press can't let abuse story go

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
i guess stories about doing something good doesn't sell newspapers.


By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


Accounts and graphic photos of Iraqi prisoner abuse persist in the press despite the fact that the story has run its course.
The world already knows salient details of the prisoner humiliation and nudity, the causes of the abuse are under official investigation, and the courts-martial have begun. Yet, the caterwaul in the press against the American military and the war in Iraq continue.

"U.S. faces growing fear of failure," noted one recent Washington Post headline.
ABC was the first to air yet another set of photos ? these showing two U.S. soldiers grinning next to the body of an Iraqi at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad. Al Arabiya, an Arabic broadcaster, also aired the photos of Army Spc. Charles A. Graner and Spc. Sabrina D. Harman ? both facing a court-martial for prisoner abuse.
As usual, the source of the photos remained unidentified. ABC billed them as "an exclusive" and noted that the soldiers were "posing over the body of a detainee who was allegedly beaten to death by CIA or civilian interrogators in the prison's showers."
Positive human-interest accounts about the armed forces are rare. The press tends to ignore battlefield vignettes from military news services, which could offer an expanded perspective to the public.
For example, 30 U.S. airmen and soldiers delivered school supplies and toys ? gifts from American children ? to an Iraqi village on Monday. Yesterday, Air Force medical teams airlifted a critically ill Iraqi infant and her mother to an Ohio hospital for treatment.
The news focus is elsewhere.
Earlier this week, Reuters news service announced that three of its "journalists" ? actually two Iraqi cameramen and a driver under contract ? had been beaten and taunted by Army paratroopers in January.
But an Army investigation released yesterday cleared the soldiers of charges and categorized the incident as "a closed case."
The report noted that "the soldiers clearly believed that these same Iraqis had attacked them previously" and pronounced that the charges of humiliation made by the Iraqis against the soldiers "are not credible."
Tim Graham of the Media Research Center (MRC) noted yesterday that the "gay marriage story" overtook the prisoner abuse story in the press, but only for a day.
"This abuse story is just not going away. It's still the first topic on most network news," Mr. Graham said. "And there's strong focus on the court-martials, on the bad apples ? it's as if those troops represent the military at large, as far as the media is concerned. That is very discouraging."
The center has been following "the bias problem" among broadcasters who use the abuse story to build a case against the war in Iraq and the Bush administration. As a sample, the group tracked abuse stories from April 29 through May 11 on NBC and found that the network aired 58 stories on the abuse in that period.
The MRC also found, however, that in the past year, NBC had aired only five stories on mass graves found in Iraq from the Saddam Hussein era.
 

bjfinste

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 14, 2001
5,462
18
0
AZ
Re: press can't let abuse story go

AR182 said:
The center has been following "the bias problem" among broadcasters who use the abuse story to build a case against the war in Iraq and the Bush administration. As a sample, the group tracked abuse stories from April 29 through May 11 on NBC and found that the network aired 58 stories on the abuse in that period.
The MRC also found, however, that in the past year, NBC had aired only five stories on mass graves found in Iraq from the Saddam Hussein era.

I don't suppose that has anything to do with the fact that the abuse stories were written by American newspapers about things done by American military personnel during an American military operation? And as the fallout continues, more information becomes available, which warrants new stories, as it is, well, news.

Once again people are trying to blame mishaps by the nation's military on the biggest lie and myth in America... the "liberal" media.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,480
157
63
Bowling Green Ky
It is without question politically motivated and successful I might add. It is no secret that the terrorist want Bush out and the liberal press are their best resource. They succeeded in Spain and unfortunately their tactics work on elements within our own country. I truely expect them to hit the U.S. prior to election to try and seal the deal--the ironic part is I'll lay 9/5 it will be a liberal state that gets hammered ie DC CA or NY.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
You are too much DTB. A liberal state! The big story in about the prison abuse is because of the cover-up. To be blaming only the low level personel is a travisty. How do you know the terrorist want Bush out? Seems like a nice line that no one could prove. Oh yes, I forgot, the tough guy attacked Afaghanastan after they killed 3,000 of our people while the previous guy did nothing when the threw some stones at us. I repeat, as I have many times before, it doesn't matter who was President after 911 we were going after them. The difference is that maybe another President would have stayed on course and not deverted to complete his deal with Halliburton.
 

bjfinste

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 14, 2001
5,462
18
0
AZ
DTB- I just can't see how the terrorists would want Bush out. How is it "no secret" that they feel that way? Do you have a lot of dialogue with terrorists?

As I've said several times before, the happiest person about Bush's decision to invade Iraq was Osama Bin Laden. It created more anti-American hate than anything he could possibly fathom. Nothing made his drive to recruit more people to his cause more easy, and it gave him a personal playground to carry out his acts. Not to mention it essentially put him and his boys on the backburner while we went after Saddam and that badass Iraqi military.
 

Turfgrass

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 26, 2002
1,153
5
0
Raleigh
StevieD said:
The big story in about the prison abuse is because of the cover-up.

Is that the new catch phrase? Cover up? If they were trying to cover up something, would they be showing all the pictures to members of Congress? Would they have launched an investigation months ago, back in January and announced it? Would they have begun prosecutions of the people responsible even before this story hit the press?

Sorry...you leftist appeasers are just going to have to come up with something else. Maybe you could do something constructive, like nominate a presidential candidate that actually has a chance of winning; a candidate who actually believes in American sovereignty; a candidate who actually accomplished something over the past twenty years. Then again, maybe not.
 

Eddie Haskell

Matt 02-12-11
Forum Member
Feb 13, 2001
4,595
41
0
26
Cincinnati
aclu.org
Wayne:

BJ and Stevie are correct. You are 100% wrong that the terrorists want Bush out. Who better to unite 2 billion muslims than this cowboy.

As shown on Frontline lastnight, your boy in DC sees things as black and white. I didn't realize he was such a fundamentalist/evangelical until watching that program. Very scarry man. His decisions are based on the Bible not the law.

Whereas another more moderate leader would try to resolve our differences with the Arab world with less violent means, your hero cowboy, with his insights from the Lord, has elected to blow them off the face of the earth.

Onward Christian soldiers. Your leader, guided by the Bible, has recreated the Crusades here in the 21st century. There is no better person Osama Bin Laden would want in the white house for another 4 years.

So as has often been said on this board. Vote with the terrorists. Vote for Bush in November. My position has and always will be Re-Defeat Bush.

Eddie
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,480
157
63
Bowling Green Ky
the two of you need to read papers beside NY Times and moveon.org Read a few Arabic newspapers or do you not read the links I post of them dogging Bush and supporting Kerry and reporting all the negative diss as well as liberal press from U.S. on Bush.

---and right its not the soilders that committed the acts fault at all despite the smiles on their faces---cover up? Where pray tell is any inkling of coverup.
Any pres would have went after after 911--evidently you don't remember that they tried and failed on same buildings previously and what the f--- was done.---and yah its the oil theory.

I have to wonder when reading these threads who hopes for failure in Iraq more, the terrorists or liberals.

Personally I am more concerned with burning and beheadings of our own than I am with naked prisoners of the enemy--but to each their own.
 

Eddie Haskell

Matt 02-12-11
Forum Member
Feb 13, 2001
4,595
41
0
26
Cincinnati
aclu.org
I love it Turfgrass (or should I call you right wing war monger). No longer defending the wackjob in DC but now the attack is Kerry aint strong enough to win. Not a bad ploy considering who you have chosen to defend.

I don't care if the Democrats run Jerry Springer against Bush, the former is miles ahead of the religous psycho currently in the White House.

Ed
 

bjfinste

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 14, 2001
5,462
18
0
AZ
DOGS THAT BARK said:
the two of you need to read papers beside NY Times and moveon.org

I've never been to moveon.org (although I have heard of it) and only read the NYT writers we run here except for the sports section.

DOGS THAT BARK said:
Read a few Arabic newspapers or do you not read the links I post of them dogging Bush and supporting Kerry and reporting all the negative diss as well as liberal press from U.S. on Bush.

I guess unlike you, I don't equate the small percentage of Muslims that are insane fundamentalists as representative of everyone that is Arabic and lives in an Arab nation. Believe me, that tiny fraction that makes up Bin Laden and his boys would LOVE to see Bush re-elected because, like I said before, it would help stir anti-American hate and make it easier for him to build his numbers.

DOGS THAT BARK said:
Any pres would have went after after 911--evidently you don't remember that they tried and failed on same buildings previously and what the f--- was done.---and yah its the oil theory.

If you honestly think that the response by Gore would have been any different than Bush's immediately post-9/11, then you lose all credibilty. That's pure stupidity. A couple of Islamic terrorist lunatics trying to bomb the WTC in 1993 didn't warrant an invasion of another country any more than the Christian terrorist attacks of McVeigh in Oklahoma City or Rudolph in Georgia would have.

And the oil theory doesn't apply to Afghanistan, which was harboring the people behind 9/11; only Iraq. You know, the unprovoked invasion.

DOGS THAT BARK said:
I have to wonder when reading these threads who hopes for failure in Iraq more, the terrorists or liberals.

More stupidity, trying to turn people who think we shouldn't be there into people who want all of us to die. Being anti-war is about as pro-US Military you can get in my eyes, since I don't want to see them dying for nothing.

DOGS THAT BARK said:
Personally I am more concerned with burning and beheadings of our own than I am with naked prisoners of the enemy--but to each their own.

Same here. Damn, we agree on something! But that doesn't make POW abuse OK, and ignores the fact that the latter may, and probably WILL, lead to more of the former.

The "liberal media bias" is such a crock of shit. A day or two ago, we had a letter to the editor that said something to the effect of, "I know you won't run this because it's pro-Bush, and you refuse to run any letters than is for Bush or for the Republican party." This is despite the fact that we run pro-Bush and pro-war letters EVERY SINGLE DAY. Typical ignorance when you have the crutch of the (untrue) liberal media bias to lean against.

Of course, this same letter writer went on to explain that if we wanted to hear "fair and balanced" news, we should listen to Sean Hannity. I'll refrain from further comment on that.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,480
157
63
Bowling Green Ky
I can't debate issues with someone who evidently knows little backround on subject.

Case in point for starters.

"
"If you honestly think that the response by Gore would have been any different than Bush's immediately post-9/11, then you lose all credibilty. That's pure stupidity. A couple of Islamic terrorist lunatics trying to bomb the WTC in 1993 didn't warrant an invasion of another country any more than the Christian terrorist attacks of McVeigh in Oklahoma City or Rudolph in Georgia would have."

I can not speak for al gore because he wasn't president at time of 1st bombing but I do know the response of the one then.

Do you know what org those that did 1st bombing were tracted to--now do you know who their undisputed leader was--now are you aware that leader was offered to the president then and NOT taken--and you tell me that I would lose all credibilty because I think any president would act the same after 911.:shrug:

P.S. I like your spin ----a couple of Islamic lunatics--"Christian" terrorist attacks of McVeigh---Hmmm I believe you have even put the Islamic media to shame on that anology. True liberal anaysis on both!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Mjolnir

Registered User
Forum Member
May 15, 2003
3,747
11
0
S. CAL.
bad news sells. end of story. i'm sure that it sucks in IRAQ and right now there are bad things going on. but there not as bad as they were and positive stories don't sell. I believe that most of the media is biased. but i remember when Clinton was in office and they went after him also. I just don't think they went after him as zealously.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
i respectfully

i respectfully

but vehemently disagree with bjf regarding the liberal media....

i ask this....does anyone think that if bill clinton or kerry were in the white house that this story would get as much play.....i seriously doubt it....


try watching nightline every night..cnn.....listen to npr(partially taxpayer funded,btw)..most major newspaper editors..... .....try and find a few positive stories on iraq....even if you totally disagree with the removal of saddam,there have been positive results from the ouster...



......freedom of speech and the freedom to elect their own government....isn`t this what this country has fought for since it`s inception...isn`t it what the u.s. stands for?....


The war on Iraq with its emphasis on removing saddam hussein from power has always been about setting in motion changes that will change the politics and economy of the entire region and this will change the world as well....i believe that was the hope.....now,seeing the mess that this region is,i`m not sure it can be accomplished................and even though i don`t believe the war was about iraqi oil(we only get around 8% of our oil from iraq)...
i believe it was about the stability of the middle east and middle eastern oil.....was it a mistake?.....possibly...it`s not over...the final chapter hasn`t been written...



i also believe it was about spreading freedom, representative government......

what i don`t see is how this war could possibly have any affect on ending the death grip of fundamentalist islam on the lives of millions throughout the middle east and north africa.....if that was the goal,then we seriously f-cked up.....i really believe saddam was a thorn in the side of the fundamentaist`s agenda......they didn`t want him there....but,they were afraid of him....he actually held the country together....and from the looks of things,by the only means possible.....brute force and his own brand of terror...that`s what is understood in the middle east...

and sadly,now that saddam is gone,it doesn`t look as the the fundamentalist horde will allow iraq to thrive on it`s own....to find it`s own way...it may end up being a much more dangerous place....maybe...


as for terrorists hoping for a bush win in november?.....that`s a joke,right?....anybody that thinks that the islamic fundamentalists that kill their own non-believing brothers,actually give a damn about who the american president is,is living in the bizarro world...

doesn`t anyone believe that the 9/11 attacks were being planned long before bush stepped into office?...the bali nightclub bombing...the embassy`s....the cole...

who the president is changes nothing....kerry will still support israel............i would hope he will still fight terrorism....because THEY won`t cut US any slack...

the iraqi war didn`t cause terrorism...right or wrong,it was one of the effects of terrorism.....

terrorism didn`t start with bush...it won`t die when bush leaves....it won`t lessen.....

we`re in this for the long haul...

if we capitulate,or let our guard down,we`ll get hit and hit hard....
 
Last edited:
Bet on MyBookie
Top