Spinning The Reality Of Iraq War

[willy]

This piece is from a couple of weeks ago, but should be read by everyone.



Publication:The New York Sun; Date:May 16, 2006; Section:New York; Page:3


Spinning The Reality Of Iraq War

Alicia Colon



It’s that time of year when New Yorkers start making their summer vacation plans. Renting a place in the Hamptons? Nah, been there, done that. How about a Parisian jaunt? Noooo. Too many riots. Well, how about visiting a country that’s ancient, historic, beautiful and exotic — Iraq? Sure, there’s a little war going on there, but when you look at the violent death statistics in the world, it’s safer than a number of other popular travel destinations. Believe it or not.

I happened to catch Rep. Steve King, a Republican of Iowa, on C-span last week and he rattled off some startling figures that demonstrate how off-base journalists are when it comes to reporting on the war in Iraq. According to Mr. King, the violent death rate in Iraq is 25.71 per 100,000. That may sound high, but not when you compare it to places like Colombia (61.7), South Africa (49.6), Jamaica (32.4), and Venezuela (31.6). How about the violent death rates in American cities? New Orleans before Hurricane Katrina was 53.1. FBI statistics for 2004-05 have Washington at 45.9, Baltimore at 37.7, and Atlanta at 34.9.

The point Mr.King was making is that if journalists covered only the violence in these other cities and countries, as they do in Iraq, our perceptions of these places would also be highly negative.

Of course, I’m not serious about Iraq being a prime vacation spot, at least not yet. However, while this country of very brave people has made enormous strides in a relatively short time, it is hardly being reported to the American people. Why?

On a daily basis, mainstream journalists are spewing out anything they can that is negative about the Bush administration, regardless of whether the information threatens our national security. Leaking highly classified information to the public during a war should be grounds for criminal investigations. Instead,it’s been deemed worthy of reward.

Dana Priest of the Washington Post received a Pulitzer for reporting that the CIA was holding terrorist suspects in secret European prisons. The New YorkTimes exposed intimate details of the CIA charter flights ferrying prisoners overseas. The names of the charter companies were disclosed and the Times even ran a picture displaying the identification number of one of the aircraft. Al Qaeda must be so grateful to these newspapers for doing all their legwork.

Now the big brouhaha is about the phone-number database that the government maintains, and we’re supposed to get upset that our civil rights are being invaded. I don’t care if the FBI has my phone number — Radio Shack, Macy’s, and the New YorkTimes have it as well. Besides, the phone companies that are cooperating with the government are furnishing only numbers, not names and addresses. NSA is looking for patterns to detect terrorist activity, not to record your conversations with your mother.

Before the phone database furor, there was the “wiretap” uproar. Let’s be clear: Wiretapping is what Democrat Robert Kennedy did to Martin Luther King Jr. There is a huge difference between that activity and eavesdropping on communications between America and other countries to thwart potential terrorist attacks.

The thinking public knows this, and recognizes that national security trumps our right to privacy, which has always been ignored by the IRS anyhow. Syndicated columnist Thomas Sowell said it best in a January column at Townhall.com headlined “Fourth estate or Fifth Column?” He writes: “With all the turmoil and bloodshed in Iraq, both military and civilian people returning from that country are increasingly expressing amazement at the difference between what they have seen with their own eyes and the far worse, one-sided picture that the media presents to the public here.”

It’s not just the war that gets spun out of reality. Another Pulitzer went to the Times-Picayune of New Orleans, which tied with a paper in Biloxi, Miss., for its coverage of Hurricane Katrina. That much of the coverage was a pack of lies meant absolutely nothing to the Pulitzer panel. Nevertheless, the distorted coverage did its job. The nation was outraged at the horrific images conjured up by the newspapers. Forty bodies were stacked in freezers, reporter Brian Thevenot wrote — or were they? Mr.Thevenot later admitted that he never verified that information before rushing it into print. His reporting, too, won a Pulitzer.

Maybe we should start awarding a new journalism award for uncovering the absolute truth, regardless of who’s in office. Wouldn’t that be unique?

The reality is that the Iraqi people and the coalition forces are winning the battle to rid the country of the murderous Islamofascists. In a few years, tourists will be flocking to Iraq, site of the most famous ancient city, Babylon, and other cultural treasures. That’s the truth — believe it or not.

acolon@nysun.com

[kenny weir]

Well, that's sure fine spin.

[lynn]

I want some of those drugs willy is takin'!

[Pedantic Wretch]

Why bother with the pretence of sourcing from a 'newspaper'? You might as well just copy and paste an extract from one of Bush's speeches. A Wiki check reveals that the New York Sun is linked by its backers to the American Enterprise Institute, and was partially owned by the corrupt Conrad Black; in other words it is a right-wing organ of propaganda and disinformation.

This Willy character makes Scott Dolan and even John P. Cooper seem like serious political commentators.

[Scott Dolan]

Hey PW, here's a thought. Why not refute what Willy has posted instead of simply attacking the source. Secondly, leave me the fuck out of it because you have no clue as to what I do or do not know concerning politics. Just because I don't bend over and take your socialist horseshit and conspiracy theories up the ass doesn't, in any way, indicate my level of understanding politics.

Or then again, yes it does.

[Coda]

Here's another article about the war that's well worth reading:

http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...rticle_id=5345

The first campaigns of the Long War are drawing to a close. The Jihadis have lost the opening rounds. What next?

There’s an unconscious conviction that what happens next is… nothing. We go back to everyday life, the way things were before all that unpleasantness in lower Manhattan and Washington those long years ago. We shut out the harmful, hateful world once again, go our own way, and forget about jihads, and suicide belts, and dirty bombs, and beheadings, and all the other nightmares that have filled our days since 2001.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be in the cards.

What happened on 9/11 was not an earthquake, over and done quickly, but a long, slow and complete reshuffling of the tectonic plates that comprise human civilization; something comparable to the deaths of empires and the passing of eras. Such events are not over in a day, or a year, or a decade. They take their time. And when it ends at last the world will be a different place, in ways that we now have no way of knowing. But the part we have played in it will, in some shape or form, match our position when it’s all over, American or European or Arab, Muslim or Christian or Secular.

We are still amid early days, roughly the days of Midway and Guadalcanal and El Alamein in a previous great struggle. “Not the beginning of the end,” as Churchill put it, “but the end of the beginning.”

The Jihadis have lost Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s true that fighting continues in both countries, but at this point it’s effectively theater. It can’t be repeated often enough that the type of war we are involved in is as much political as it is military. By any political measure, the Jihadis have been routed. Their only chance of prevailing was to appeal to the Iraqis and Afghans as a viable alternative to elected democratic governments. No such attempt was ever made. Instead, the Jihadis have relentlessly made the Iraqis and Afghans suffer. Their final chance in Iraq lay in derailing the political process last year. They failed at this, and now it is over. Not the violence – there will be car bombs going off in Iraq for years to come, unfortunately. But any opportunity of a Jihadi victory is gone.

(continued in the link, well worth reading the entire article, complete with links to supporting secondary source documents)

[Root Doctor]

Originally Posted by Coda

The Jihadis have lost Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s true that fighting continues in both countries, but at this point it’s effectively theater.

This may be the stupidest comment I have ever read.

[Scott Dolan]

It's all for show, Rootz. Geez, even I knew that.

[Root Doctor]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

It's all for show, Rootz. Geez, even I knew that.

What's for show, Scott? The display of brazen stupidity that says we've got 'em on the run, despite ample evidence to the contrary?

[Scott Dolan]

Should I have put Mr. Winkie at the end of my previous post?

People are still getting killed in alarming numbers. There's nothing theatrical about that.

[Root Doctor]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Should I have put Mr. Winkie at the end of my previous post?

That should be saved for this thread, Scott:

http://www.jazzcornertalk.com/speake...ad.php?t=16044

[Scott Dolan]

Hahaha........

[willy]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Should I have put Mr. Winkie at the end of my previous post?

People are still getting killed in alarming numbers. There's nothing theatrical about that.

If Americans are killing Americans in even more alarming numbers in Washington D.C, New Orleans, Baltimore, etc. why do we only hear about the deaths in Iraq all day and all night? Selective outrage by the left-wing drive-by media?

[Rob C]

Originally Posted by willy

That’s the truth — believe it or not.

How nice of Ms. Colon to give us the option.

[willy]

It IS refreshing to be given an option, unlike the constant hateful drunbeat spewing from Krugaman and Frank Rich pieces, not to mention the drug induced hillucinations written about by Dowd

[Slurpy]

Originally Posted by willy

If Americans are killing Americans in even more alarming numbers in Washington D.C, New Orleans, Baltimore, etc. why do we only hear about the deaths in Iraq all day and all night? Selective outrage by the left-wing drive-by media?

More like selective reading and viewing by right-wing-nuts. Is flowing red, white and blue bunting really a hypnotic device?

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by willy

If Americans are killing Americans in even more alarming numbers in Washington D.C, New Orleans, Baltimore, etc. why do we only hear about the deaths in Iraq all day and all night? Selective outrage by the left-wing drive-by media?

I don't get the question.

Americans killing Americans isn't theatre either.

[Pedantic Wretch]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Hey PW, here's a thought. Why not refute what Willy has posted instead of simply attacking the source. Secondly, leave me the fuck out of it because you have no clue as to what I do or do not know concerning politics. Just because I don't bend over and take your socialist horseshit and conspiracy theories up the ass doesn't, in any way, indicate my level of understanding politics.

I agree that you should not be compared with Willy, whose posts (along with those of Coda and Jazzbluescat) are not worth the effort of refutation. However, I don't recall endorsing any 'conspiracy theories', unless Hersh's piece on Iran counts as one.

[willy]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

I don't get the question.

Americans killing Americans isn't theatre either.

Why doesn't the media, after talking endlessly about deaths in Iraq, finish the newscast with "for perspective, 5 people were murdered today in Washington, D.C. More than in Iraq. Americans killings Americans".

I know it doesn't suit their agenda, but they would at least come off as somewhat neutral in their reporting.

[Pedantic Wretch]

Originally Posted by willy

I know it doesn't suit their agenda, but they would at least come off as somewhat neutral in their reporting.

It doesn't matter about all those other godless channels as long as you have 'fair and balanced' Fox News.

Winner of the Dallas Press Club Award

[Noj]

Aren't the statistics regarding a military occupation and those for domestic violence incompatable? That's the sort of comparison that war supporters always jump all over when it comes from war opposers.

Regardless, as far as I've seen, the TV news is always quick to report on both murder here and abroad since their agenda is based on ratings. Then they'll segway into a story about a zoo's escaped chimp and his hijinx with the churro cart.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by willy

Why doesn't the media, after talking endlessly about deaths in Iraq, finish the newscast with "for perspective, 5 people were murdered today in Washington, D.C. More than in Iraq. Americans killings Americans".

I know it doesn't suit their agenda, but they would at least come off as somewhat neutral in their reporting.

Don't know. I don't watch news on tv.

[Scott Dolan]

Yet another positive and upbeat look at the American people by our resident Canadian expert on American people.

[Rob C]

You're right, that's a good point--maybe everyone should make sure to give some "perspective" anytime they talk about anything.

For instance, every time a hawkish pundit mentions the 3,000 killed in Sep. 11, he should make sure to follow with, "for perspective, 43,000 Americans were killed in car accidents last year."

Lead the way, Willy!

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by particia

The thing is, Scott, we also read other reports, from other reporters, from other countries, not cleared by your present Administration.

Name one.

[Scott Dolan]

Just one.

[jeff54]

Originally Posted by Noj

Aren't the statistics regarding a military occupation and those for domestic violence incompatable?

That's exactly right, Noj. We wouldn't say the deaths that occured in Oklahoma City for example aren't significant because more people died that day from traffic accidents in the US. The whole premise of the article is specious. If 10 people per day were getting killed in political violence in the US you bet a big deal would be made about it on the news. Hell last week they thought they heard a gun shot in a DC office building it was a major news story.

[Scott Dolan]

Excellent point.

[Xavier]

I remember my father exploding in anger anytime anyone spoke about casualities in Vietnam by loudly exclaiming that "more people die on America's highways every year than are dying in Vietnam. Why aren't those protestors saying anything about that!" I was a high school student at the time and thought that this was very bizarre reasoning and ultimately heard it as the desperate defense of someone who had no more arguments worth listening to.

[Scott Dolan]

Here is what you said, once again, particia:

The thing is, Scott, we also read other reports, from other reporters, from other countries, not cleared by your present Administration.

I get CBC Newsworld on my cable. Matter of fact, I followed their coverage of the September 11th attacks more than any other media outlet.

Let's start with the Vancouver Province

Fine. Here's the link to their website which I can fully view. http://www.canada.com/theprovince/index.html


So your "not cleared..." statement is complete and utter horseshit just like I knew it was when I questioned you about it.