Jack Kelly gives us further evidence that the New York Times deliberately spins anything that happens in Iraq as bad news, even when it isn’t. You’d think they had some kind of, I don’t know, agenda or something. Or even a bias.
Is Stephen Glass looking for a job?
(Thanks to Power Line for the pointer.)
UPDATE: UNCoRRELATED has more.
It’s all bad news all the time. There is no other way to push the media’s agenda. It’s the reason why you only know of one mother of a slain soldier. The media doesn’t want you to know the other 1800 who are proud of their fallen sons and daughters and believe in the cause for which they died.
I’ve talked to a number of soldiers that have come back. They tell of all the accomplishments that have been done since the fall of Bagdad. Power and water have been distributed to places that didn’t have it even before the war. Hospitals, schools and business have been brought back and the public is generally positive about the future. Of course, you won’t here any of this through the traditional press.
If you don’t think that the media has an agenda regarding this war, ask yourself: was the coverage of the war in Bosnia different than the war in Iraq? Go back and look for articles. They will be praising the military. They will show how good it was that we brought this dictator to trial for war crimes.
Here’s a challenge: Can you show me one article in a major news source about war protestors during the war in Bosnia?
Hey dude you may get a charge out of this email I just got LOL
To: “Daniel Kauffman”
Subject: You might find this interesting
http://www.thewaterglass.net/
Looks like you got a fan, he has good taste too,
PS in case anyone reading this wonders I got that email from an internet friend since 98, not from anyone associated with waterglass.net
http://www.iraqbodycount.net
At least 23,000 civilians killed by military intervention in Iraq so far
Stop putting lipstick on the pig. This is war. The USA are killing civilians.
Alex, Amsterdam/Netherlands
Holy cow! I’ve never seen iraqbodycount.net before! How could I have been so wrong about EVERYTHING for so long?!?
I can’t wait to go to Crawford and picket in front of Bush’s ranch! Bring our (babykilling) boys home!
Save it.
David,
have you seen 23,000 killed *civilians* before, too?
And you are whining about whether there are 1,877 killed US *troops* or 5 more?
Have your families ever been killed by foreign invaders?
Have a nice job in building a democracy this way.
And calm down: I never said you were “wrong about EVERYTHING”. The topic was deaths in Iraq, nothing else.
And yes: In Europe you did better. We were freed by the US of a terrible tyranny. I thank your grandfathers and their families.
But today, to a bad part, America builds its wars upon lies and self-righteousness, at the cost of too many, I regret.
This is why so many are hating you.
I never could.
Still Regards,
Alex
Well, that’s funny Alex, because the topic in this thread isn’t American servicemen’s deaths in combat, isn’t WWII Europe (weird how you mention that in most of your comments), iraqbodycount.net, civilian deaths, people hating America, America’s lies, America’s self-righteousness, and whatever else you think is wrong with America, Iraq, or the war.
It’s about the article mentioned, and how it was spun by the New York Times. If you can’t stay on topic, you’re opening yourself up to ridicule.
I think I can be forgiven for answering you sarcastically when, for reasons of your own, you decided to hijack a thread on this blog with a meaningless comment quoting a statistic on iraqbodycount.net. That’s not what we’re talking about here; the fact that you felt it was germane suggests that you either didn’t read the post, or were VERY EAGER to get into a discussion on your terms. Unfortunately, you’re not going to get what you want.
There are several other threads on this website that discuss some of the things you mentioned, including the extremely biased reporting of deaths behind iraqbodycount.net. I’m not going to talk about them here, on this post.
I’m not looking for your gratitude. I don’t want it, I didn’t ask for it, and your expression of it doesn’t free you from the responsibility to stay on topic. I also don’t care whether you hate me and my country or not.
I didn’t thank you, boy, but your grandfather’s generation.
If you don’t care about the people hating America, that’s your problem as well. Perhaps it’s your biggest.
So long you didn’t answer a single argument of mine, whatever topic you want to choose. You’re nothing but flaming.
I told you my view on things, which is a different one. It is a European’s view, which you didn’t ask for, of course.
Regards,
Alex
I’m a boy now? And you’re the grown-up?
Note also that I said that I didn’t care whether you hated me or not; despite your grandiose claim, you’re not “the people.” You’re just one person with an internet connection. You’re not a problem, you’re an opportunity for me to sharpen my writing skills.
As for your view on things, let’s take a look at it:
First, you asked me if I’d seen 23,000 dead civilians, which wasn’t germane to the topic. I’ll answer your question anyway, however: yes, yes I have. I’ve seen many photos of Hussein’s mass graves. That probably doesn’t count.
Then you asked if my family had been killed by foreign invaders. So, presumably, if I haven’t seen 23,000 dead civilians and if my family hadn’t been killed by foreign invaders, I’m not allowed to hold a pro-war position on Iraq. That’s known as the chickenhawk argument. Doesn’t hold water here; perhaps in the peace-loving Netherlands, the chickenhawk argument is meaningful.
After professing your great concern for the 23,000 dead civilians, you then made mock of the coalition’s efforts to bring democracy to Iraq. More of the “European view.”
Then you thanked my grandfather and assorted families for what they’d done, I’m assuming, in World War II. I don’t know why that was brought up, but I’ve noticed that excessive gratitude usually masks deep-seated resentment.
After that, you made an unsourced allegation about lies and self-righteousness in, I must say, a rather self-righteous tone. But it’s okay; you’re so grateful that the Allies won WWII that you could never hate the U.S. How MAGNANIMOUS of you! I should take this moment to express my own gratitude for your magnanimity, but I won’t.
And now, you upbraid me for not caring (oh no, he doesn’t CARE), and for my insistence that, on my website, we stay on topic.
Here’s an idea: actually read what was said one more time, and tell me again that I’m the boy and you’re the European grown-up. Because honestly, I’m not seeing it.
??? The topic you chose in your blog post was:
“further evidence that the New York Times deliberately spins anything that happens in Iraq as bad news, even when it isn’t”
Doesn’t “anything that happens in Iraq” include people being killed every day in Iraq?
But whow, if you regard my postings as off-topic, I will respect this in the future.
If you want to “sharpen” your “writing skills”, then choose your words in a wiser way, instead of complaining.
Now to your posting:
1. You say: “you’re not ‘the people.’”
I can assure you that at least two thirds of the European population shares my views. Believe it or not. A newspaper could help.
3. You say: “So, presumably, if I haven’t seen 23,000 dead civilians and if my family hadn’t been killed by foreign invaders, I’m not allowed to hold a pro-war position on Iraq.”
Do 23,000 dead civilians really not influnce your pro-war attitude?
But, of course, you’re allowed to hold this position. But that doesn’t mean your gouvernment is allowed to break international law and the UN charta and start an illegal war of aggression.
Iraq broke the international law in 1991, as the US government did in 2003.
This is not only self-righteous, but a criminal act on the highest level. And, as you mitght know, torture like in Al Ghraib, is a war crime.
2. You say: “First, you asked me if I’d seen 23,000 dead civilians, which wasn’t germane to the topic. I’ll answer your question anyway, however: yes, yes I have. I’ve seen many photos of Hussein’s mass graves. That probably doesn’t count.
You can say Hussein tortured people, too, and he started a war of aggression. But aren’t the US a democracy?
And you, or your gouvernments, can be, of course, in favor of all this, too:
http://www.uwec.edu/grossmzc/interventions.html
Funny you get angry if people complain about your gouvernments attacking other countries, committing war crimes. How inapropriate people are not loving you for doing so.
4. You say: “After professing your great concern for the 23,000 dead civilians, you then made mock of the coalition’s efforts to bring democracy to Iraq.”
Seeing some media-mediated photos of mass graves is not the same as seeing 23,000 civilians being killed in your own country.
I just wanted to make clear that it’s not going to be easier to “build a democracy” if you kill civilians to its thousands.
Regards,
Alex
Update turns out TJ found your website
via google and here I thought he was checking out some of the links on my blog
way to go!
Your effort to move the rhetorical goalposts in order to get what you want is pretty transparent. And if you view my requirement that on this website we stay on topic as “complaining,” you obviously haven’t read the rules on commenting here. That shows me how serious you are about getting into a discussion.
Then you trot out some unsourced “two thirds of Europeans” statistic as if it was meaningful, and then insult me because I haven’t read the same newspapers as you have. I wonder of Theo Van Gogh read those newspapers? You know, before he was stabbed to death by a militant Islamist.
I have to admit that I kind of got bored after that and didn’t bother reading the rest of your statement. Anyhow, as you’ve effectively hijacked this thread and made it about something different, I must void the field and call you the victor. You win! You got what you wanted after all.
I don’t really have anything else worthwhile to say, so I’m just going to insult this site’s owner.