Troops Fire Complaints at Rumsfeld

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Dec 10 2004, 05:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Dec 10 2004, 05:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Dec 11 2004, 12:13 AM


What the reporter did might in fact save American lives but instead of being praised for calling attention to an important story he's being painted as some sort of Svengali in a pink cape. The soldier that actually asked the question is being painted as a complete moron.

Exactly. That's what I have a problem with.

I'll say this. The elite media in this country, left or right, has ALWAYS believed that we are stupid. So, they report to us in that manner. It's always been that way and it will probably never change.

As I said, to insinuate (as anyone who questions the legitimacy of the question because it was planted by a reporter does) that the soldier in question and all of his applauding comrades did not believe in the question itself is assinine. These guys respect Donald Rumsfeld whether they agree with him or not. He is their superior. They're not going to ask some question they don't think is an issue because some embedded reporter asked them to.

That's what all this uproar regarding the reporter leads to. It couldn't be more wrong. [/b][/quote]
Goddamnit you just don't get it! I want someone to argue with over this!

I was actually writing that last post thinking "what am I trying to prove to him, he agrees with me"?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Dec 11 2004, 12:27 AM

It's damage control by the pro-Bush media and it worked like a charm.

Yeah, the same Pro-Bush media that made a HUGE deal out of the lack of armor and Rumsfeld's very inadequate response the day before?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Dec 11 2004, 12:29 AM

Goddamnit you just don't get it! I want someone to argue with over this!

I was actually writing that last post thinking "what am I trying to prove to him, he agrees with me"?

You don't know how frustrated I was when I read the thread after my first post and realized you'd already come up with the 'planting the applause' mock-theory coming up next!

I guess the fact that we agree can be looked at as a sign of just how right we are about this.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Dec 11 2004, 12:31 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Dec 11 2004, 12:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAddiction@Dec 11 2004, 12:27 AM

It's damage control by the pro-Bush media and it worked like a charm.

Yeah, the same Pro-Bush media that made a HUGE deal out of the lack of armor and Rumsfeld's very inadequate response the day before? [/b][/quote]
No, that would have been the unpro-Bush media. There's a little bit of both.

I didn't say all media is pro-Bush, but the Drudge Report definitely is. They made something that is fairly normal and routine out to be sensational so other news networks would do the same. CNN is especially bad for falling for such tactics. They are the biggest cheerleaders in the media world and will get behind anything.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Dec 11 2004, 12:36 AM

No, that would have been the unpro-Bush media. There's a little bit of both.

I didn't say all media is pro-Bush, but the Drudge Report definitely is. They made something that is fairly normal and routine out to be sensational so other news networks would do the same. CNN is especially bad for falling for such tactics. They are the biggest cheerleaders in the media world and will get behind anything.

That's just crazy.

CNN, FOX, NBC, ABC and CBS were all over the story when it broke...and not in a complimentary way toward Rumsfeld.

Now those same outlets (and I would guess every single one) have gone to the stupid planted question illegitimacy story. And you're going to tell me that drudgereport.com is responsible for that shift?

Please.

[FlamesAddiction]

Yes. It only takes one to get it rolling.

You know that if there was any way for FOX to put a pro-Bush spin on anything, they are going too. CNN and the rest will then print the same story because of competition (just like FOX would do if CNN was running with a story).

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Dec 10 2004, 09:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Dec 10 2004, 09:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames fan@Dec 10 2004, 02:06 PM
Well, I'm not sure what how a newspaper chooses to report a story has to do with Americans being gullable....but....

It's not a newspaper, it's the mainstream media. And I use the term "gullible" because the mock outrage of the Drudge Report has turned attention away from the real story (ill-equipped soldiers in a war that Rumsfeld heartily cheered on) and towards a piddling, inconsequential journalism ethics question at a Tennessee newspaper. Who buys this blatantly obvious flim-flam? Gullible people led by a gullible and apparently hopeless media.

No matter who wrote the question, it brings up several serious questions, none of which seem to be getting asked or answered.

American people should be very angry over two things (at least) now. The soldiers are ill-equipped and the news media is useless. If they aren't angry about this they are gullible. [/b][/quote]
While I agree this is an inconsequential event and totally agree with your "navel-gazing" comment, you'll have to demonstrate it has actually superceded the real issue, the lack of preparedness for the insurgency in Iraq and the continued catching up on armouring vulnerable vehicles.

The prominent story on the New York Times site right now is:

"Armor Scarce for Big Trucks Transporting Cargo in Iraq"

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/10/internat...artner=homepage

The reporter issue is nowhere to be seen at the Washington Post site. If you want to go looking inside the Washington Post, its great media commentator, Howard Kurtz, devotes part of his column to it, but that's basically his job. I'm sure Kurtz will have it on his media program on CNN on Sunday morning as well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/natio...ns/kurtzhoward/

There's no notice of it at the LA Times site.

It remains in a prominent position at the USA Today site, over a story "Plans for Armor." Your argument has legitimacy at that site at least. The underlying link at USAToday:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...ary-armor_x.htm

The Chicago Sun-Times has a brief, non-committal story on the facts of the matter in its Iraq section, by and large probably the normal treatment.

On television media sites, at MSNBC.com, The Bloggerman opinion piece deals with it but is not prominently displayed. No news story on the reporter there.

CNN headlines its site right now with "Army seeks more armoured humvees" and a picture of a worker preparing one. Underneath, a secondary story on the reporter issue - basically the opposite treatment given the thing by USA Today. They have a video link to a story about a lack of armor on military vehicles. CNN also has a story on morale problems in the Army. You certainly can't say the "right" issue is being buried there.

The news story on the reporter issue has already disappeared from FOX's site, although one columnist opines on it briefly in a notes section lower down.

There doesn't appear to be anything about it at the CBS site main page.

At ABC News there is a headline: "Military said to be working on armor upgrade" lower down on its site. There's also a video link to "Vulnerable Vehicles." No display of the reporter controversy.

Its mentioned in the Americas section of BBC.com but not on the main page.

I agree its media navel gazing but your probably overstating its prominence.. Dan Rather TRULY submarined the GW Bush national guard records story. You'd be right on with that one.

This appears to mostly have already come and gone or disappearing fast while the armor issue remains as per the above references.

My observation anyway.

Cowperson

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Dec 11 2004, 12:43 AM
Yes. It only takes one to get it rolling.

You know that if there was any way for FOX to put a pro-Bush spin on anything, they are going too. CNN and the rest will then print the same story because of competition (just like FOX would do if CNN was running with a story).

If that's the case, then why don't the other network news outlets report just like FOX in order to better compete with them?

I don't buy it for a second.

[Cowperson]

An addendum to my post above - MSNBC just updated their front page in the last few minutes with a picture and prominent story entitled: "War Fatique - Military Hardware In Iraq Wearing Out Fast."

A secondary story underneath is "Troop Complaints Reach New Level."

www.msnbc.com

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Dec 10 2004, 05:46 PM
While I agree this is an inconsequential event and totally agree with your "navel-gazing" comment, you'll have to demonstrate it has actually superceded the real issue, the lack of preparedness for the insurgency in Iraq and the continued catching up on armouring vulnerable vehicles.

The prominent story on the New York Times site right now is:

"Armor Scarce for Big Trucks Transporting Cargo in Iraq"

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/10/internat...artner=homepage

The reporter issue is nowhere to be seen at the Washington Post site. If you want to go looking inside the Washington Post, its great media commentator, Howard Kurtz, devotes part of his column to it, but that's basically his job. I'm sure Kurtz will have it on his media program on CNN on Sunday morning as well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/natio...ns/kurtzhoward/

There's no notice of it at the LA Times site.

It remains in a prominent position at the USA Today site, over a story "Plans for Armor." Your argument has legitimacy at that site at least. The underlying link at USAToday:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...ary-armor_x.htm

The Chicago Sun-Times has a brief, non-committal story on the facts of the matter in its Iraq section, by and large probably the normal treatment.

On television media sites, at MSNBC.com, The Bloggerman opinion piece deals with it but is not prominently displayed. No news story on the reporter there.

CNN headlines its site right now with "Army seeks more armoured humvees" and a picture of a worker preparing one. Underneath, a secondary story on the reporter issue - basically the opposite treatment given the thing by USA Today. They have a video link to a story about a lack of armor on military vehicles. CNN also has a story on morale problems in the Army. You certainly can't say the "right" issue is being buried there.

The news story on the reporter issue has already disappeared from FOX's site, although one columnist opines on it briefly in a notes section lower down.

There doesn't appear to be anything about it at the CBS site main page.

At ABC News there is a headline: "Military said to be working on armor upgrade" lower down on its site. There's also a video link to "Vulnerable Vehicles." No display of the reporter controversy.

Its mentioned in the Americas section of BBC.com but not on the main page.

I agree its media navel gazing but your probably overstating its prominence.. Dan Rather TRULY submarined the GW Bush national guard records story. You'd be right on with that one.

This appears to mostly have already come and gone or disappearing fast while the armor issue remains as per the above references.

My observation anyway.

Cowperson

Well it should be obvious why I ignored the New York Times lol.

CNN as I see it still has the "planted question" story as the 4th highest headline (behind Berlusconi, how to act at the Christmas party, a cat's headstone and finally dead Iraqi election workers). That's the international site though and soldier griping is the lead story w/picture on the "America" page so I guess I'm hooped there.

Maybe I am overstating it's prominence but through watching the tube and surfing the news sites it seemed to get at least as much play as ther serious story. Why is that? I don't know. Lanny called it a "shell game" and it really looks like that to me. It's obvious that they would try to obfuscate* the negative story and point people in the other direction and they did it pretty well. Doing that is probably in the job description of a politician though. Too bad the journalists are so easily duped.

This all reminds me of a story that came out shortly after 9/11. I don't remember the details but it was a PR flak in London and she may have worked for the government. Anyhow, it came out that at some point in the hours right after the planes crashed she said something like "lets air all the dirty laundry that needs airing today". She got canned for it I believe. I know the scenario is different from this one but we all should recognize that this is the mindset they are working from. They don't want us (well, Americans) to hear the bad news. Of course they don't.

*obfuscate -- I've never used this word before but I think I used it properly. If I'm wrong then someone tell me and I'll try to come up with something else. I really like the spelling and how the f comes right after the b. That's pretty rare!

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Dec 11 2004, 01:22 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Dec 11 2004, 01:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Dec 10 2004, 05:46 PM
While I agree this is an inconsequential event and totally agree with your "navel-gazing" comment, you'll have to demonstrate it has actually superceded the real issue, the lack of preparedness for the insurgency in Iraq and the continued catching up on armouring vulnerable vehicles.

The prominent story on the New York Times site right now is:

"Armor Scarce for Big Trucks Transporting Cargo in Iraq"

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/10/internat...artner=homepage

The reporter issue is nowhere to be seen at the Washington Post site. If you want to go looking inside the Washington Post, its great media commentator, Howard Kurtz, devotes part of his column to it, but that's basically his job. I'm sure Kurtz will have it on his media program on CNN on Sunday morning as well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/natio...ns/kurtzhoward/

There's no notice of it at the LA Times site.

It remains in a prominent position at the USA Today site, over a story "Plans for Armor." Your argument has legitimacy at that site at least. The underlying link at USAToday:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...ary-armor_x.htm

The Chicago Sun-Times has a brief, non-committal story on the facts of the matter in its Iraq section, by and large probably the normal treatment.

On television media sites, at MSNBC.com, The Bloggerman opinion piece deals with it but is not prominently displayed. No news story on the reporter there.

CNN headlines its site right now with "Army seeks more armoured humvees" and a picture of a worker preparing one. Underneath, a secondary story on the reporter issue - basically the opposite treatment given the thing by USA Today. They have a video link to a story about a lack of armor on military vehicles. CNN also has a story on morale problems in the Army. You certainly can't say the "right" issue is being buried there.

The news story on the reporter issue has already disappeared from FOX's site, although one columnist opines on it briefly in a notes section lower down.

There doesn't appear to be anything about it at the CBS site main page.

At ABC News there is a headline: "Military said to be working on armor upgrade" lower down on its site. There's also a video link to "Vulnerable Vehicles." No display of the reporter controversy.

Its mentioned in the Americas section of BBC.com but not on the main page.

I agree its media navel gazing but your probably overstating its prominence.. Dan Rather TRULY submarined the GW Bush national guard records story. You'd be right on with that one.

This appears to mostly have already come and gone or disappearing fast while the armor issue remains as per the above references.

My observation anyway.

Cowperson

Well it should be obvious why I ignored the New York Times lol.

CNN as I see it still has the "planted question" story as the 4th highest headline (behind Berlusconi, how to act at the Christmas party, a cat's headstone and finally dead Iraqi election workers). That's the international site though and soldier griping is the lead story w/picture on the "America" page so I guess I'm hooped there.

Maybe I am overstating it's prominence but through watching the tube and surfing the news sites it seemed to get at least as much play as ther serious story. Why is that? I don't know. Lanny called it a "shell game" and it really looks like that to me. It's obvious that they would try to obfuscate* the negative story and point people in the other direction and they did it pretty well. Doing that is probably in the job description of a politician though. Too bad the journalists are so easily duped.

This all reminds me of a story that came out shortly after 9/11. I don't remember the details but it was a PR flak in London and she may have worked for the government. Anyhow, it came out that at some point in the hours right after the planes crashed she said something like "lets air all the dirty laundry that needs airing today". She got canned for it I believe. I know the scenario is different from this one but we all should recognize that this is the mindset they are working from. They don't want us (well, Americans) to hear the bad news. Of course they don't.

*obfuscate -- I've never used this word before but I think I used it properly. If I'm wrong then someone tell me and I'll try to come up with something else. I really like the spelling and how the f comes right after the b. That's pretty rare! [/b][/quote]
If it's getting as much play tomorrow or the next day and so on then it's in Dan Rather territory and you've got a point. Come back then and tell me what you see - chances are it will be virtually zero.

My only point in the exercise above was to note that you can visibly observe "it" fading to black while the central issue remains, as evidenced by the update at MSNBC as one example, which goes hard on the equipment and morale issues in Iraq.

And, like you, I don't even really regard it as a story and hope it dies the early death it should.

For media pundits like Kurtz though, looking at the ethics of the profession, it will provide some interesting fodder for their backpage columns for some days to come.

Cowperson

[firebug]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Dec 8 2004, 02:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Dec 8 2004, 02:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAddiction@Dec 8 2004, 07:28 PM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...usa_rumsfeld_dc

Is that a legitimate complaint?

Definitely legit.

Just points to the obvious that the USA was unprepared for the violence of the insurgency that appears to have been pre-planned.

Then again, Canadian soldiers were in near panic in Kabul riding around in their little jeeps before they were recently replaced.

Soldiers have been complaining of their lot in life for centuries though. Canadian soldiers were sent into WWI and WWII with shoes that fell apart at the merest hint of water and guns that were basically useless. Complaining is part of a soldier's lot.

Rumsfeld had it coming and good on that soldier for stepping up.

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
I think both sides of this issue are overblown (lack of armour, and planted question).

As Cowperson states, no military force is ever 'fully prepared.'

Just ask those American WWII vets who drove the famed Sherman tanks affectionately known by them as "Ronson's" due to their propensity to burn when hit.

Rummy had to answer a difficult question, isn't that his job?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by firebug@Dec 10 2004, 07:12 PM
I think both sides of this issue are overblown (lack of armour, and planted question).

As Cowperson states, no military force is ever 'fully prepared.'

Just ask those American WWII vets who drove the famed Sherman tanks affectionately known by them as "Ronson's" due to their propensity to burn when hit.

Rummy had to answer a difficult question, isn't that his job?

Fair enough, but when the soldiers got over there in WWII, the Nazis (the reason for the war) were actually in Europe. Not so for this one.