« Previous · Home · Next »
Pentagon Defangs Times
By John
Defense Link: New York Times Involved in Mythmaking --
Oct. 24, 2006 —The Pentagon today asked the New York Times to correct an editorial, which claimed that “There have never been enough troops, the result of Mr. Rumsfeld’s negligent decision to use Iraq as a proving ground for his pet military theories, rather than listen to his generals.” Whether the Times believes there were (or are) enough troops in Iraq, it is demonstrably untrue that troop levels in Iraq are the result of Secretary Rumsfeld’s “not listening to his generals.”Generals involved in troop-level decisions have been very clear on this matter, making numerous statements that are not new—or difficult—to find, such as extensive commentary in General Franks’s book, American Soldier. The implication is that the New York Times either believes these generals are not being truthful, or that they are too intimidated to tell the truth. The Pentagon would vigorously dispute both characterizations.
Read what generals themselves have to say about the subject, in a Pentagon letter to the editor.
UPDATE: The New York Times has declined the Pentagon’s request to correct its editorial.
If the facts don't fit your narrative, make em fit!
Update: Newsweek is also under the gun, so to speak.
Oct. 20, 2006 —In response to a Newsweek article on Afghanistan (“The Rise of Jihadistan,” October 2, 2006), the Department of Defense sent Newsweek a lengthy rebuttal of points of fact and opinion, as well as a request for an “opportunity to submit a stand-alone column that not only rebuts some of the more sensational charges, but offers your readers a clearer view of the very real challenges we face in Afghanistan—as well as the many achievements of the past five years.”Newsweek dismissed the rebuttal as the “government position,” as well as the request for a stand-alone column. The Pentagon’s response to that letter read in part: “First, a ‘concise’ letter to the editor, of say, 200 words, cannot adequately address an [sic] 2200-word article containing a series of false assertions. Second, the issue is not Newsweek’s position versus the ‘government position.’ The issue is that your readers were given a one-sided, opinion-laced article on Afghanistan based on falsehoods—which is something that journalists and editors are usually concerned about. Your dismissive reply is disappointing, to say the least.
I suppose that since the "government position" is not the media position, accuracy was not a factor in Newsweek's decision.
Two Hotel Tangos to Hawk
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://op-for.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/576
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Pentagon Defangs Times:
» Buy lexapro. from Buy lexapro.
Buy lexapro. [Read More]
» annual credit report from annual credit report
[Read More]
Comments
And the Times wonders why their subscriptions and profits are dropping?
The NYT is a disgrace of a newspaper. I don't read it. More and more people are realizing what a piece of garbage it has become.
What are the "New York Times" and "Newsweek"?
Seriously, I haven't read them in years.
What isn't being asked enough or answered is why are "American" media outlets consistently undermining this country and military while they are at war?
The government and the military could and should fight back.
The should send reps to the major networks who will listen Fox and any others openly making thier point and calling out the Seditionist with facts if nessecary. Then those same outlets should be totally blacked out from access. That would mean no seats at the Press conferences, no information realesed to them, no access to Iraq or Afghanistan or any other area they can be denied acess to. Work hard on getting their FCC, newspaper ect.. licenses yoked pernamently and some IRS audits would not hurt either.
Freedom of speech doesn't cover enemy propoganda outlets.
I do not read the NYT because of their "journalistic" habits (like plagiarism, making up facts, or releasing national secrets), but I also don't subscribe to the "anything other than good news is subversive" school of thought either. There have been screw-ups (very bad ones) in Iraq and I have no problem with the media ripping the administration a new one on it.
Yes, the generals are saying they get everything they ask for, but what about the generals who have said otherwise? What about GEN Shinseki, who publicly testified it would take between 400,000 and 600,000 troops to secure Iraq (in opposition to Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz who thought Iraq would be a pushover) and was promptly "retired"? What about Marine LTG Neubold who retired over differences with Rumsfeld? What about GEN Zinni and the others who have publicly come out against the administration's handling of the war? Are these men "traitors"? Are they right or are they wrong?
Yeah all the media seems to be against the war, but do you expect to paint a lump of shit red, call it a rose, and then expect everyone to believe it?
I wrote a piece on the DOD taking the NYT and others to task, as well as another piece showing David Cay Johnston's(From the New York Times) distortions in another piece he wrote. Seems he took exception to my calling him a liar and decided to come commetn on my blog himself, to which I not only posted on my site but also showed him very clearly exactly how he lied and distroted his story just for the headlines.
Was fun!!!!
Joel
No one is pissed at NYT and others for publishing some generals who's ideas were turned down for one reason or another, or for reporting bad news.
We are pissed at the articles like Abu grahib that was front page for months and still often mentioned, for outright lies about what we have done and are doing, straight up giving play to articles and videos from TERRORIST (see CNN most recent example). For taking Arab rumors that are used to hurt our cause and do all they can to spread and even confirm such (see article on suspected Israeli advisors with the Kurds becuase of some photos with Arab rumor? no evidence or proof). When they get huge play on Aljiz a enemy propoganda network. When the main editors and leadership are cought time and agian using faked photo's stories that always seem to lean ant-america hmmmm and are caught in foreign nations slamming US for asshat ideas like purposley shooting Journalist? For not playing few if any stories about the children we save the elderly we give medical treatment to the schools to the hospitols to the everyday things our soldgiers are doing to make Iraq better. To never once even attempt to do any research to put anything into a historical context unless it somehow plays you guesed it anti-american. Becuase in thier eyes enemy terrorist should have Civil Rights while are soldgiers are regularly tired convicted and sentenced in the same article before often based simply on stringers reports often taken from terrorist or terrorist colaborators themselves. It's about leaking classified info becuase it may damage the pres they hate even thou our leaders beg them not to becuase of the damage to national security. Its becuase of outright FAKE stories like "koran flushing" that were ran off accusations from RELEASED ENEMIES WTF. Its about how even when they are forced to run a good news story like Iraq or Afghanistan voting for the first time in history HISTORY they must close with whatever bad or suspected bad news they can to "balance out".
No Joel its not about bad news. Its about the NYT's, CNN, Newsweek, ect... outright reporting only what fits thier AGENDA at best or at worst straight up carrying the TERRORIST water and assisting thier cause under a "enemy of my enemy is my friend mentality".
There is no such thing as a perfect war that goes just as planned. Its all about adapting to circumstances and winning in the end. In WW2 our landings in Vichy France N Africa to attack the German Africa Core may or maynot have been the most ideal choice of battle field but once we hit the beach the debate was over and it was only HOW TO WIN.
Funny cartoon you should go check it out.
C-Low, I absolutely agree with everything you have to say and, I'll be blunt here, quit your whinin'.
War sucks, and in war you can expect your enemy to use every underhanded and dirty trick in the book. Hey, here's a headliner... we're getting our ASS KICKED in the Information Operations spectrum. I don't know who handles our PR front, but they do it like VMI plays football. We need to be utilizing PSYOP (and not just the white and gray of the Army, but the black of "three-letter organizations") to its max. We need to plant rumors, generate false headlines, buy off sheiks and imams with money (the Israelis do this) and use them to sway the people to our side. We do none of this. Why? Because some lawyer sitting somewhere decides its illegal or indecent. I guess these lawyers were different from the ones who said it was okay to firebomb entire Japanese cities or flatten German ones with hundreds of heavy bombers. Probably also cut from a different cloth than the ones who said, "yeah a flamethrower is a handy tool to clear caves with".
We also are over-lawyering the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I saw suspected insurgents let go because of lack of "probable cause". That's a term I expect to hear on the streets of the city where I work as a cop, not in a war zone.
In short, we are fighting with one hand held behind our back. Not tied but merely held there, because we seem to impose some ridiculous "we don't stoop to their level" moral righteousness on ourselves. I say bullshit. We either want to win this thing or we get the hell out.
And that's my beef. Do I think the NYT is shit? Absolutely. But, in this country, they have that right. I fault the administration for the conduct of the war. They knew what they were getting into. They calculated the factors and costs (or at least they should have). And now they whine because a liberal press won't support them? That's like saying "hey, they're shooting at us in Iraq."
Yeah, we're building schools and handing out backpacks, but tell me, is this the measuring stick for success in Iraq? We have totally failed to stand up an effective security force to protect the citizens of Iraq (and that's not for our lack of trying, mind you) and hundreds of Iraqis, possibly thousands, are dying monthly for it, but hey (double thumbs up and a cheesy grin) we're building schools. At least, when all is said and done with, Iraq will have a helluva primary education system set up.
It seems to me, from this grunt's view, that the Administration does not want to win. Or, if they do, they have a funny way of showing it. Or maybe this country is still totally inept at conducting effective counterinsurgency.
Talking about "the generals", I guess we mean the ones that are left now. Seems like all the wise ones spilt and retired soon after they saw Rummy pointing the military down down a dark, dark road.
Check out "The Lost Year in Iraq".
What do you think of it?
Post a comment
Potential comment conditions listed here. Oh, and you may use basic HTML for formatting.
It doesn't surprise me that the Times has "declined" to amend their editorial - or rather has declined to tell the truth when in comes to Donald Rumsfeld, or the war in general.
It truly sickens me to see how far the media has sunk since WW2. I suppose we'll never again have a media that actively supports U.S. victory in anything.
And that's a damn shame.