, there’s nothing to stop them from saying so on air. So where again is the conspiracy? And oh, yeah, how are they being paid?
“It does not quite say what you want it to, amusingly enough.”
How do you know what I want, other than for you to understand the issues?
I’m out
JAR (864b31) — 6/29/2008 @ 2:01 pmThe story was ignored by the mainstream media because it makes them look like clueless and inept. The story was ignored by conservatives because it directly contradicts one of the most important myths of the conservative movement; that of The Dreaded Liberal Media. If the media really was filled with a bunch of Bush-hating liberals, it really doesn’t make sense that they gave themselves over so easily to such a transparent propaganda operation by the Bush administration, does it?
As for you bullshit about it not being substantiated, you have no idea what you’re talking about. There’s actually thousands of documents in the public record that substantiate that article’s ‘accusations’ all day. Here’s a link to a Greenwald post just for a few examples:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/10/analysts/
There’s really much more to it than just that, and I’d suggest you see what other posts he’s made on the subject, since you seem to know nothing about it.
Levi (74ca1f) — 6/29/2008 @ 4:58 pmGreenwald! Again! The Revenge of the Clueless.
Oh, I’m hurting myself laughing. Levi is now another acolyte of the Four Pillars of Greatness!
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/29/2008 @ 5:01 pmLike I said, the only ones that covered this story were lefty bloggers. Believe me, I would prefer to link to some conservative website that shows the documents you said didn’t exist for no other reason than to disarm your lame little ‘Greenwald? Lol!’ retort, but none do. So you get Greenwald.
Just out of curiosity, what’s wrong with Greenwald in your opinion?
Levi (74ca1f) — 6/29/2008 @ 5:08 pmHere’s a link to a Greenwald post just for a few examples
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Mr. Sunny cites the Sockpuppet King!
Here!
Just for that, he should send Patterico ten bucks.
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/29/2008 @ 5:12 pmHe has utterly surrendered any semblance of credibility, and if he is your best source, you might as well start using the National Enquirer.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/29/2008 @ 5:12 pmLevi, you are a complete clueless one.
This very blog – Patterico himself – demonstrated Greenwald’s dishonesty.
It was on this very blog that Greenwald was caught showing lack of integrity.
You really crack me up with your incompetence.
Now recite the Four Pillars of Greatness for us.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/29/2008 @ 5:12 pmJust out of curiosity, what’s wrong with Greenwald in your opinion?
Do you not know the history of the site you are on?
Paul (0ea0cf) — 6/29/2008 @ 5:13 pmAre these guys still posting from the same IP, or has Gleen learned about proxies yet?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/29/2008 @ 5:15 pmIt really takes an extraordinary amount of gall, or so much ignorance that one should not be allowed to feed oneself to quote Greenwald here. Next, I’m going to have to teach Levi his fractions, too, just like jharp.
Young people, clueless, ignorant, no sense of history at all.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/29/2008 @ 5:17 pmOne more word on Rommel: he was forced to commit suicide for possible complicity in the July 20 plot that nearly resulted in Hitler’s assasination, which, in tandem with his generally humane treatment of POWs and civilians, sometimes against express orders of Hitler, allowed everyone after the war to cast him in the role of the General Who Was Not A Nazi.
kishnevi (f08c5d) — 6/29/2008 @ 5:22 pm(Wikipedia contains details on all of this.)
Some thoughts…
I first caught this story over at Castle Argghhh! I’ve caught Lt G’s words before, when linked by others, and he’s a damn good writer, as well as leader.
Let’s be honest here. If a civilian posted this kind of complaint about their immediate supervisor on a public blog they’d probably be fired very quickly.
I don’t know if many folks read the whole post, but the Lt. was getting out (i.e. not re-enlisting) anyway, so his immediate superior would not be able to employ his talents as XO for all that long. Is a First Sergeant selfish if he refuses a commission? Or is he realistic while considering his personal capabilities?
Howard Veit has managed to introduce some truly silly claims. Rommel had extensive ground combat experience in WW1 (he won Prussia’s Pour le Mérite), as well as mechanized combat in Poland and France.
Despite Veit’s claims, Rommel commanded the 7th Panzer Division during the invasion of France.
In “fact,” Rommel outmaneuvered and defeated every British general sent against him, including Wavell, O’Connor, and Auchinleck. Rommel was also known for his innovative use of the German 88.
As for General Montgomery, it is true was an abrasive personality, a man who it has been said was a master of the “set-piece” battle, who “could do much with much, but not much with little.” Still -as Hanson Baldwin pointed out- Monty was the greatest British general since Wellington, and quite likely ensured the success of the Normandy invasions with his insistence that the number of landing divisions be expanded from three to six.
Aside from his irritating personality, Monty had the bad luck to campaign alongside Patton in Sicily, where the British were stuck trying to fight past the Mount Etna massif near the east coast, while the Americans were able to run wild against relatively little opposition until they reached Troina. The landscape determined the battles.
Similarly, the British were tasked with holding the pivot at Caen in the northeast, while Patton swept south, then southeast, then east behind the German forces. What most folks don’t realize is that Monty’s forces were seen as the greater danger, hence the German allocation of greater forces against him. It was a classic “knight’s fork” for the Allies, since any reinforcement against Patton would allow the British to punch through, while defending against Monty would free up Patton.
Alas for Mr. Veit, his “facts” with respect to both Rommel and Montgomery are the worst sort of revisionist tripe, which is revealed by his refusal to present actual links with the airy claim that a “Google of Rommel would reveal the truth.” In fact a search using “Erwin Rommel” gives a very different result.
Casey (9ee427) — 6/29/2008 @ 8:44 pmAgain, Greenwald is one of the few people that covered this story. I know for a fact that it was ignored by this website, and I don’t seem to remember it getting any sort of traction on any of the other Republican websites that I look at, either.
Another thing Greenwald is covering that this blog and other Republican blogs aren’t; Obama’s total reversal on the FISA bill. You morons are jumping up and down over some meaningless campaign finance thing and don’t seem to be aware that he’s totally flipped on something much more important. Greenwald’s hammering him for it, Greenwald is raising money on his blog to run ads against Democrats, Greenwald is taking Kieth Olbermann to task for his blind faith and non-criticism of Obama… and where are the Republican bloggers to be found? Pissing their pants over flag pins, probably.
Levi (74ca1f) — 6/29/2008 @ 9:51 pmColor.
Me.
Shocked.
You mean, a Democrat went back on his long-held principles and betrayed his base? Gedthufugouddahere…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/29/2008 @ 10:05 pmLevi, the reason no one cared about the Pentagon briefings was because there was no there there. It’s a non-story.
XBradTC (e3b00a) — 6/29/2008 @ 11:18 pmCasey, a few quibbles. The landings in Normandy were only in 5 division strength, even though they involved units from 6 divisions. Monty wasn’t in any way responsible for the increase from 3 to 5. That was pure Eisenhower. Everyone who looked at the plan knew it needed more oomph, but there just wasn’t enough landing craft. When Ike took charge as SHAEF, he told FDR, “We ain’t goin'” unless there was a huge increase in landing craft. That meant shifting the entire US war production schedule to fit that need. Monty couldn’t get that done, only Ike.
The prime reason Monty had troubles in Sicily was because he took a good plan and scrapped it. The original plan was for Monty to travel up the east coast and on the east side of Aetna, while Patton traveled up the middle, and on the west side of Aetna, in a supporting role to prevent the Germans from concentrating against Monty. Monty scrapped that plan and forced Patton into a non-role of sitting on his ass in some western beaches. Pattaon,of course, didn’t take to that and understood that maneuver was more important than mere frontal attacks.
XBradTC (e3b00a) — 6/29/2008 @ 11:27 pmMonty was a great corps commander. It’s shame he was promoted over his ability.
Levi, as to the FISA bill. Are we supposed to be surprised that he flipped? First, we don’t get bent out of shape when we win. We move to the next engagement.
XBradTC (e3b00a) — 6/29/2008 @ 11:42 pmTwo, Greenwald (and Ellison, et al) thought there was a chance to keep immunity out. Nope. The only reason the Dems were making a show of it was to keep the liberal base happy. They knew that they couldn’t be seen by the majority as tossing a bone to trial lawyers. The Dems also know that sooner or later, there will be a Democratic President, and he’s going to want the cooperation of telecoms for whatever intelligence programs he needs. And it didn’t help matters that Dems didn’t want to piss of telecoms that have lots of money that often makes its way into Dem coffers.
In short, anyone (like Greenwald, et al) who thought the Dems would actually kill the FISA bill has no clue about politics, or reality for that matter.
OK, so Greenwald cares more about his pet cause, protecting civil liberties for terrorists, than he does about helping his own party win elections. Meanwhile, his party’s candidate changes his position on yet another issue, once again in the same direction: from stupid to not-stupid. And conservatives are supposed to be upset about this because … um … remind me why, exactly?
Xrlq (b71926) — 6/30/2008 @ 5:49 amLevi shows that he is indeed part of the Four Pillars of Greatness cult.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/30/2008 @ 9:36 amI will explain. This is a story for a few reasons, the primary one being because it reflects how poorly a job our national media does. They’ll basically let anyone on the air, grant them some sort of independent-sounding title like ‘Military Expert’ or ‘Political Analyst’ and let them say anything, without so much as a hint of scrutiny, or without presenting an alternative viewpoint. How many ‘Military Experts’ did we see all over the news networks in the run up to the Iraq war versus ‘Anti-War Experts?’
This is important because a story like this, wherein the media is a willful accomplice to a Republican propaganda-dissemination campaign, entirely undercuts one of the fundamental tenets of the Republican party’s argument; that the liberals run the media. If the media really was a Bush-hating, Democrat-loving apparatus, why would they do this? Why would they allow themselves to be used as tools in the plans of the Bush administration?
Plainly, it’s because they’re not the biased entity that Republicans would have all of us believe them to be. What they care about is ratings, and so of course they’re going to support a war. People are going to watch more news if there’s a war going on, so why would they do anything to get in the way of the Bush administration? Instead, why wouldn’t they help Republicans to that end? Remember, MSNBC, often-cited as the most liberally biased network, canned Phil Donahue, who hosted their best ratings-getter, simply because he opposed the war. There’s thousands of other examples I could point to that demonstrates how wrong this common Republican myth is, most recently it was the Rev. Wright story, but this captures it perfectly.
Another thing this demonstrates is how politicized George Bush has made the government. When the DoD should have been planning for the occupation and re-building of the country they were about to invade, they were instead worried about public opinion, about how they looked. McClellan calls it the ‘permanent political campaign mindset.’ There are thousands of memos and communications now available to the public (thanks to the ACLU, by the way) that document in great detail and specificity how these ‘military analysts’ were influenced and shaped and rewarded by the DoD, but you ask some of the key players in the rebuilding of Iraq whose idea it was to de-Baathify, or to disband the military, and nobody seems to remember.
None of these fools are concerned with doing a good job leading the country, they worry about how it makes them look. That’s why George Bush is always yammering on about his legacy, and about how history will vindicate him. These are things we know about George Bush, as well as about our hapless media, but the military analysts story is one of the best examples. Non-story my ass.
Levi (74ca1f) — 6/30/2008 @ 5:57 pmNo, Levi, you failed to explain. Your explanation is stupid.
If the media uses talking heads, it makes sense for the Bush administration to explain to those talking heads what their position is.
And you are really quite dishonest. You quote McClelland on “permanent political campaign mindset” without acknowledging that that kind of political viewpoint predated the Bush administration. That you think no one remembers the Clinton administration because of your long term memory deficit just shows your vacuousness.
But that’s the kind of dishonesty we expect from you.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/30/2008 @ 6:02 pmWell, yeah. What I’m saying is that that sort of behavior doesn’t exactly jive with being Bush-hating propagandists, which is one of the great lies about the media that the conservative movement has clung to for years.
All politicians try to look good, to be sure. But it wasn’t this bad under Clinton. He at least accomplished some things. He left office popular, with a budget surplus, and without embroiling our armed forces in some never-ending, counter-productive war. Bush hasn’t done anything that hasn’t been an unmitigated disaster. Again, this is a guy whose administration kept detailed records of their efforts to feed a willing press corps reams of propaganda, but can’t remember how the Iraqi military was disbanded. What is that if not negligent incompetence? He was probably trying on flight-suits and practicing his ‘Mission Accomplished’ speech on that day. Because all he cares about is his legacy.
Levi (74ca1f) — 6/30/2008 @ 10:04 pm