Ironic Thoughts
I've had My car radio turned off the last few days -- except for today when Rush was on..
Nightline VS. Fox News Remember the flap last week about how Nightline was going to air the names of the dead soldiers in Iraq?? Turned out to be a ratings hit.. It also seems that a lot of conservatives had this blow up in their face because they were completely convinced that it was going to tank seriously.. Want to know the really ill part of all of this?? Apparently ABC didn't air any commercials during this particular episode.. No revenue as a result of this.. No profit.. No money.. Whatever motivation ABC seeks, it apparently struck a chord with a pretty significant amount of people..
Who's yelling now?? Fox News.. Oh, before I go any farther, Fox News is a conservative news source.. Now Fox is slamming ABC calling the whole Nightline thing a "publicity stunt.." But it gets better.. "Meanwhile, the controversy fueled by Sinclair is bound to continue. "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace — who worked for ABC News and occasionally anchored "Nightline" until jumping to Fox late last year — said his show is preparing its own list for broadcast this weekend." So now, Fox is going to do their own rendition of what took place on Nightline, but showing the accomplishments and not just read a list of names..
How cheap is that?? That's like saying "I'm sorry Mr. & Mrs. Smith, Johnny died, but we want to hear how Jacob Bell made a fan belt from a discarded piece of cardboard...."
Now.. If it were just for publicity, what is Fox's motivation to repeat what has already been done?? No.. Fox is doing this because it'll paint Bush in a much better light.. A stoic 45 minute program identifying the soldiers who have died is bad for President Bush.. It was for President Johnson when we were in Vietnam.. So if Fox can try and paint a rosier picture, then that's a good thing.. Wow.. A rosy war!! Talk about wagging the dog!! And to think that the conservatives attacked Clinton for doing the same thing during the Monica Lewinski scandal (remember Bosnia anyone??)
Anyone get the clear picture about media bias yet??
Punishing Soldiers Under Orders What an elaborate head job this one is: We have a President leading us into battle ... okay, okay - he basically lied to us into battle, but let's forget that part.. So we're slaughtering Lord knows how many Iraqis so that they can be free.. But the Iraqis are fighting us because they don't want us in their land.. (How unreasonable is THAT, I ask myself...) So we sent thousands of troops over there to fight the war, the war ends, we're trying to stabilize the situation so that their elected government will take control.. Now we're hearing about how the tortures have been going in Iraq..
Now for the irony part.. If these allegations are true (reminding everybody that we still have a Justice system somewhere out there..) and these officers and soldiers are guilty of what they had allegedly done -- Bush wants to make sure they pay for what they did.. Um.. Forgive Me here.. I have a President that unilaterally decided "we're going to war" and summons up all of his forces to go overseas to find Saddam, weapons of mass destruction, whatever.. Our soldiers go overseas.. Now that the fighting has been over for sometime - a lot of injuries, deaths and kidnappings continue to happen while the government isn't even close to being able to handle the crisis over there.. The latest news I heard on the way home: we're going to remain in Iraq through 2005..
So.. We're staying in Iraq, our resources and troops are tired, worn down, and rotations are being extended a lot longer than anyone would really care to admit.. Can anyone here measure the stress levels that our men and women are going through?? The suicide rate among active military members were rising at the last check.. I'm not sure where it is today, but when there was that rub a few months ago where soldiers were saying what was on their mind: why are we here, what else is there to accomplish?? Morale has to be getting down in a worse way -- now being told that we're going to be staying over there until 2005 seems to be even more demoralizing..
Because think about it: why would soldiers and officers do something like this?? It's hard to say: "they must be criminals or something.." Really - we have criminals that are protecting our shores?? No, not buying it.. If we're supposed to be supporting our troops, it makes no sense to be supporting criminals.. Next argument.. Were they ordered to do these things?? Even if they were - are we going to have to run the same protections as the Nazi's did when their officers were captured and put on trial for what they did to the Jews?? "I was acting under orders" is a very peculiar defense when you think about it.. It implies "I do everything that I'm told to do" and "I trust the judgment of My superiors implicitly.." Common sense flies out the window - do you want to know how I know?? Because they are TRAINED to obey.. It's bred into them.. They breathe it.. They feel it.. They are under no right to question the authority of their superiors.. In fact, to do so - you're painted with a target.. There's no Serpico defense in the military.. Remember - it's the only job in America where if you try to quit, you get arrested or shot..
It's convenient for the Monday morning quarterback to go: "he should've passed instead of ran the ball.." Fact being: Bush isn't any closer to understanding what is happening in Iraq when all of this is said and done.. He has NO CLUE.. He's made one hell of a mess over there and part of me agrees: yes, we have no other choice now because he's gone and screwed it up.. He now has this chip on his shoulder which basically says "I'll do whatever I want, because you have no choice but to follow me..." If I'm a soldier overseas - knowing what happened to the prisoners, and hearing My President saying "we're going to punish everyone who was involved in this.." He's addressing a weary group of men and women who have been told that they are going to remain in Iraq for a longer time frame, who are missing out on their families, under the constant threat of attack, and confronting a nation that has even more animosity towards us..
One more thing: after Bush's comments about the allegations, one of the things I kept hearing in the back of my mind was: "if you're against the war, you're not patriotic.." "If you disagree with the President, you're not American.." "You don't support our troops if you believed against Bush and Blair's advance through the sands of Iraq.." I'm hearing my President criticizing the command of troops in Iraq.. I'm hearing my President shift the burden and blame from himself - and placing it on those under him.. I'm hearing my President seeking two interviews with Arab television networks saying that what the troops did was wrong........
Let's not forget these very important facts:
BUSH IS THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF.. It goes no higher than him.. He's the top dog and the one ultimately responsible for anything that happens in Iraq..
BUSH SENT OUR TROOPS OVERSEAS.. It sure as hell wasn't Gore who sent them over - and Clinton wasn't in the store - not his doing either..
CRITICIZING YOUR TROOPS ON TELEVISION IS HOW HE SUPPORTS THEM.. Double standard?? Absolutely..
I particularly find it distasteful when White House spokesman Scott McClellan has the balls to say: "These images do not represent what America stands for nor do they represent the high standards that our military is committed to upholding," McClellan said. "What occurred was wrong and it will not be tolerated." Not when we have a President who openly criticizes the very troops he sent over to Iraq.. Not when we have a President who is seeking out two interviews in the country we are occupying to condemn what HIS troops have done.. Not when we have a President who unilaterally sent thousands of troops over and have killed over 10,000 Iraqis to their deaths.. Not when we have a President who has a history of sending more people to death in Texas, than any other governor in the history of America.. Exactly what represented "high standards" are we referring to?? Please explain this one to me..
Tuesday, May 04, 2004
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment