CNN's Nguyen did not challenge Marine's repetition of widely disputed "follow us home" claim
SUMMARY: On CNN Newsroom, Marine Sgt. Marco Martinez claimed that "if we were to pull out prematurely, the terrorists would follow us home, and it would be disastrous for both us and Iraq," a statement that anchor Betty Nguyen did not challenge. As Media Matters has repeatedly noted, this claim is contested by a wide range of U.S. intelligence officials, security experts, and military analysts.
During the September 14 edition of CNN Newsroom, anchor Betty Nguyen asked Marine Sgt. Marco Martinez to give his "assessment" and "reaction" to President Bush's September 13 address to the nation on Iraq, but failed to challenge Martinez's claim that "if we were to pull out prematurely, the terrorists would follow us home, and it would be disastrous for both us and Iraq." As Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, the claim that "the terrorists would follow us home" if the United States were to withdraw from Iraq -- a claim made frequently by Bush -- is contested by a wide range of U.S. intelligence officials, security experts, and military analysts.
For instance, a "Terrorism Index" survey by the Center for American Progress and Foreign Policy magazine found that only 12 percent of experts believe that terrorists are either very likely or likely to attack the United States as a direct result of a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq. Moreover, some foreign policy experts have said that it is the U.S. occupation of Iraq that increases the likelihood of a terrorist attack on the United States. An April 30 report on NPR's All Things Considered quoted retired Brig. Gen. John H. Johns saying, "It's actually leaving American forces in Iraq ... that increases the chances of a terrorist attack on the U.S."
Further, according to an April 6 McClatchy Newspapers article, "[m]ilitary and diplomatic analysts" say that a similar claim by Bush -- that "this is a war in which, if we were to leave before the job is done, the enemy would follow us here" -- "exaggerat[es] the threat that enemy forces in Iraq pose to the U.S. mainland." The article continued: "U.S. military, intelligence and diplomatic experts in Bush's own government say the violence in Iraq is primarily a struggle for power between Shiite and Sunni Muslim Iraqis seeking to dominate their society, not a crusade by radical Sunni jihadists bent on carrying the battle to the United States." The article quoted a U.S. intelligence official as saying that "[t]he war in Iraq isn't preventing terrorist attacks on America" and noted that "the likelihood that enemy combatants from Iraq might follow departing U.S. forces back to the United States is remote at best."
From the 11 a.m. ET broadcast of the September 14 edition of CNN Newsroom:
NGUYEN: We're going to get your story, from being a gangster to being awarded one of the highest honors here in the U.S.
But first off, I want to talk to you about the president's speech last night. You listened to it. After serving in Iraq, what is your assessment, your reaction to what he had to say?
MARTINEZ: I think he said what had to be said, and he's showing that our success in Iraq is working. General [David] Petreaus is a good general, and he's an honorable general, and his planning is actually taking effect, and we're having success in Iraq.
Having served in Iraq, I could tell you that the terrorists that we face over there are savage and brutal, and if we were to pull out prematurely, the terrorists would follow us home, and it would be disastrous for both us and Iraq.
NGUYEN: But apparently it's going to take some time because these benchmarks have not been made, as you heard the president speak about last night.
But let me get back to your story. You are the first Hispanic-American since Vietnam to be awarded the Navy Cross. How exactly did you earn that? Talk to us about what happened in Iraq.
Yes, the terrusist are going to get in boats and follow the Navy ships home. Becase otherwise they couldn't find the US on a map and wouldn't know how to get here.
I'd seriously like to know what liberal reaction will be to the next attack on US soil. It's only a matter of time, and it is blatant and ignorant denial to think that terrorists will not continue their jihad in the US.
How will liberals react? The same as most people, with anger and outrage. Liberals don't deny that we still face the risk of a terrorist attack. We also agree that all reasonable and sensible precautions should be taken to protect against such an attack.
However, we also recognize that the idea that terrorist would follow us home from Iraq is simple-minded nonsense. They will be no more capable of launching an attack against us after we leave Iraq than they are right this moment.
We aren't mindless, afraid-of-our-shadows ignoramuses.
We are well aware that we could be attacked what is not true is those who attack us will come from Iraq. The last attackers came from Saudi Araba remember.
I'm glad you admit that another attack is immenant. This idea that Bush made us safer is pure bologna! He didn't invest money towards inspecting incoming cargo, he didn't invest money in beefing up border security, all he did was invest money on spying on americans as if we are the problem. But if you want an honest reaction, the moment it happens, this liberal is gonna go "I told you so!" and I'm gonna keep rubbing it in right wing republicans' faces every chance I get on how they let bush waste money getting his buddies rich instead of protecting america.
You DEFINE blatant and abject ignorance. Did you see anyone say there would never in history be another terrorist attack in the US? 9/11 wasnt the first one. What exactly about us being in Iraq is stopping that from happening? NOTHING. Try to keep up. The strawman you wingnuts love is disengenuous and without merit
funnyman obviously the al qeada air force are going to drop the al qeada airborne (screaming mullahs) all over the us
Man, this is blatant propaganda. This looks a lot like some of the recent Matthews pieces that have been focused on. The host not only allows blatant innacuracies to go unchallenged but then seems to want to bolster them by singing the praises of the guy delivering them. "Tell us about your medals!" This fawning over someone when they were sent on air specifically to sell a divisive political agenda is simply innapropriate. The network in these cases is surrendering any credibility they may have had.
"This fawning over someone when they were sent on air specifically to sell a divisive political agenda "
Where's your evidence for this claim? If it's in the article and I missed it, feel free to call me stupid.
do you think he came on without the clearance of his superiors? i got this bridge to sell you.
This guy won the Navy Cross and has spent a good deal of time in Iraq. He may not have the same opinion as a bunch of intelligence specialists sitting in an office somewhere, but I'd be hesitant to question his character or his patriotism. Calling him some kind of shill or saying that he's a part of some propaganda machine is doing just that.
What a bunch of crap. So when someone wins a medal they are incapable of propaganda? And I just love they way you revert back to the knee-jerk right-wing reaction, that if we accuse the other side of dishonesty, we are unpatriotic. No one is questioning his patriotism; we are questioning his veracity.
Ugh. Okay, read it again slowly. I said that it was not right to question the soldier's patriotism by claiming that he was sent there specifically to defend a divisive policy. I didn't call anyone here un-patriotic because I know that everyone here loves their country.
>>I said that it was not right to question the soldier's patriotism by claiming that he was sent there specifically to defend a divisive policy.
And that is essentially the same argument as calling one unpatriotic because you don't agree with him.
How exactly is it questioning the soldier's patriotism to say he was sent to spread propaganda? You are the one that brought up patriotism, not us.
If anyone spews information that they know to be false in order to further a divisive agenda, then they must be unpatrotic. They must not care about the lives of the soldiers dying in Iraq if they are willing to go on tv and spread propaganda to further a war. I don't think this guy was doing that. I think that he gave an opinion that he believes to be the truth. I don't think he was "sent there" by someone to spread "propaganda". Anyone who would make that accusation is in my opinion question the man's character and his patriotism. Disagree with his opinion? Fine. But to claim that he was sent there by some nefarious people to spread lies and propaganda is indeed questioning his character and his patriotism.
>>If anyone spews information that they know to be false in order to further a divisive agenda, then they must be unpatrotic.
No. Absolutely not. If you believe that, then you better start calling almost half the talking heads and half the politicians unpatriotic.
By the way, I think you have a good point that we shouldn't question his motivations because we don't know them. I also agree that if you say he is spreading propaganda intentionally, we are questioning his character.
I just think it's a real stretch to bring patriotism into this.
You are assuming facts not in evidence. A person could EASILY spread propaganda knowingly as a form of what HE sees as patriotism. He could just not trust the American people to know best and think we have to be led along. It is the concept of the Noble Lie, see Strauss.
"And I just love they way you revert back to the knee-jerk right-wing reaction, that if we accuse the other side of dishonesty, we are unpatriotic."
Hey everyone! Come on over! It's time for another lesson in reading comprehension with your favorite fun-loving student, Funnymanpants!
I don't agree with Portnoy's complaint (hah!) at all, but he didn't call anyone unpatriotic.
He may not have the same opinion as a bunch of intelligence specialists sitting in an office somewhere, but I'd be hesitant to question his character or his patriotism. Calling him some kind of shill or saying that he's a part of some propaganda machine is doing just that.
portnoy64 / Friday September 14, 2007 04:14:04 PM EST
Computer, you have no idea how hard it was for me to lay off the Portnoy's Complaint thing. Now I can't use it because you beat me to it! Grrrrr. Portnoy, did you take the name from the Roth book? Just curious
I did, though I have to say that The Great American Novel is my favorite Roth book. If you haven't read it and you like baseball at all, you should give it a read. On a side note, I understand that your complaint is more with CNN than the soldier, so my bad for assuming otherwise. Off to drink some beer. A good weekend to all.
I like Roth and I love baseball, so thanks. No problem on the post. Your point about the language is well taken. Good beer to ya.
Still waiting, computer. Do you feel foolish?
Ha ha! My reading skills! That seems to be the favorite retort around here. It's not even imaginative.
"He may not have the same opinion as a bunch of intelligence specialists sitting in an office somewhere"
He also may not have the same opinion of numerous other soldiers who have also served in Iraq.
Portnoy, I'm not insulting this soldier or attacking his character. He seems like a fine individual. The fact remains however that he is on the air repeating a fallacy that has been used for years to manipulate the public. I'm not even saying he doesn't have a right to do that. But he is on the air saying something that is highly charged politically and is strongly disputed by reputable sources in and out of the military. So when the interview goes from him repeating what is blatantly White House propaganda to a thing about what a hero he is, the piece itself plays as propaganda. None of that refutes that the guy is a good dude in many ways. He probably believes the comic book simplicity of the 'follow us home' thing. I can say he is wrong about something without it being an attack on his character.
Maybe we've all had a little too much Karl Rove in recent years? I find it interesting that conservatives have become so comfortable with attacking individuals instead of the points they make that they often seem to have trouble understanding basic disagreements any more. Not even that is an attack on you Portnoy. I'm finding that pointing out a flaw in someone's argument is often equated with a personal attack. And of course this is happening on both sides of the aisle.
I'm not saying i agree with the Sgt. But you claimed that he was specifically sent on air to sell a divisive agenda. That's just not true. He was there specifically to talk about being a former gang member who is now a marine and recipient of the Navy Cross. It was Nguyen who f'd up and asked him a question about something that was wholly unrelated to why he was there. If you've got a beef, it should be with her and not with Martinez. Claiming he was "specifically sent" there to do some kind of propaganda mission is an attack on him and his character.
I don't know if the guy is sincere or not. The problem is, this talking point defies logic. Anyone who truly believes it either isn't thinking critically, or isn't very smart. The third possibility is that they're using it as political rhetoric and they know it's not true. Just because this guy is a Marine doesn't mean that he's above politics. There are plenty of Iraq vets on both sides of this issue. Iraq vets are people, just like everybody else. Some are heroes, some are just ordinary people who want to come home. Some are political hacks. This guy may or may not be one of those.
Ok, I got ya. The 'specifically sent' is too strong in the sense of implying that he is aware of being used for propaganda purposes. I accept that I don't know what he is aware of. But the whole thing of using soldier's beliefs to prop up pro-war policy is very problematic and has been used blatantly by the Right.
We've seen administration meddling in hiring civilians in Iraq based on their political views and we've seen military people promoted or shunted aside as well. There are all kinds of things in the contemporary political scene that make this an unfair piece of TV. No matter wo knew what going in, it plays as a blatant piece of White House propaganda.
It's possible that he may believe it. We know that someone in the chain of command is lying to our soldiers over there. Within the last year, the vast majority of them still believed that Saddam was behind 9/11, and that they were there to get "revenge".
It's weird, but I almost want these guys to be able to live in that bubble. I can't comprehend how horrible it would be to understand what is true about this war and have to go out and risk you ass for it or watch your friend get blown up. How about losing your husband and father of your kids and knowing what it's all about? That stuff busts me up. I almost just want them to buy the line because the truth just seems so much more painful.
I'm equally torn on that issue. On the one hand, you want to let them have the small comfort that their loved ones died for a worthy cause; on the other, I think we owe them the truth. If the war goes on long enough, the military families will come around to that realization on their own. I think most people did during the Vietnam War.
Perhaps they can take comfort in the knowledge that they died defending their comrades, and in service to their country, even if their country's leadership was wrong. I think there's plenty of honor in that, but that's just me. Is a soldier's death only honorable if the war is justified? I think not. God knows it's not the first time that our military has been sent on a fool's errand.
It's a good point. You look at soldier's stories from any war and the emphasis is usually on fighting for their friends next to them. The fact is, protecting them now from the truth is of course far less important than protecting them from unnecessary wars.
It stuns me that the GOP is able to frame their pro-war argument as somehow protecting the interests of soldiers. True, there are more chances for promotion in war I guess and maybe that's why they aren't challenged more from military people on that line? Soldiers of course are just doing their jobs, gung-ho is a good thing and they should really be left alone about this policy stuff. Their vulnerablity in that way, to me, just emphasizes our need to protect them from unnecessary fights.
The GOP should be blasted for talking about Honor and the way they need to keep it by prolonging the war. It's really disgusting, childish stuff. A guy like Huckabee standing at a podium with the gall to talk about the importance of honor when we're talking about real kids growing up without their dads and multiple other tragedies. And he gets a big hand. I have a hard time not being really disgusted by these people. I guess that's my little war. I've got the easy part.
SunDog,
I don't know anything about this particular commentator Betty Nguyen, I rarely if ever watch CNN & I've never heard of her. I seriously doubt she is purposely spreading deliberate propaganda. I'd be more inclined to believe she's a lukewarm talent when it comes to journalism.
It would have been great if she'd said:
I've heard George Bush & other supporters of the Iraq War say this, but could you explain to me & our viewers exactly why you believe terrorists would follow us home.
As far as your suggestion that she was fawning over his metals...I don't know that I'd define it in those terms, but if you feel she was doing that, wasn't she also fawning over the fact that he was the first Hispanic-American since Vietnam to receive the Navy Cross?
Like I said, I know diddley about Nguyen, but I'd be inclined to see her as a lightweight doing mostly a puff piece interview here.
Now more importantly...I'm making a packie run...place your order :-)
*Yes Pearlene, I know, Wine In A Box ;-)
Just a Ziploc full of Pruno for me, Jeter.
Ziploc full of Pruno
Beach,
Somehow I always knew you were an ex-con ;-)
Gawd you are from Massachusetts! A packie run! That doesn't mean anything where I live. But I grew up and went to college in Massachusetts, so I know the lingo.
Wicked, man!
Hey Funnyman,
I grew up on Long Island, but went to college in Massachusetts too. Met my wife [a Mass girl] there, and have lived in Massachusetts ever since.
"Packie Run" is popular lingo for the kids, but even we adults up here use it ;-)
That's wicked cool that you remember the lingo..Where do you live now?
Kentucky. Yuck!
Now I know why you root for the Yankees. Couldn't figure that out before.
I still can't figure out why anyone would ever root for the Yankees. ;-)
Jeter, I actually agree with your assesment of how this story went down. That's why my criticism was directed at the network and not the lightweight 'jornalist' they put on the air. But hiring an incompetant doesn't excuse the company for the content they put out. And it doesn't change the reality of how this story plays to the public.
SunDog,
I agree there's no excuse. I'm amazed that so many in the media let this "the terrorists will follow us home" B.S. go by without question. It's so ludicrous an assertion.
BTW, we start drinking now...it's our Friday Cyber-party. And yeah the liquor is cyber-booze as well.
Hope Snoop gets here soon with the cyber-food ;-)
Woof! Woof!
I've got the jalapeno cream dip and chips, plus a case of Boddingtons!
How 'bout a platter of quesadillas, Snoop?
Please! I can't believe I had to work this hard today. This don't happen too often, but when it does, I don't have time to fart!
Sorry for being so late all, let the party really start! I've upped the ante, I pulled out some of my deer sausage and mixed it into a nacho cheese dip. I still have my fiesta ranch dip that I mix chile piquins and a jalapeno into, and now I think y'all should try my slow smoked ribs. Hungry yet?
Oh, and friday night for me would be a couple of good beers and some salty snackies. Thanks.
Soup Du jour, I had it yesterday and it was great.
Jeter, xoxoxoxoxo :-)
PS: HBL for your brilliant art work xxxoooo :-)
Oh, good Sundog. When I went back to the other thread I saw every one of your posts deleted, I was afraid someone had you banned.
This may be a good time to mention that it's friday, time for our party! What ya bringing?
Banned? Moi?
The rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated.
Sundog shines forever!
Let's not believe the soldiers on the ground unless they believe what we do.
how about the generals who say differently?
>> dexteritas0071418:Let's not believe the soldiers on the ground unless they believe what we do.
A group of soldiers wrote an editorial in the NY Times stating that the US troops did no good in Iraq. Two of those soldiers are dead. The third one was in the hospital before the editorial came to print.
I think a vast majority of those on the ground agree the way we (majority of the citizens) do.
I can understand those soldiers who do want to "finish the job". I think that is admirable (I might feel the same way if I was in their shoes). But the problem is that that does not reflect the reality of the situation or the best possible solution for Iraq.
"Let's not believe the soldiers on the ground unless they believe what we do."
What does this have to do with the nonsensical statement he made?
According to the poll published in Stars and Stripes 72% of the soldiers ON THE GROUND in Iraq want all the troops home within a year. So yeah lets listen to them.
It would be quite problematic to base public policy on the statements of soldiers opinions. It's not that they aren't valid. But in a certain legal sense, they don't have a right to speak their minds. Former soldiers are a different story. They are no longer under the same obligations not to 'undermine' their superiors. In a certain light, active duty soldiers are the most vulnerable a citizen can be. Because they willingly have forfeited some of their rights to complain like the rest of us.
I agree. I have actually made that point myself before. My post was directed DIRECTLY at what dexter posted
as if it's not their real desire to launch attacks in this country anyway. our troops in iraq do nothing to stop that. bush and the republican congress ignored the for years recommendations of the 9-11 commission to make the country safer. it was only this year, with a democratic congress, that many of those recommendations were passed. see link.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Congressional_efforts_to_implement_recommendations_of_the_9/11_commission
Why didn't MSM give attention to the 7 soldiers who wrote that op-ed piece. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html?ei=5090&en=5a8349a0e944e61b&ex=1345176000 Why spend time not talking about their opinion and instead question whether they had the right to express an opinion while giving their live for their country. Why not try to reach them now to get their opinion....oh right 2 of them have died in Iraq since writing their opinion and one is recovering from a gun shot wound to the head. Seems like they are solider on the ground.
This is a trend I've noticed. These "journalists" simply will not challenge this idiotic talking point. All they have to do is ask one simple question..."HOW IS OUR PRESENCE IN IRAQ STOPPING THEM FROM ATTACKING US NOW?"
If they would bother to ask that question whenever one of these parrots recites it, this talking point would die.
No one wants to ask a "tough" question to someone that served. That is, unless that person says we shouldn't be in Iraq. "Excuse me, sir, I respect your service, but: Are you a coward?"
That is the problem, that we have too much reverence for people in uniform. No one will ask them hard questions, so often times a person can spout propaganda and hide behind the uniform. (Note: I am not saying all military people do this.)
You've got a point about the reverance Funnyman. They deserve respect, not this weird, almost religious reverance. The same people so eager with the reverance seem to be the same ones who don't seem to give a damn about actually getting them killed. It's the difference between wanting a strong military and being militaristic that many Americans seem to be struggling with. Or, they should be struggling with it.
You're right. I don't care if this guy is Audie Murphy...it's still a shameless, GOP talking point. And he's WRONG.
i don't question the sgt's patriotism or integrity. he may actually believe what he said, that doesn't lend it credence. he's a sgt, not a general. sgt's pretty much know what's right in front of them, that's their job. anything beyond that is the product of speculation and/or heresay, from other enlisted & nco's.
i would say the odds of this sgt. having an in-depth understanding of the whole situation in iraq are slim to none, and slim just left town. clearly, he's enititled to his opinion. that he's been in iraq doesn't, by itself, lend any more weight to his opinion than it does to mine, absent some compelling evidence that he has specific knowledge he failed to share with the rest of the viewing audience.
The "It's better to fight them there than to fight them here." justification for the Iraq invasion and occupation, no matter who it's coming from, is demonstrably evil and stupid.
It's stupid because instead of stopping terrorists we've created an incubator in Iraq for more terrorists.
It's evil because it promotes the notion that we should encourage our terrorist enemies to kill innocent Iraqi men, women and children "over there" rather than take the priceless lives of Americans "here". In other words we're using Iraqis as bait while at the same time hypocritically proclaiming that we're helping Iraqis by bringing democracy to them.
It is a weak, evil, stupid justification that makes obvious the fact that the Iraq Invasion should have never taken place in the first place.
Well said. Haven't heard anyone in the press bring this up: It is truly evil to suggest that we should make ourselves safer at others' expense.
A talking point both evil and wrong.