How the liberal media 'supports' the troops.

[red states rule]

Excellent article by Thomas Sowell

March 13, 2007
'Supporting the Troops'
By Thomas Sowell

The front cover of Newsweek's March 5th issue featured a woman with amputated legs and a sweatshirt that said "ARMY" across the front. Inside, there were pages and pages of other pictures of badly wounded and disfigured military veterans, in a long article that began under the big headline: "Forgotten Heroes."

The utter hypocrisy of all this can be seen in the word "heroes." There have been many acts of heroism among our troops in Iraq -- but those heroes didn't make the front cover of Newsweek.

One man fell on a grenade to protect his buddies, smothering the fatal blast with his body, so that those around him might live when he died. But that never made the front cover of Newsweek. It was barely mentioned anywhere in the liberal media.

They are not interested in heroes. They are interested in depicting victims -- in the military as in civilian society.

The Newsweek hypocrisy is not unique. It has been the rule, not the exception, as much of the mainstream media has devoted itself to filtering and spinning the news out of Iraq.

Parading casualties is called "honoring our troops." But what does it mean to honor someone? When we gather at a memorial service to honor someone in death or at a ceremony to award prizes to them while they are alive, what do we do?

We talk about the good things they have done, their endeavors and their achievements. We don't call simply pointing out that someone is dead "honoring" them. Nor is simply pointing out that someone is dismembered or disfigured "honoring" them.

Talk about "supporting the troops" or "honoring the dead" is part of the general corruption of language for political purposes. It is like saying "I take full responsibility," when all that this phrase really means is: "You have caught me red-handed and there is no way to deny it, so I will just use these words to try to dissipate your anger and escape punishment."

After generations of dumbed-down education in our schools, perhaps it is inevitable that there would be large numbers of people who have no way of separating rhetoric from reality.

The reality is that many of those in the media and in politics who are constantly talking about "supporting our troops" or "honoring our troops" have for years been in the forefront of those criticizing or undermining the military, long before the Iraq war.

During the early stages of that war, men fighting for their lives were criticized for not protecting the contents of an Iraqi museum.

Unsubstantiated charges against American military personnel create instant front-page news stories in the New York Times. But innumerable things that our troops have done that would make us proud are not likely to be reported at all.

It was front-page news in the March 4th New York Times when a young soldier said goodbye to her father before heading off to Iraq.

It was front-page news in the New York Times when some reservists had financial problems when they had to leave their civilian jobs after being called to active duty in Iraq.

Anything negative, no matter how commonplace, can make the front page of the New York Times, while even remarkable acts of bravery or compassion are passed over in silence.

Activists are creating displays in which a small American flag is planted for every death in Iraq. For some of these activists, it may be the first time they have ever touched an American flag, unless they were burning it.

Perhaps the most irresponsible act of all has been Congress's promotion of a non-binding resolution against the recent increase in American troop strength in Iraq.

People's opinions can differ on troop deployment, even if -- like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- they have never deployed troops in their lives and have no military experience whatsoever.

But if anyone in Congress is serious about stopping the war, they can simply cut off the money -- and take responsibility for the consequences that follow.

Instead, they want to have it both ways, passing a non-binding resolution whose only effect is to embolden our enemies and undermine the morale of our troops that they keep saying they are "supporting."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/supporting_the_troops.html

 

[red states rule]

VP Dick Cheney is putting the Dems on defense

WASHINGTON (AP) - Anti-war lawmakers in Congress are undermining U.S. troops in Iraq by trying to limit President Bush's spending requests for military operations, Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday.
His remarks came as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid scheduled a Wednesday test vote on a resolution that calls for combat troops to leave Iraq by March 2008.
Also this week, a House committee will consider legislation that would fully fund the administration's $100 billion request for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan yet demand that troops leave Iraq by the end of August 2008 and possibly the end of 2007.
With those showdowns nearing, Cheney tried to put Democrats on the defensive.

"When members speak not of victory but of time limits, deadlines and other arbitrary measures, they are telling the enemy simply to watch the clock and wait us out," Cheney said in a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
"When members of Congress pursue an anti-war strategy that's been called 'slow bleed,' they are not supporting the troops, they are undermining them," he said.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Cheney's remarks prove "the administration's answer to continuing violence in Iraq is more troops and more treasure from the American people."
Reid, D-Nev., said America was less safe today because of the war. The president "must change course, and it's time for the Senate to demand he do it," Reid said.
Democratic leaders have public opinion on their side when it comes to their opposition of the war. More than six in 10 Americans think Iraq was a mistake - the largest number yet found in AP-Ipsos polling.

But congressional leaders have struggled to get party members to agree how far to go to end the war. Some anti-war Democrats prefer limiting the funds so the administration would essentially be forced to remove U.S. forces, a strategy that party leaders have abandoned. Others say they do not want to do anything that could hurt the troops.
"This supplemental should be about supporting the troops and providing what they need," said Rep. Dan Boren, D-Okla., on Monday upon returning from a trip to Iraq. Boren said he plans to oppose any legislation setting a clear deadline for troops to leave.
Cheney seized on the debate among Democrats, contending the White House expects Congress will support the troops.
Cheney said the House's nonbinding vote against troop increases in Iraq last month was an example of "twisted logic" and "not a proud episode in the history of the United States Congress."
Cheney added, "Very soon, both houses will have to vote on a piece of legislation that is binding, a bill to provide emergency funding to the troops, and I sincerely hope that this time, the discussion this time will be about winning in Iraq."
He predicted "disaster" and "chaos" in the Middle East with either al-Qaida or Iran emerging dominant from a bloody sectarian battle and compromising regional security if U.S. troops withdrew from Iraq before their mission is completed.
Of particular concern, he said, would be a powerful and possibly nuclear-armed Iran, criticizing as inconsistent some lawmakers who are pressing for tougher action on Iran but opposing Bush's Iraq plan.
"It is simply not consistent for anyone to demand aggressive action against the menace posed by the Iranian regime while at the same time acquiescing in a retreat from Iraq that would leave our worst enemies dramatically emboldened and Israel's best friend, the United States, dangerously weakened," Cheney said.

http://perspectives.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=137741&forum_id=71