Bush vs. Hitler
Okay, how about this then: Bush isn't as intelligent as Hitler. He's not as imaginative in his solution to problems, and he's probably not as good a speaker as Hilter was supposed to have been, but he is similar to Hitler in terms of his lack of respect for the lives and rights of people whom he perceives as being "the enemy", and this can include a vast number of people. Can I get away with that? I really think there is nothing he wouldn't try to do in order to win whatever battle he is trying to fight. I think the only restraint he's shown so far is because of the contraints put on him by our society.
posted by LeRoy at 5:48 AM
9 Comments:
1. It sounds like you have a great admiration for Hitler. However, I know better than that. I've known you for almost 20 years.
2. I'm assuming that when you say "enemy" you mean the prisoners sent to Cuba.
3. When you say Bush has a lack of respect for peoples rights, I'm assuming you mean not applying the protections of the Geneva Conventions to suspected terrorist.
4. When you say Bush has a lack of respect for peoples lives, I'm assuming you mean the colateral damage caused as a result of pre-emptive attacks by insurgents. I do not think for a moment that you are suggesting that Bush has ordered the taking of innocent (civilian) lives or that our troops are happily carrying out such an autrocity. It seems to me that a lot of people remember Vietnam and use that war as a justification for never going to war again.
5. It seems that you are not clear on why we are in Iraq or what we are fighting for.
6. You seem to suggest that Bush is capable of ordering genocide if there were no restrictions placed on him by our society. That he would order such a thing in order to win. Wow! Talk about demonizing! It is unfortunate that demonizing is a tactic proven (by Hitler) to work. Accusing someone of genocide is so extreme that I must ask, what evidence do you have to support that Bush is capable of such a thing? In the case of Hitler, we had the gas chambers. In the case of Melosovich, we had mass graves. In the case of Saddam, we had the bodies of the Kurds he gassed. Accusing someone of genocide and not providing evidence is irresponsible. BTW, I know you did not say that Bush would commit genocide, but your words seem to imply that.
-j
It’s not that LeRoy admires Hitler. I think LeRoy believes Bush is just as bad Hitler with what he did because I suppose USA as a country has rarely gone through such a thing where their president had mis-given information and attacked a country with no reliable and true reason. I can understand what LeRoy is trying to point out but I don’t love or hate Bush. Bush has done something good and bad to Iraq and Afghanistan simultaneously. Maybe not so ‘good’ to US citizens because it has probably affected a lot of people as a result from these attacks. In my opinion, I agree with the intelligence and speaking bit about Bush. I realize that Hitler was much determined in what he wanted than Bush. Hitler was upfront about his needs for himself and his people unlike Bush where he had to create some lies to get away with what he wanted to do in the Middle East.
Bush has lack of respect? Bush has sympathy at some point, more than Hitler due to his determination. Hitler was a harsh man in comparison to Bush. Bush, for example, has apologized (once?) and sympathized with Iraq one or two times from what I can remember. He has given support, encouragement for Iraqis to hang in there as well. However, I still think he could have done better and more than that to calm Iraqis down and assure them that everything ‘should’ be fine. As much as we know about the situation in Iraq, I hope Bush does too. I hope he realizes if he makes one little extra move or speech in Iraq, everything could crumble to the ground and then you can probably say Iraq is wiped out. The only one person I can compare Hitler to is Saddam. It’s like Saddam’s face is glued to Hitler’s body figure. They both gassed people, both tortured them, both enjoyed the love of killing. What more is there to say to that? They both attacked countries where they were eventually stopped as well.
The only way for Iraqis to defeat those terrorists/extremists and stop the insurgents, is by encouraging, supporting and showing the peaceful loving Iraqis its determination to help them out in their problem. Obviously, soldiers just can’t do it all by themselves, which means they need the help of Iraqis. Many Iraqis like my own family, want to have nothing to do with the situation in Iraq; they just want to continue their life no matter how bad the situation is. They fear that if they have any kind of little contact with foreigners whether American or not, they may find themselves in danger which is why thankfully, we haven’t had many threats by those insurgents or terrorists.
Did Hitler sympathize other than to ‘his people’ when he invaded several European countries? Have a think about it further more. Such little things make a difference. For Iraqis knowing that Bush sympathizes a little about the situation in Iraq and encouraging Iraqis is a big thing to the people of Iraq; Which is why some of us have some tiny trust that Bush could do something right and end this long lasting disaster.
Exactly what is the dissaster?
That U.S. soldiers are still in Iraq?
That multinational terrorist are crossing the border into Iraq and are killing innocent people and the U.S. seems powerless to stop them?
That an Iraqi government is not up and running (self supporting) yet?
That the people who have the most to gain from an Iraq that is free of terrorist and dictators is either powerless or (worse) reluctant to co-operate with U.S. forces in order to force the insurgents out?
-j
J, What's happening in Iraq isn't a disaster? Was Iraq like this before USA came? Were beheadings and ransoms reported nearly everyday in Iraq before USA came? Not at all.
Iraq was even one of the most least religious countries in the Middle East. Now some assholes come to Iraq because of the so called ' US occupation'. Now is where they get into everyone's problems and make it not better, but worse where they ask men to come contribute with their 'resistence' or 'war against infidels/satans' and where they force all Christians, young and old women to wear the religious veil. Where they demand for universities to be seperated from men and women. OR where they force any girl above the age of 10 from Fallujah to get married off to some 'mujahadeen'. SO much for people thinking Iraq is at an 'alright state'. What's been happening in Iraq now is a major difference to how it was under Saddam
Even though Saddam had killed much more than what sums up the death for the cost of this war, he still had well controlled Iraq. He never let anyone fly around anywhere they wanted. He allowed little breaths of freedom that surrounding middle eastern countries may not have had. As much as I hate Saddam to his bones, he did a bit ok with the 'religious freedom' even though he literally tortured every group of them.
I don't think Saddam ever cared what Iraqis believed in, as long as it gave him silly excuses to torture them for who they are.
Most of all, if Bush gets pushed around by the people so badly to allow troops to leave Iraq, he might have to do so. I fear his lack of strength now lol. And if USA does leave, much less troops in Iraq temporarily means much more terrorists taking over Iraq and making it worse than Iraq may have ever been. Such things we can't promise ourselves will happen but risking such situations is just too much. Iraq doesn't deserve that if it turns out this way. They never even asked for this 'liberation' these days because most understood the consequences of it. Before USA attacked Iraq, many Iraqis were able to visit Iraq but if the visit exceeded more than 10 days, Ba'athis would interrogate you to make sure why you're staying that long. It was tougher on men more than women. However, now you can visit Iraq anytime you want, anywhere you want...but you never know if you're gonna come out of the country alive.
The disaster began ever since USA attacked Iraq. Your options mentioned lead one to another from the first attack on Iraq.
Baghdad brought up an interesting point that I hadn't considered. Did Hitler and Saddam enjoy killing people, or did they simply do that as a means to an end. I have to confess, I don't know enough about either of them to say for sure one way or the other. I don't necessarily think Bush likes killing people. He might. I saw his eyes light up during the debate with Al Gore in 2000 when he was discussing the heavy use of the death penalty in Texas, so I wouldn't put it past him. I do, however, think that Bush thinks so little of killing tens of thousands of people that he's willing to do it for some obscure reason that has nothing to do with getting rid of an evil dictator or destroying fictitious weapons of mass destruction.
Here are some of the things that I think Bush has done that show a lack of respect for human rights and lives:
1) Shortly after the war in Afganistan, he began pressuring the CIA for information that would show Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Now, I don't know if I can explain how wrong this is. If you are honestly seeking the truth, you don't order people to provide you evidence for a conclusion you've already made. Bush already knew he wanted to attack Iraq, he was just looking for an excuse.
2) The Bush administration kept saying they were trying to win the "Hearts and Minds" of the Iraqi people, at the same time, they were consistently breaking into people's homes in the middle of the night, herding them outside, and throwing the men on the ground zip-locking their hands behind their backs and covering their heads with black sacks. Now they're saying "Gosh, it turns out that the Iraqi people have a lot of pride and that this makes them ashamed and angry. Oh, if only we'd known that before we would have treated them a lot nicer." (I'm paraphrasing, of course.) The Iraqi people don't have any more or less pride than anyone else. Anyone would be ashamed and angry at having that kind of stuff done to them. It seems like the Bush administration is only now learning lessons that most people learn in Kindergarten.
3) The first thing the Bush administration did when it got control of Iraq was to get the oil wells operating again. I don't remember the exact number, but I read recently that they had pumped out about 3 billion dollars worth of oil so far. This money has gone to "pay for the reconstruction of Iraq", which means that it has gone into the pockets of companies like Halliburton. Still, with all of the reconstruction, the electricity is still only on for a few hours at a time in Baghdad.
4) I don't remember the exact details, but shortly after the Abu Ghraib pictures came out, there were stories about how the Bush administration had purposely structured the chain of command at Abu Ghraib so that the U.S. would not be technically responsible for any torturing that went on. Like I said, I don't remember the details, but it had something to do with putting civilians in charge of parts of it, and some other group as well.
5) Around July or August of this year, the Supreme Court told the Bush administration that they had to give the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay some legal representation. Bush basically told them not to interfere with what was going on at Guantanamo. I never heard who won that argument, but since the Bush administration has been talking about releasing some prisoners, and sending others back to Iraq, I think the Supreme Court probably won.
6) I don't remember the guys name, but there was some guy in the U.S. who was an American citizen that Bush accused of being an "enemy combatant". Bush had the guy arrested, but he didn't want to give him a lawyer or let him have a trial or anything. Bush just wanted to be able to lock him away for as long as he wanted. The argument was that he was too dangerous to the American public to allow him to go through the normal legal process. This makes no sense to me. If he's in jail, he's in jail. Giving him a lawyer and a fair trial isn't going to make him any more dangerous. Not giving him a lawyer and a fair trial means that Bush is then free to arrest anyone he wants and just claim that they're an enemy combatant. If there's no trial, who's going to know whether or not he's really an enemy combatant.
7) Bush closed down Muqtada Al Sadr's newspaper. The claim was that the newspaper was printing untrue allegations about what the U.S. was doing in Iraq, and that it was inciting violence. Of course, closing down the newpaper incited a hundred times more violence than the newpaper did by itself. Also, this is a violatation of free speech. True, Iraq doesn't have a law protecting free speech, but if you believe free speech is a good thing, you're going to protect it, whether there is a law requiring you to or not. Bush obviously doesn't believe free speech is a good thing. And this is a key point. In Iraq, we're seeing how Bush would really run a country if he weren't constrained by the laws that we have here in the U.S.
One caveat here. When I talk about Bush, I'm really talking about the Bush administration. I obviously don't have enough visibility into what's going on to know what's coming from Bush directly, and what is coming from other people. For all I know, Bush is just a puppet on a string and other people are really responsible for the acts I've listed above.
As to the question of genocide, I don't see a huge difference between killing tens of thousands of people in an attempt to wipe out a particular race, or killing tens of thousands of people for some other reason. However, I will say this about Bush, I don't think he's even close to being a racist. I do think that Bush is honestly trying to make the world a better place, he's just trying to do it in such a way that leaves him with a bunch of money, and/or power, take your pick. In the end, they're really the same thing. Also, I think Bush is very clumsy in how he goes about trying to make the world a better place. His main method is basically to kill anyone who disagrees with him.
Two more comments. First, regarding whether or not I admire Hitler. Nobody can rise to a position of power without a certain degree of competency. I have heard that he was a great speaker, and that that was part of the reason for his success.
I think it's important to realize that no one is all good or all bad. Hitler had a lot of support from within Germany from people who honestly believed that he was doing what was best for Germany. Also, remember that the victor writes the history books. I'm not trying to defend him, it's just that if we paint him as some super villain, we'll never recognize when somebody else just like him comes along.
Hitler was three things: he was evil, he was competent, and he was in the right place at the right time to come to power. Now, there are plenty of evil, competent people out there. All they need is the right place at the right time. Right now, if you really want power in this world, the U.S. is the right place, so now, all we're waiting for is the right time.
LeRoy, you've made some outrageous accusations but here, I am going to address only one of them:
------------------------------------------
You wrote:
1) Shortly after the war in Afganistan, he began pressuring the CIA for information that would show Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Now, I don't know if I can explain how wrong this is. If you are honestly seeking the truth, you don't order people to provide you evidence for a conclusion you've already made. Bush already knew he wanted to attack Iraq, he was just looking for an excuse.
--------------------------------------------
The truth of the matter is, years before George W. Bush became our president, most prominent Democrats wanted Saddam Hussein's head on a platter.
Now those same Democrats say that George W. lied to us and Hussein never had any WMDs, and the only reason president Bush went into Iraq was for the oil.
To wit:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I b elieve that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.
"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his contin ued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
LeRoy wrote: " J, What's happening in Iraq isn't a disaster? Was Iraq like this before USA came?"
I've got an idea - let's listen in to someone who has first-hand knowledge of what's going on in Iraq and get his opinion:
War is going better than reported
Published Monday, October 18, 2004 1:21:10 PM Central Time
By MAJ. DAVE O'DONAHUE
Special to the Daily Globe
The war in Iraq is going much better than being reported. The only news that seems to be reported is the latest terrorist bombing, beheading, or current body count. The media continues to neglect the positive events happening daily here. I cannot help but wonder if the media has their own personal agenda driving the persistent negative reporting of the war.
Our engineer unit has been attached to the First Infantry Division in Iraq for the past eight months. I have traveled thousands of miles throughout the northern half of Iraq providing engineer support to the 1ID. Most of the area I travel is within the "Sunni Triangle." I've traveled to Baghdad on several occasions. I've met hundreds of Iraqi Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, Turkomans, and even some Christians in my travels. Almost all of these people express their appreciation of the United States. We are consistently greeted by smiling and hand-waving Iraqi children.
There are many positive events occurring on a daily basis in Iraq that should also be reported. More schools, hospitals and clinics are open and operating now than at any time in Iraq's history. Utilities continue to expand and are significantly ahead of the pre-Saddam era. Commerce and capitalism are concepts making a positive impact on the Iraqi people.
The Iraqi military and security forces continue to improve every day. Iraqi police and military forces face dangerous situations yet recruiting continues to be very strong. They are far more likely to be attacked by the terrorists, yet continue to sign up and serve. The Iraqi police and military have experienced setbacks and will experience future challenges. But positive development is being made and should be reported. Setting up a new, legitimate government, police and military are not easy and take a lot of effort, time and dedication.
The Iraqi people want to live in peace and freedom. This country is living in a state of terror with a small minority of terrorists and fanatical leaders bullying and terrorizing Iraqi citizens. Their terrorist activities have become more fanatical indicating their sense of desperation that freedom is winning people over here. The U.S. along with the Iraqi people are making a difference here. It is critical we continue to support and not abandon this effort.
We have come to expect the international media to present a negative spin on reporting of this war. And yes, there have been challenges here. But the bottom line is that positive progress is being made on a daily basis and not being reported. The American people are not hearing about it. Our citizens deserve to hear the whole story here, not just one side.
------------------------------------------
O'Donahue, a member of the 264th Engineer Group-Wisconsin Army National Guard, has been serving in Iraq for eight months. A 1983 Luther L. Wright High School graduate, he is a resident of Ashland, Wis., with many family members still in the Ironwood area. He received gifts and care packages as part of "Operation Forget No Soldier."
First thing. I was not being facetious when I asked which part "YOU" considered a disaster. There's a lot going on in Iraq that people can point to and say, "That's a dissaster." I wanted to know which ones "YOU" considered to be a disater.
Secondly. Beheadings and ransoms are due to religious fanatics, zealots, insurgents, terrorist (take your pick). Americans are not doing these things. Also, the people that are being beheaded are foreigners.
Iraq under Saddam was a dead end. Iraquis did not have the support necessary to overthrow Saddam. Saddam was too strong. Iraquis were stuck with him.
Iraq under U.S. occupation has possibilities. However, some things need to happen before Iraq is all that it can be:
1. The first thing that needs to happen is for the Iraquis to realize that Iraq is their country and their responsibility.
2. Freedon is worth fighting and dying for, it has a high price and you have to guard it 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
3. The Iraquis need to take a stand and say, "enough is enough! We reject "religious fanatics, zealots, insurgents, and terrorist." They can then decide to work with the U.S. and bring these people down. Sitting around hoping the U.S. fixes the problem is not going to work. The Iraquis need to play an active role. Blaming the U.S. is the easy way out and solves nothing.
The alternative is that another strong man like Saddam is put in his place. Is that what you want? Was life under Saddam preferable to what is happening now? Don't you realize that life can be better than life under Saddam and better than life as it is now? In order to be better, however, you need to fight for it and work towards it. Life is not easy. This is a transition period. I thought only Americans wanted things to be perfect right away and not have to lift a finger for it.
Iraquis no longer have Saddam to worry about. The U.S. got rid of him. Now, help the U.S. get rid of "religious fanatics, zealots, insurgents, and terrorist." The U.S. cannot do it alone. Turn these people in. Stop helping them. Fight them. Take this opportunity (The opportunity the U.S. has given you) to take control of your country and throw out the assholes.
One difference I see between (some) Americans and the rest of the world is that some Americans are willing to die for freedon. The rest of the world would rather suffer under a dictator as long as their life is not in jeopardy. Hell, even the terrorist are willing to die for what they think is right.
What about most Iraquis? I know that the ones the U.S. is training are willing to die for their country. I read the news about how some of them got ambushed on their way home and yet more new recruits show up for training. These Iraqui men, I admire.
-j
Now, let's consider the liberal media's biased view of the war in Iraq and how that influences our opinions of what is really going on in a country thousands of miles away:
Creating a Quagmire:
CBS's Coverage of Postwar Iraq
Now that the bombs have stopped, we're in the period the media likes to call "winning the peace," which has already lasted far longer than the war itself. This second phase is much more controversial as Democrats and other critics of the president feel appropriate to renew their efforts as the opposition.
CBS News has focused heavily on negative events in the country ignored or neglected positive news:
* According to a study of news reports during four months from Bush's May 1 speech declaring an end to major operations in Iraq to Sept. 9 (130 days of occupation), the CBS Evening News ran 100 more negative stories than positive stories about events in Iraq. A typical month is August, where negative stories outnumbered positive stories 40 to 5.
* Reporters for CBS played up the 150 deaths (as of Sept. 9)--less than half actual combat casualties--of Americans occupying a country of 23 million. But in contrast, the program has never done a report on the massive murder count--the highest in the nation--that afflicted primarily the minority areas of Chicago in 2002, which saw 648 people killed out of two million residents. In that same time span of approximately 130 days, Chicago had about 230 murders, well over the 150 in Iraq. American deaths anywhere are a grave concern, but to CBS some are more important to others.
* Negative stories easily dominated positive stories throughout almost all the weeks studied.
* July had the most positive reports with 12 as a result of news of the deaths of Saddam Hussein's two sons. The week of July 20 through July 26 was the only period in which positive outnumbered negative, helped by five Hussein stories in three days.
* On the issue of Iraq, the news media is essential to Americans since most of them do not have any other way of obtaining information about events in a country thousands of miles away from them. Thus, when the media report good news from the country, public support increases for Bush's handling of Iraq.
* The American people gave the president higher numbers immediately after the two deaths [of Saddam's sons]. This begs the question: Did Bush's skill at handling Iraq really improve in that one-week time period? Hardly, but two things did improve: people's perception of Bush and CBS's reporting parity. With lower approval numbers on Iraq the next month, did that mean Bush's skills had diminished after 30 days? No, but the number of positive stories had.
* A poll conducted by Zogby and American Enterprise magazine of 600 Iraqis from across the country showed that, among other things, "two thirds of those with an opinion urged that the coalition troops should stick around for at least another year."
* CBS refused to run the Zogby-AEI poll, which contradicted much of their coverage. But months earlier, Dan Rather ran on June 3 a poll by "Pew Global Attitudes," a survey that, according to the anchor, "finds the war in Iraq has pushed support for the United States in Muslim countries to new lows." He also reported that according to the poll, "many Muslims rate Osama bin Laden at or near the top among world leaders." This conflicts with the survey he chose to black out, which revealed that "57 percent of Iraqis with an opinion have an unfavorable view of Osama bin Laden, with 41 percent of those saying it is a very unfavorable view."
* Reporters could be politically motivated, choosing to look only at the negative for the sake of influencing the public. Or there could be one or more explanations for their fixation on the negative. Karl Zinsmeister, editor in chief of American Enterprise magazine which partnered with Zogby International in researching the poll, gave another reason why he thinks CBS and the rest of the media are obsessing with bad news in Iraq and ignoring positive events. "10,000 schools being rehabbed isn't news; one school blowing up is a weeklong feeding frenzy."
* CBS News correspondent Elizabeth Palmer reported that "the American authorities are busy telling anyone who will listen that they have put a million and a half Iraqis back to work and are restoring basic services." To her, though, there was even more important news that day: "But more hopeful still, the only soldiers visible in downtown Fallujah today were reading magazines in front of city hall."
* Palmer did not find news in a million and a half Iraqis back to work--- although that same number out of work in the U.S. would most certainly get her and her colleagues' attention. She'd rather obsess over the 149 casualties and 60 combat deaths that have captured the imagination of journalists as well as Democrats hoping for an opening.
* During a September 4 one-on-one interview with Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, Dan Rather asked him to give "one example of a success [in Iraq] that you think is being underreported." The general responded, "Sir, I could give you a hundred."
Post a Comment
<< Home