Tapper reported only comments of troops critical of Dem Iraq resolution
In a February 13 report for ABC's World News with Charles Gibson on the House debate of a Democratic resolution opposing the deployment of more U.S. troops to Iraq, ABC News senior national correspondent Jake Tapper cited two Army sergeants who condemned the resolution. But he gave no indication that the sergeants constituted a representative sample of military personnel, and if they did, how he had determined that they did. Nor did he indicate that in citing them, he was not purporting to provide a representative sample of military personnel's views. So it is not clear what point Tapper was making in quoting them -- that this was just the view of two service members willing to talk with him, or that this was the view of military personnel in general.
Tapper also simply asserted that Democrats were "trying to seem strong on military issues" by "lin[ing] up veterans of Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq as their first speakers in favor of the anti-surge resolution," mouthing the view, commonly repeated in the media, that Democrats are "divided" or "weak" on Iraq and national security.
From the February 13 edition of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:
TAPPER: Trying to seem strong on military issues, Democrats lined up veterans of Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq as their first speakers in favor of the anti-surge resolution.
REP. PATRICK MURPHY (D-PA) [video clip]: Walking in my own combat boots, I saw firsthand this administration's failed policy in Iraq.
REP. JOHN TANNER (D-TN) [video clip]: The problem here is not the stomach of the troops. The problem is the competency of the civilian leadership that's gotten us into this mess.
TAPPER: Democrats expect at least a dozen Republicans to vote with them, including Maryland Republican Wayne Gilchrest, a Vietnam veteran and former Iraq war supporter who says troops killed and wounded from his district have influenced his vote.
[begin video clip]
REP. WAYNE GILCHREST (R-MD) [video clip]: Dying and suffering is a part of the chaos of war.
TAPPER: But is that a reason to change policy?
GILCHREST [video clip]: It's a reason to change policy when what you're doing militarily is not working.
[end video clip]
TAPPER: But most Republicans criticized the nonbinding resolution as worthless.
REP. ADAM PUTNAM (R-FL) [video clip]: After all the tough talk we heard from the other side, this is a rather toothless 97 words.
TAPPER: And they said it would embolden the enemy.
HOUSE MINORITY LEADER JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH) [video clip]: And we know what Al Qaeda thinks when America retreats from the battlefield. They think that we can't stomach a fight.
REP. JACK KINGSTON (R-GA) [video clip]: If the troops in Baghdad watch what Congress was doing today, they would be outraged. Fortunately for us and the free world, they don't sit around and watch CSPAN and what silly politicians do.
TAPPER: ABC News asked these Army sergeants in Ramadi what they thought of the resolution.
1ST SGT. LOUIS BARNUM [video clip]: Makes me sick. I was born and raised a Democrat. But when I, when I see that, and, it just, kind of, it makes me sad.
SGT. BRIAN ORZECHOWSKI [video clip]: I don't wanna bad mouth the President at all. I mean, to me, it's treason.
TAPPER: It is a very simple resolution, Charlie [Gibson, host]. It basically just says that the Congress supports the troops but opposes the President's plan. It is not binding, it does not cut off any funding for the troops. But simple or not, Charlie, the debate, as you heard, was passionate.
GIBSON: Jake Tapper on Capitol Hill.
Badmouthing the President is treason? Anyone who actually believes that is a fool; I don't care who it is. What do budding young fascists like him think they're fighting for anyway?
Yup, it's about BIAS.
Now that the rightwing is clearly in the small minority of American thinking, still clinging to support for a failed Administration, the media shills continue to follow the same framing and talking points.
Thus, Democrats can only TRY to APPEAR as if they support the troops.
Thus, all quotes from the troops must support the president.
Thus, actions by Democrats must be portrayed as "worthless".
Thus, find a Republican Congressman to refer to the entire debate as "silly".
Denigrate, downplay, ridicule efforts to free us from the quagmire of Iraq. Meanwhile, repeat ad nauseum the POV of the President's PR guys, that ONLY Republicans are patriotic, ONLY Republicans support the troops, ONLY Republicans are serious and "unsilly".
Tapper is doing his best to stuff old newspapers in the widening cracks in Bush's Ship of State. And yet it's not enough ... it's too late. Bush is going down. Like all rats, Tapper too will abandon the sinking ship. Until then, we'll just have to understand that Tapper's POV is exactly that of the propaganda minister (Rove), who still hopes to last out the next two years without changing course and openly admitting utter failure. If the Administration can JUST hold out a few more months, all the problems can be dumped on the next President, a Democrat.
After all, what's the lives of a few hundred more American soldiers compared to the legacy of Dubya?
In response to your assertion that the President's PR guys are saying that only Republicans are patriotic and support the troops, you owe the President an apology for more unsubstantiated fear mongering as your assertion is incorrect......
This from his news conference yesterday, in his exact words....."I think you can be against my decision and support the troops absolutely.......and somebody who doesn't agree with my policy is just as patriotic a person as I am"
The president did indeed say that, but it is drowned out by the echo chamber of right-wing lackeys and idiotic journalists/talking heads/pundits who say exactly the opposite.
So which is it?
In Tex's post, he is saying it's the President's PR guys - which would get their direct orders from the President. The President is not saying what Tex baselessly asserts his PR guys are saying.
That's what it is.
What if we said the presidents PR guys who until just recently said "that ONLY Republicans are patriotic, ONLY Republicans support the troops, ONLY Republicans are serious and "unsilly".
Would that work for you Tommy?
I don't know if his PR guys ever said that ONLY Republicans were those things? Maybe people like Hannity or Limbaugh, but PR guys would be spokespeople.......admittedly, it was more of a dig at Tex who always overreaches in his melodramatic generalizing and slams anything "rightwing". I was just correcting him and seeing if he would fess up.....so far, he has not.
I think that Bush's words yesterday were more of an aberration. He and his advisers and supporters have been claiming for years that you have to choose sides. You're either with us or against us, a vote for the Democratic Party is a vote for the terrorists, if we elect a Democrat president we'll be attacked again. And my all time favorite, that we had all better watch what we say.
I don't think Tex's post was that far off the mark.
Perhaps, but some live by exact words and accuracy to the nth degree around here........Tex should be no different if his post is "near the mark"
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." (Theodore Roosevelt 1918)
Yeah, we get your one trick pony...zzzzzzzzzzzzz
HaHa! Coming from you, Wesley... that is a laugh.
Can someone explain Sgt. Brian Orzechowski's comment about "bad mouthing the President, it's treason?". Is he supporting the resolution or the President?
Who can tell? You can take it either way.
Read my post below this one for the REAL offending text.
But it goes to the jist of Tapper's one-sided reporting, doesn't it? Either the Sgt. is speaking against Bush, or he is calling those that support the resolution treasonous? Which is it?
Working from the assumption that the Sgt supports the resolution, the only rational interpretation of his comments is that he believes a different rule applies to him than to Congress. While plausible, it's doubtful. A more likely interpretation is that he's equating the resolution to badmouthing the President and treason.
Trying to sound strong on military issues...
Such a dubious claim deserves a WTF? What is wrong with "trying to present the viewpoint of people who have ACTUALLY BEEN IN WAR, include someone who was IN IRAQ"?
That is infinitely more accurate. But of course the corporate media ALWAYS has to qualify the word "Democrat(ic)" when juxtaposed to the word "military" or a conservative's head might explode.
Would any military member go on T.V. and badmouth this president's decision on anything?
Several, starting with General Wes Clark.
Active duty military member?
A qualification. Try LT. Ehren Wataba http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/search?p=watada&c=av at the c.o. link on that page.
I would rephrase Marker's question as "Would any military member who wasn't prepared to face a court martial go on T.V. and badmouth this president's decision on anything?" I certainly would think twice...
And equally publicized:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-antiwar17jan17,0,3792201.story?coll=la-home-headlines regarding the petition to Congress, which has proceedings on cspan.
Badmouthing the President is treason?
Is this the United States or the Soviet Union under Stalin? Do these people understand the Constitution?
Their president has no grasp of the constitution along with most of the republicans in this country...
- But he gave no indication that the sergeants constituted a representative sample of military personnel - sarah pavlus, mmfa
Ok sarah...what is the representative sample? Show us what ya got. This was the perfect time to put on display how our military really feels...if you have that info.
This thread is worthless drivel...carping and bitching because the media won't portray our military like mmfa thinks they should. If you're so concerned...there are plenty of flights available for you to go to Iraq and interview the troops yourself...then we can see the real truth.
There was nothing wrong with Tapper's report.
"This thread is worthless drivel"
-----
And yet you contribute to it. Maybe that's part of the reason.
Pointing out worthless drivel is a productive instrument in an attempt to eradicate it.
I don't see the purported "worthlessness" of this "thread" or the post that promptedit - which is what I think the commenter was referring to.
The central point seems to be:
I think this is a valid point to raise on a website about messages in the media. What is your objection?
The question:"Please refrain from responding to any future posts of mine, because if you can only argue with "stupidity", then that just shows your lack of confidence and paltry skills. Why would you bother?"
The answer:"Pointing out worthless drivel is a productive instrument in an attempt to eradicate it."
This should end your tactic of saying "if you don't agree with what I say then don't respond to it", hopefully.
Pointless drivel needs to be pointed out in order to eradicate it, but your advice to us concerning hate speech from the likes of Coulter etc. has always been to ignore it and it will go away.
To me this seems inconsistent.
Help me understand.
It's not "treason" for a military member to bad-mouth the president on national TV, but it is against the UCMJ. When Clinton sent me all over the globe for "Meals on Wheels" programs I didn't like it, but I swore to "...support and defend...the President of the United States"...so I kept my opinions to myself, as this unprofessional Army troop should have done.
Sort of off topic but kind of on topic ;-)
Liebermann & McCain claim the troops they spoke with on a recent visit to Iraq were behind Bush's "surge"...YET Oliver North who spoke to the very same troops said he heard the OPPOSITE. The soldiers said they did not believe more troops would solve anything.
Jeter2, it all depends on the question. You get very different answers for "Would more troops help secure victory" than "Would you rather see more US troops or Iraqi troops"? The troops North spoke to all said we needed ore troops, but they wanted more Iraqi troops instead of US troops.
Hey icedog,
Do you have a link to the story about the McCain-Liebermann-North trip? I heard the info about North's comments on Olbermann's program. If there's more to the story than what he reported I'd be interested in reading it.
I've already googled it every which way & come up with nothing.
Here's North's exact words, "We don’t need more American troops; we need more Iraqi troops’ was a common refrain."
I can't blame the guys for saying this, I know a few guys on their 3rd trip. I'm sure they would like to see the Iraqi troops taking over sooner rather than later. However, until there are enough Iraqi troops.....
I owe you an apology and it is at http://mediamatters.org/items/200702140005?made_comment=1
Thanks olivelawyers :-)
I just left you a reply to your message on the other thread.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200702140005?made_comment=1
The oath officers take:
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, July 1999)
The oath enlisted Soldiers take:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
Notice the difference?
If anyone thinks that a Soldier could go on national television and say his mission is bogus, disagree with his superiors, and that there would be no repercussions from his chain of command or fellow Soldiers, you obviously don’t know how the military works.It's a very interesting distinction.
I used to have the dubious privilege of teaching at the Special Forces school at Fort Bragg: Geneva Conventions to the young men in SF and PsyOps. I was a rookie JAG officer (like warrior mouth Lindsey Graham save that I believe he was in the even more rarified air of the Air Force JAG (check Huffington where Kapinski ripped him a new one today for being essentially pretend military), before becoming a defense counsel and later a claims officer in disillusionment over the system.
There is an excellent site discussing this distinction and what it all means in terms of "Lawful orders" regardless from whom they may issue. http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders.htm
You're on the jury.
You must weigh the credibility of each witness.
Bush is the accused. He calls as his character witnesses members of his administration, people he appointed, hired, and who serve at his pleasure.
They all say they love the man. How much weight to you give this information? Is it heartfelt, reliable, credible? Maybe, maybe not.
Then Bush calls active duty military personnel, to give their notion of whether he is a good leader. Keep in mind, they are BOUND BY LAW to religiously avoid criticizing their chain of command. If they say Bush is a great leader, can their words be trusted? Or might they be suspect, considering that if they utter anything OTHER than full support, they are to be punished, their careers ruined?
That is why it is both cowardly and cynical for the Rightwing to constantly point to interviews with military members, or point to polls of active duty personnel. The Military ARE NOT FREE TO SPEAK THEIR MINDS. Period. They are under orders to be supportive of their leadership.
So, this explains why Bush gives all his major speeches in front of full military audiences, with no "average citizens" to be seen or heard. He is both a loser and a coward.
Yeah, but you've got to admit that for a guy who doesn't like books, he reads a speech really well when he has a captive audience.
That said, it remains apparent that there are many intelligent, brave men and women in the military who still believe that Bush is doing the right thing by them in giving them the opportunity to serve as they are in Iraq, just as many felt that way in Viet Nam and Korea...two other civil wars involving ruthless but principled people fighting for the unification of a nation under domestic leadership that was resisted by equally principled soldiers in the opposition. It is not possible to honor those who would sacrifice their safety, their health, their lives, and the losses sustained by their families to provide such service, whether we disagree with the underlying legitimacy of their beliefs or not. What is most hard is believing the contrary, as Obama revealed of himself in saying with too much clarity for his own political good in suggesting that those sacrifices are "a waste." What is harder yet is believing that our administration has with similar ruthlessness exploited such principled sacrifice by everyone except themselves (oh, I forgot feeling bad watching TV over dinner), along with the lives of tens if not hundreds of thousands who had no voice in this matter, who have been left homeless, shredded and killed either directly at our hands or at the hands of forces we unleashed.
...not possible NOT to honor ...
I posted this at the top but I figure it's worth adding here since it most likely will get mixed up amidst the conversation:
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." (Theodore Roosevelt 1918)
Was this said with reference to the Sedition Act of 1918?
To be honest, I do not know. Not much of a historian. Although I could see how it easily could. That said, it's just as relevant now as it was back then.
Somewhere along the line, I think fascists realized it was much easier to use media to control thoughts and dialogue than it is enforce laws. You should not be forced to stop criticizing the government or president only because it's against the law. Instead, you should refrain from doing so because it's the morally right, patriotic, American thing to do. See how much nicer that sounds?
Wonder why Tapper didn't at least refer to the "Military Times" poll from December, 2006? Oh, it would have shown the grunts disaffected from Bungle? I suppose that would be reason enough to pretend that the Sgts. he found, who would talk to him, were the essential voice of the troops!
http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php
SGT. BRIAN ORZECHOWSKI [video clip]: I don't wanna bad mouth the President at all. I mean, to me, it's treason.
Sgt. Orzechowski, being the good soldier he is would never say anything in public that would cause him to break the oath he took to follow the orders of "the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me,".
It seems like the SGT. was about to say more but the sound bite was cut before he was finished. For him to say anything against the President or the Iraq war could get him in a hell of a lot of trouble with his chain of command and his fellow soldiers as well; wheither they feel the same way he does or not. I would like to have heard what else he had to say after the sound bite ended. Whether what he would have said was critical of the resolution or not; we will never know for sure.
I was headed home from work and needed a laugh, so I turned on the Hugh Hewitt show. I expected to hear him lobbing set-up questions to James Lileks or Mark Steyn, for their scripted answers, but what I heard woke me right up.
Hewitt is delusional enough about his talent or confident enough in the zombie-ness of his audience that he had on Gen. William Odom, who (unbeknownst to Hewitt, I think) very patiently came off like a pragmatic and wise dad trying to talk some common sense into his learning disabled spoiled kid.
There's a transcript here, long but worth it-
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=d7f52e21-cf46-4115-b397-ed1dc70fcdab
Very nice demonstration of what an honest intelligent man who has retired from the military and isn't running for office can say.
What's left out of the transcript are Hewitts callers after the interview, phoning in to prove they didn't hear a word. Comments about the general "losing his nerve" and speculation about which side he would have been on in 1940 Great Britain.
And Hewitt, who I'll admit was more respectful of Odom than he usually is of his superiors, after Odom left, saying he respected Odom's service, but was afraid he was just too wrapped up in his ideology.
Yikes.
I know the llinks to long transcripts can be a time waster, but I'm saving this one just to remind myself what straight talk is, and that there are still some people with a knack for it.
As I listened to the interview, I thought it would be good to recommend to conservative friends, so they could hear the answers that even the smarter politicians can't give in public.
Hewitt's callers reminded me that the faithful can ignore just about anything, but I'm still going to make it recommended reading for any posters here who are still swallowing this BS war.
Thanks for posting the link, which in turn links to Odom's op ed at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020901917_pf.html, all of which is a must read.
Didn't you especially love it (In view of our recent "stunning" "success" with N. Korea) when Odom said: "Yes, we should pay attention sometimes, but I can…I’d pay attention to that, and when I do, I see that it’s very much really the way Kim Jung Il uses his rhetoric. He knows how to cause us to jump up in the air and get all excited, and cause people of your frame of mind, and particularly the neocons’ frame of mind, to start doing things that are not in the U.S. interests. And then as you hit the ground, we’d pay him off and bribe him." (C/@Hewitt at http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=d7f52e21-cf46-4115-b397-ed1dc70fcdab
Thanks, Olive, I meant to mention the original article as well.
I did like the quote you posted, along with several other responses that Odom gave. Funny how extraordinary straight answers sound these days, eh?
This is the same sort of realistic adult thinking that has had the right demonizing Jimmy Carter for the last few decades, when they traded straight-up truth for "morning in America" happy talk.
Irrespective of the more stringent obligations and regulations regarding military service, what a soldier is most likely to communicate is not that complicated to understand. Try going around publicly calling your manager or boss a stupid boob that needs to be locked up for incompentance. How secure do you think your job would be after making those statements? Might this cause some job discomfort? Would you do it?
The only thing Tapper does is add to the mountain of evidence demonstrating journalism is running on empty.
Here is an interesting commentary from a reporter who was in Iraq with local Marine Reservists back in 2003. The Marine he is talking with is on his way back for another tour of duty in Iraq. I feel this gives some perspective from the home front in Harrisburg, PA. But this may be true just about anywhere in the USA.
http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1171598122298621.xml&coll=1
Debate is good. Debate is not being a traitor. Debate doesn't mean we are not supporting our troops. Debate is what has and will continue to make our country strong. When debate stops then our democracy is in real trouble.