|
|
June 5, 2005Troop appreciation, before the next stormI had mentioned in this post that the next media/liberal-who-cares-if-it-inflames-extreme-Muslims, as long as it-slows-down-the-war-effort-and-helps-us-to-impeach-Bush storm would involve the release of the Abu Ghraib tapes, which a judge has ruled “Americans need to see…” Don’t kid yourselves, the release of this tape, and the forced-trial of Lindy England (who was not allowed to plead guilty) are about nothing more than keeping Abu Ghraib in your face up to and through the ‘06 elections and (they hope) getting that “I” word front-and-center in everyone’s mind. Gaijin Biker is stinkin’ mad about this because he feels serving up the tapes, aside from their sensationalistic value and - of course - their potential to cause deep-and-lasting-harm to those “enemies of the people” the US Military and their CIC, have nothing new to add. He’s wondering why, in the middle of all of this hysteria over the behavior of a handful of soldiers (approximately 15 in a force of 150,000 - do the math) no one in the press cares - EVER - to report on all of the good things the majority of US soldiers are doing. Says Gaijin Biker Videos of prisoner abuse are unlikely to tell us anything we don’t already know about Abu Ghraib. They are, however, virtually certain to further inflame anti-American sentiment around the world. Nevertheless, Mr. Romero of the ACLU has a valid and undeniable point: Americans deserve to know what the men and women of our armed forces are doing in our name overseas. Everything they’re doing. He selected a gallery of 20 photos to tell the story, and they are inspiring, and I am quite sure that if the current American President had a D after his name, instead of an R, they are the photos we would be seeing (rightfully so) every single day, on page one of every paper, above the fold. You should go see the shots. Obviously, I’ve carefully selected these twenty photos, from the Army’s own careful selection of photos, to make a point. In that respect, I suppose I’ve behaved no differently than the Associated Press did when it submitted twenty of its own photos for Pulitzer Prize consideration. The photos I picked don’t tell the whole story of what’s going on in Iraq. But they do tell part of it. And it’s a part that bears keeping in mind the next time America’s military is smeared by the mainstream media I’m grateful to the Biker for his post. Also, Michael Yon, who is embedded has additional impressive photos that you’ve never seen. Michelle Malkin has found a rare article that does not bash the military And she links to Steven Vincent, too. And Hugh Hewitt reminds us that the blogosphere offers numerous alternatives to the “Iraq is only car bombs and death” narrative of the MSM and the Democrats. If you have an hour, this lovely Sunday, this might be the day to print out Bill Whittle’s extraordinary two-part essay, SANCTUARY. It is a remarkable piece of writing that will help put things in perspective for you. WELCOME Instapundit readers! (And thanks, Professor, for the link!) Please stay and look around while you’re here. Today we’re noticing that people who desire freedom, never seem to ask it of the UN, or Chirac and Schroeder. We’re reading about ACT UP in France. We’re also reading about why a gay man says he will not be going to Disney Gay Days this year, talking about women who call Jesus, “Judith”, what a tattoo can mean, and of course, we’re reciting the if you sprinkle when you tinkle, take a look, don’t spray a book story. Oh, and Amnesty International no longer “knows” if Gitmo is a gulag. They just want to believe it is. And they want you to believe it, too. http://theanchoressonline.com/2005/06/05/troop-appreciation-before-the-next-storm/trackback/ 20 Responses to “Troop appreciation, before the next storm” |
June 5th, 2005 at 11:18 am
[...] ref=”mailto:theanchoress@gmail.com”>Email The Anchoress
Troop appreciati [...]
June 5th, 2005 at 11:54 am
Not in My Name?
This, most definitely, is being done in my name.
Thanks, GaijinBiker, for reminding us of the things the MSM largely refuses to support.
(h/t from The Anchoress who, as always, provides good additional commentary)
June 5th, 2005 at 1:54 pm
I agree with everything except that Pvt England’s “forced trial” is part of the ‘06 political strategy. Pvt England’s defense council pled guilty and then, in sentancing hearing, proceeded to say why she shouldn’t be held accountable (i.e. why she was not guilty). The judge ruled that the two actions were incompatible, and that if her council wanted this “evidence” considered by the court in sentencing the merits of the evidence would first have to be determined in a legal trial. The way they tried to do it was to basically present their defense without any prosecution, cross examination or rebuttal.
June 5th, 2005 at 2:38 pm
The real travesty in this judge ordered release of more photos is the legal basis for the ruling. The judge is ruling strictly on the basis of statutory law (the Freedom of Information Act), without giving any consideration to the president’s independent war powers for deciding what needs to be kept secret as a matter of military necessity. Congress’ judgment about what is a matter of military necessity cannot trump the president’s in time of war, but the judge does not even analyze this contest between the powers of Congress and the executive. He simply rules on FOIA and pretends that competing presidential powers do not exist. My post here.
June 5th, 2005 at 9:22 pm
Why is everything the ACLU does aimed at making America look bad? I wish somebody would explain this to me. Devil’s advocacy is one thing, but this organization seems increasingly satanic. Yes, yes — I know it’s an atheistic outfit and therefore does no more believe in Lucifer than God. Yet there must be an explanation.
June 5th, 2005 at 9:38 pm
Now this is reporting
Michael Yon is a freelance author, by choice, reporting from Iraq. Much to read and I recommend adding this to your blogroll and checking back often. The latest post is a picture essay that you will not see in the MSM. Other posts detail how action r…
June 5th, 2005 at 10:48 pm
I think the video should be released in full. Lets have one abuse scene followed by a beheading and then another abuse scene followed by scenes of blown up women and children from the so called insurgency and then another abuse scene followed by pictures of blown up mosques filled with bodies and blown up Korans done by the so called insurgency. I think it would make a powerful video and it is about time the MSM showed what these cowards are doing.
June 5th, 2005 at 10:59 pm
it’s fascinating how many bloggers and commentors try relentlessly to deflect the fact that US military ass-raped iraqi kids.
the aclu could never in a million years make us “look” as bad as that. and denying it happened, and attempting to pass the buck, and lying about it is almost as bad.
america is supposed to be a better country because its people believe in laws and morals and due process. but when yahoos say ignorant crap like “but they beheaded us, therefore we have the right to buttrape their kids… even if we dont know who ‘they’ are…” make me wonder if we’re that much different at all from those who we call our enemies.
June 5th, 2005 at 11:09 pm
I can’t imagine saying “well, they beheaded ours so we can rape their children” and I read a lot of stuff on the web and have never read that. I’ve also never read any proof of those allegations…I think without proof, we get to believe our troops.
If the charges are true, you’ll be happy to know the ACLU doesn’t see much problem in that behavior, as we see here.
June 5th, 2005 at 11:34 pm
Tony is a notorious and well known paedophile in his home town. He became so infamous for fondling 5 year-olds that he had to move. Additionally, his neighbors know he recently raped and killed an 11 year-old girl and burried her in the basement.
“and denying it happened, and attempting to pass the buck, and lying about it is almost as bad”
I believe my “facts” are as supportable as Tony’s.
June 6th, 2005 at 1:05 am
I think you mean French troops, under the UN flag. And not in Iraq. Those are the only stories on the web. But maybe certain readers have to start visiting other sites besides Kos and the DU…Everything there gets put on American troops sooner or later. Have you guy tried that new Reynold’s wrap with teflon? I hear it makes wonderful hats that doesn’t stick to your head. It’s called “Oven Cooking Wrap”, by the way.
I’m proud of my country and I’m proud of my troops. Why aren’t you? They are your relatives, your neighbors, your children. Why would you slander them so? Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld made them do it? It ain’t working! Sounds like you tried to sign up when you read that garbage. And were rejected. Know whay we will never resume the draft? Because of people like this.
June 6th, 2005 at 2:14 am
So, you think if the current U.S. President were a Democrat, we would be seeing all the good things that American soldiers are doing in Iraq? I don’t know how old you are, but I remember the reporting from Viet Nam. There was almost nothing in that reporting about the good U.S. soldiers were doing (and they were doing good works) and, strangely enough, the U.S. President at that time was, indeed, a Democrat. It isn’t the party of the guy in the White House, it’s the philosophical mindset.
June 6th, 2005 at 2:27 am
Bonnie…you don’t think the press has changed in 35 years?
And um…this is NOT Vietnam.
As I recall, when President Clinton bombed Kosovo, without - by the
way - getting UN approval first (which was OK by me) all the press did
was support it.
And yes. If the president’s name was Clinton or Kerry, the news from
Iraq would be very different. For heaven’s sake, if Mrs. Bush had
made $100,000 in cattle futures from a 1,000 investement, in barely
any time…do you think the press would have allowed her to simper
that she was merely a simple woman who didn’t understand all those big
investment strategy thingies? Do you think the press would have nodded their heads smiled and dropped the whole issue then and there? Indeed, they would not have. And they shouldn’t.
June 6th, 2005 at 2:34 am
And who reported every salacious tidbit about the Monica, and Paula, and Jennifer affairs? And, oh yes, that was a Democratic President too.
June 6th, 2005 at 2:37 am
Quite different, Bonnie. Sex will always be reported, no matter who is the president. BUT…let’s not forget that Newsweek did try to SPIKE the Monica story, and NBC did try to SPIKE the Juanita Brodderick story.
If they COULD have gotten away with protecting Clinton, they would have.
June 6th, 2005 at 2:38 am
And btw, I voted for Clinton the first time out - I’m not a “hater.”
I just hate double standards in the press. They drive me mad.
June 6th, 2005 at 3:02 am
I also recall that the MSM had a lot of pretty strong support for the Grenada operation and for the arrest of Noriega as well, Reagan and Bush initiatives. I very much doubt that the reporting would be much different if the current President were a Dem. I grant you that individuals in the MSM are, by and large, more liberal than the American public as a whole, but my point is that most of them operate from a philosophical mindset that mistrusts power in any form. The press as a counterweight to political power, a noble and necessary concept, was transformed, largely due to the Viet Nam war, into a game of “get the politicians”. The more popular and powerful the politician, the more the press wants to “get” them. I’m not saying it’s right. It’s not. I’m just saying I don’t think it’s as politically motivated as many conservative commentators think it is.
As for not showing the positive side of American involvement in Iraq, that too is “get ‘em” with a big dollop of “if it bleeds, it leads” mixed in. Is there also some political hay being made? Yes, probably, but I don’t think it’s quite as big a haystack as some might think.
June 6th, 2005 at 3:27 am
Anchoress,
Congrats for the Instalanche. May God keep on blessing you and your dear ones always
June 6th, 2005 at 9:05 am
There has been a big change in the press since Vietnam. Back then the prevailing political attitude could be described as center right. After Watergate it moved left and is today could be described as left left.
June 6th, 2005 at 11:31 am
Every tidbit? For those of you who think the MSM was all over Clinton’s “problems with women” may I suggest you check out this link
http://www.alamo-girl.com/0262.htm and ask yourself how much coverage you remember….
Hillary’s commodity futures mastery was totally unsupportable. “60 minutes” ran a piece showing her totally nonsensical statement which had her account running a negative balance for weeks at a time, when one has to cover losses with 24 hours. And 200 trades on the first day with on a two hundred dollar account. They even made a pretty strong case as to what this was really about–a $100,000 black bag payment by an Arkansas firm for special treatment. Yet they inexplicably never followed up on any aspect of it. And neither did anyone else in the MSM.
The MSM has leaned left since WWII. That totally explains the Viet Nam era coverage. Since 1992, it has toppled over.