Ace, you write that accusing the media of aiding and abetting the enemy is a serious charge that you don't feel comfortable making. Do you think the media would get away with the way they behave if this was WWII? I truly feel their behavior and that of others and our own tolerance of it, has led to unnecessary deaths of soldiers.

Ace, you undercut your own argument when you say, " you can't cover a war like this and expect any other result." The MSM knows this perfectly well. It doesn't matter what their (unstated) reason for doing it is, if they know that it will aid and abet the enemy, then they are knowingly aiding and abetting the enemy.

What is encouraging about an otherwise discouraging story is that our troops realize whats going on because they have access to other media venues (read: internet). This was not so in the Vietnam era. The MSM should cease asking for whom the bell tolls...

Yes, but there's a difference between intent and inevitable, but unintended, consequences.

Liberals didn't *intend* to break up the black family structure when they began paying single mothers essentially to have bastard children. They intended, you know, to help those in need.

But it was foreseeable that incentivizing women to irrresponsibly get pregnant at very young ages, unmarried and without any paying job, would have that effect.

Foreseeable, but not actually intended.

Ace: If you intentionally commit an act that has forseeable orinevitable consquences, then you intended to cause the outcome. I don't think one can play or claim dumb as a defense.

Be not afraid. Your CIC pays no attention to these guys. As the election demonstrated, neither does anybody else.

Exactly, Julie. And Ace, your analogy is flawed. Those liberals were victims of the law of unintended consequences. The MSM knowswhat the results of their actions will be. Go back and read the last two grafs of your post, you say it yourself.

Ace,

I agree with Julie. This is not an unintended result of media coverage. If they don't really intend for America to be defeated, in the most media-graphic way possible, then how could they report with such bias on the events occuring in Iraq.

I am wholly convinced the Colonel is correct when he says they are unqualified to render the opinions and judgments they make. They have no clue what true warfare is about, and what the results are likely to look like. Expecting Rwanda and Kosovo (reporters previous experiences) to compare to our conflict in Iraq provides absolute confirmation of their ignorance.

Today's military goes to war to win in a fashion where we insist on rooting out the enemy and making him pay a terrible price for his stupidity. In no case can losing 1500 men or even 15,000 be considered losing the war if the enemy is being attrited at a rate 10-20 times our losses (and that is the rate we are experiencing -- unprecedented in modern military history).

The original casualty estimates from the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review indicated at least 10-20,000 dead from an invasion or conflict with Iraq within 90 days. Just because we didn't prepare America for those casualties doesn't mean that wasn't expected. So no way can 1360 dead in 22 months be anywhere close to losing.

The American press doesn't believe actually losing in Iraq would have any negative consequences for America at all. How stupid is that position? Once we prove we can't win even with absolute technical and moral superiority over an evil enemy, nothing will stop them. Nothing. We either win this and the press and our enemies recognize it, or we lose it and we will all be dead within 25 years.

Subsunk

The media is guilty as charged.They might all as well be working for Al-Jazerra,for all the bias and distortion they bring to the party.
They are actively giving 'aid and comfort'to the enemy,and they KNOW it. They just don't care.

MSM delenda est.

dougf -

I think I disagree when you say "They just don't care".

They do care - they do want us to lose. In their 'world' - the chattering classes of Manhattan, academia, foundation do-gooders, NPR and the rest of the msm - hating America is both a reflex and THE test for admission into their charmed circle. And since they hate America, America losing is the desired outcome.

However, if you mean they just don't care in the sense that they don't care that regular Americans are onto them but they're going to keep doing it anyway then I agree with you - they are absolutely indifferent to what we think about them.

However, thanks to the internet we can at least fight back against the 'West Side Boyars/Princes of the Church'.

The msm is the most dishonest institution in American public life today - the spiritual, and, it sometimes seems, genetic, heirs of the people who wrote The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Remember on election day, when we watched the D's gleefuly cavorting around in front of cameras, fully assured and confident that Kerry was winning, grinning like a possum eating coonsh*t off a hairbrush? Then remember how GOOD it felt the next day, when the faces fell, the bewilderment set in, then the depression, and then the hang-dog, "what th' hell happened?" look?

Mark my word. Stand by and watch. That same process is going to happen starting about Feb 15, and it's gonna get worse (for them) the rest of the year.

Let 'em paint it black as hell. It'll just feel better to watch them later!

At best it's negligent. I think it's deliberate. News reporters know what they are doing, if they each personally had a button they could push that would in an instant irrevocably harm America, NO, they probably wouldn't push that button, but if they have the opportunity to add one more drip to the water torture that might very well have the effect of irrevocably harming American, well, they'll contribute to that word after word, day after day after day.

It's unwise to put off identifying one's enemies, as much as you'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt.

The American press doesn't believe actually losing in Iraq would have any negative consequences for America at all.

Just like they didn't believe losing in SE Asia would have negative consequences. Well, I guess it didn't to America. But I'm still waiting for the press and the left to hold up signe: We're Sorry 3 Million Dead Cambodians. :(

The Democrat base and many in the moonstream media don't like America the way it is. It's too capitalistic, too powerful and in many ways (2nd Amendment for example) it's too free.

Combine this distaste for what America has been and mostly what it still is with the red-eyed hatred of the the President then it's a logical conclusion that they want us to lose this war.

Anything that brings down America and the President is good for Democrats.

Anything.

The 2nd American Revolution is starting soon. No Leftist, moonbat types or media types will survive.

Actually, it may come to that in my lifetime. As a former Marine, I would be sad to see it, but I understand that our most deadly enemies are Television journalists, NY Times writers and Hollywood traitors along with the "Red" Ted Kennedy types.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/047081.php
September 23,2004

This is the day I turned the TV news off--
full disclosure, Beldar got my "cherry" from following a link from an msn piece on the Swift boat vets on 11 Aug the previous month, but THAT was the day I made the mental note that if you looked like either Michelle malkin or Linda Eddy, I would have promised to quit philandering, womanizing, and being a pig (with principles) and proposed marriage.

I won't give you a pass on this, but I won't try to use your "hammer" on you, either. how does this differ --even materially-- from your self righteous rage over them trying to tell you what the fuck is important in terms of a national election in a time of war?
One fucking event, as opposed to a series of events, day in and day out, over and over again, to abet the SAME fucking desired outcome, if not a larger one--in terms of an old Europe. we know better, were bred for it, are entitled to it one world, planet of the apes organized civilization outcome, where guess who sees themselves as the ultimate counsel of Orangutans with ALLA the banannas first EVERY FUCKIN'time??
A 15 to 1 ratio of wire service photos, EVERY FUCKING DAY shot from whose perspective ?? That ain't my kids ALWAYS out in the foreground sticking a pistol in someone's eye, or posing with an RPG/ATW or LMG wearing a man dress, flip flops and a table cloth over their fukking heads...
these fuckwits don't take sides, they take pictures--

Once upon a time, oops..
this is no shit--It's amazing how much you and your scruffy assed cameraman look like a brother fukker and his loader at 150 meters in the heat shimmer off the pavement just after noon around here (that was Sadr city, then) just expressing my concern as a "professional parent" to a charge I didn't want within 2500 meters of me--just asks the marines who got saddled with that fuktard, Kevin Sites.
my CO swallowed his chew and choked, i thought that PIO officer was going to faint--I nearly got relieved of my company for suggesting an obvious fact of modern warfare... They ARE high value targets in this environment--or certainly should be

Yes these last two 'shootin' shindigs' ain't nuthin like the last 4--'atall--christ I remember waiting all night for a call from a hall phone in a common area for a 3 minute exchange with the 'world" in which every exchange ended with the word, over...
Aw shit, now I sound like an old fuk..I gotta task to go do and calm down
Damned, I'm disappointed with you.
Now I'l probably have to change my name and isp protocols, again

The media has no constituional right to irresponsible use of free speech. The same laws that apply to slander of an individual or private group should be extended to the branches of our government. Intent to harm is difficult or impossible to prove, but it can be inferred by selective reliance on facts only supporting one's case (called bias). Harm from bias is demonstrable.

One of my pet peeves;
When an outfit like 60 Minutes does a story on malfeasance within the government which spans over several administrations- and describes them thusly;

When they are discussing events between 1992-2000, we hear 'so-and-so bad guy had ties to people in the federal government,' or 'the administration.'

When it happened in years before or after, it is always 'the Republicans,' or 'the Reagan government,' or 'the Bush administration.'

For some reason, it's never said who was at the top when corrupton was taking place unless there's an (R) next to their name.

I have to disagree with you on this one. I think the left and their media, most of the MSM, want to see us fail in Iraq and they don't mind aiding the enemy to do so. They are traitors in the truest sense but unfortunately we can't do much about it except rely on the blogs and other alternative news sources to report the news accurately. These are the same tatics used in , dare I say it, Vietnam, they worked then but I think they will fail now because of the blogs. Still, lots of people haven't turned to the Internet yet for news so are being overwhelmed by the MSM .

The problem with relying on the gung-ho words of a soldier in the field is that they are involved, and to maintain their effectiveness they must believe they are winning, or capable of winning.

Like a 60:1 odds football team, down 5 touchdowns at the half, goes into the locker room convinced they can turn it around.

The soldiers letter is no different than the letters of the gung-ho in Vietnam who wrote back how the people loved them, they were making a difference, etc.

The problem is that now mainstream conservatives have started to believe the Neocon view is gravely flawed. James Baker III, William F. Buckley, George Will, and several Congressional conservatives have said the Neocon vision of a series of "cakewalk" wars and liberation to democracy is fantasist thinking. The Shiites want us out, the Sunnis want us out. What welcome mat that was there in April 2003 has long been rolled up. The "vast WMD stockpile" hunt is over. Outside Israel and the neocons, there is no enthusiasm for Michael Ledeen's war cry "Faster, faster. 1st Iraq, then Syria, then Iran, then Saudi Arabia! Faster, Faster, America....please!"

Former Secretary of State Baker has said that America must announce a phased withdrawal plan as soon as the election is completed, that other DEmocrat and Republican leaders agree. Implicit is that there a full-blown insurgency despite Tim Ryan's triumphalism - estimated by the Head of Iraqi Intelligence at 30,000 and growing active fighters and 200,000 supporters - and to beat it with Iraqis on the sidelines will take adding 200,000 more US troops into Iraq. Which we won't do ---because that would involve asking sacrifice of Americans not affiliated with the military..

Lefty commentator after lefty commentator has said that a defeat in Iraq would be good as it would humble America and bring it to its senses. The left has been engaging in sedition and treason, hiding behind our freedom of speech laws. Its time to start prosecuting these scumbags and I don't give a shit if they say its chilling. Its supposed to be chilling. You don't advocate for our enemies.

LTC Tim Ryan: "What if domestic news outlets continually fed American readers headlines like: "Bloody Week on U.S. Highways: Some 700 Killed," or "More Than 900 Americans Die Weekly from Obesity-Related Diseases"? "

It would be a very good thing. I'm not sure of the numbers but during the Vietnam era, I think about 4 times as many people died in drunk driving accidents as died in Vietnam. Where I grew up, driving drunk was practically a sign of manhood.

Obesity is fast becoming a very serious health problem in America, affecting 10s of millions, and is sure to add 100s of billions to our national health care bill if left unchecked.

Now, to address a main point of the article:

It's not the reality-based media, it's fucking Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz who have hurt our efforts in Iraq.
I cannot forgive Rumsfeld for saying the shortage of armor was a matter of "physics" and then, two days later, there's an announcement that armored Humvee production is increased by 100/month. Physics did not change in 2 days but for some people, CYA is a way of living.

You seriously mean that you wouldn't make the treason charge against today's media? I think it eminently, and easily provable. The NY Times called for the assassination of President Bush. CBS tried to take down a wartime President with a fake scandal cooked up from faked documents. The incessant drumbeat of "failed" and "quagmire" when these are clearly untrue to anybody who is paying attention in particular stands out as treasonous activity. And the efforts in conjunction with left-wing ideologues in the State Dept. and the CIA to subvert official U.S. policies is positively seditious. Time and time again the enemy is given the benefit of the doubt and the U.S. denied it.

If one is going to allege that much of the media are not knowingly engaging in treason, how then would they behave differently? What evidence is there of their loyalty to the US - or even impartiality?

Well I don't know about you Cedar but the opinion of a Cpt. on the ground doing the fighting counts a lot more than a 60 year old has been 2 star reeling over battles won and lost.

In the end it comes down to something very simple, one side is fighting more or less for progress and one is fighting for more or less stagnation. Which side do you think the United States is fighting on?

Additionally, this "full blown insurgency" that the press loves to beef up is still concentrated in less than 20% of the country, major operations are ongoing in two hotspots, Mosul and Baghdad. In Mosul the US has the assistance of the Kurds, who have come down from the mountains in force (10,000+) to protect their people. In Baghdad reminants of Al Zarqawi's thugs are causing the comotion, a last ditch effort to disrupt the elections.

What I find troubling is the lack of will on the part of Senate Republicans and Democrats as the elections have approached. What did they think these people were just going to roll over and die? Iran, Syria, Al Queda et al understand that democracy will dry up the wells of hate they use to quench the thirsts of young impressionable moslem youth. If Iraq succeeds in many ways they fail, I don't see why many others don't see this as clearly.