Thank you Lt. Dan!
Wasn't I pleased Wednesday night to hear actor Gary Sinise repel Scottish-born Craig Ferguson's, host of CBS' The Late, Late Show, attempt to focus Sinise on the negative aspects of Operation Iraqi Freedom!
Sinise, who has been travelling with his rock group, "Lt. Dan's Band" on a USO tour for troops in Germany, Italy, Iraq and elsewhere, countered Ferguson's lead with a complaint of how biased the media reports are coming out of Iraq. Ferguson didn't expect the retort and looked suprised by the optimism of the actor. Maybe Ferguson was just jaded and expecting another liberal ... because his guest Tuesday was has-been comedian and one-trick leftist pony Bill Maher.
Sinise, who starred as the character "Lt. Dan Taylor" in the movie Forrest Gump and currently stars on CBS's latest CSI spinoff, CSI: New York, told Ferguson that there are many fine and peaceful projects being accomplished in Iraq by American and coalition troops -- schools being built, waterworks projects bringing water where none existed -- that aren't being reported by media. Sinise told Ferguson he was unhappy with the media concentrating solely on the negative.
Not only is Sinise travelling with the USO entertaining troops, his visits to war-torn Iraq have spurred him and Laura Hillenbrand, best selling author of "Seabiscuit," to found a program to help collect school supplies for Iraqi children.
From the website of the organization, Operation Iraqi Children:
Inspired by their conversations with Operation Iraqi Freedom soldiers as well as Sinise's recent tour of the region, Sinise and Hillenbrand founded Operation Iraqi Children, a grass roots program to provide concerned Americans with a means to reach out to Iraqi kids and help support our soldiers' efforts to assist the Iraqi people. Through the School Supply Kit Program, American children, church groups, and other organizations can help Iraqis by gathering school supplies in local drives, assembling them in kits according to our instructions, then sending them to the VFW for transport to Iraq, where our soldiers will take them to Iraqi villages.Hats off to Sinise and Hillenbrand for this effort, and thank you "Lt. Dan" for entertaining the troops through the USO and for helping get the truth to the world about Operation Iraqi Freedom!
[Update 5/11/2005: Journalists as terrorism tools? John Tierney, columnist for the New York Times, thinks the media spend too much on the bad news and the bombings in Iraq too. Commenting in his column May 10, Tierney writes: "Terrorists know the numbers are against them and realize that daily bombings will not win the war. All along, their hope has been to inspire recruits and spread general fear with another tactic, the bombing as photo opportunity. For some reason, their media strategy still works." I've always thought Dan Rather and Steve Kroft were tools, but it's refreshing to hear it from the NYT. Tierney gives the press an easy out though and explains the Catch-22 of the situation: "Correspondents complained that they'd essentially become cop reporters, and that the suicide bombings took so much of their time that they couldn't report on the rest of the country. They were more interested in other stories, but as long as the rest of the press corps kept covering the bombing du jour, that was where their editors and producers expected them to be, too." One can choose to rubberneck at an accident scene or one can continue to look straight ahead. It's a personal choice.]
---
I've updated my post "Did you hear the one about the fat guy who got pissed at Viacom and the New York Times?"
---
posted by NEWS4A2, blood-sucking journalist @ 00:30
2 comments
2 Comments:
I will have to admit, that what they are doing might be a good thing, but the reality of the situation is that this conflict is bogus.
I dont really have the time or the energy to get into it this fine morning, but we need to stop sugar coating the real methodology behind "Liberating Iraq".
When are we going to stop the GOVERMENTAL PROPOGANDA MACHINE IN THIS COUNTRY?
Journalists are too afraid to cover the real stories anymore.
Thank you for stopping by! I appreciate the stand you are taking but I don't think you fully understand the history and the reasons, which go back 30 years or more.
Saddam Hussein had WMD. How do I know that? Because the U.S. gave Saddam Hussein WMD and allowed Saddam Hussein to buy WMD production equipment when Saddam Hussein was an ally of the U.S., primarily biological WMD. Was that a good thing to do? In hindsight, obviously not.
Our belief back then, when the hostages were taken in the embassy in Iran (btw during the Democratic administration of Jimmy Carter but a policy continued under Reagan) is that Iraq was less of a threat to the U.S. than Iran was. We knew he killed the Kurds using chemical weapons but we looked the other way and did nothing because we needed his assistance because we didn't know how far the Islamic leaders of Iran intended to go. We were happy with his war with Iran. His people died and the Iranians died. The enemy of our enemy is our friend, or so we thought.
However, Saddam Hussein wasn't satisfied running just Iraq. He had visions of becoming a new Caliph of the 21st Century middle east Caliphate. We didn't mind him being bloodthirsty when he was killing those we considered enemies of the U.S. but when he started going after allies of the U.S., threatening commerce in that area, which threatened the livelihood of the U.S. that's when the U.S. needed to stick its nose in the tent.
We helped build the Frankenstein and it was our job to take him down. Was it the wisest, most ethical, most moral choice to support Saddam Hussein against Iran, and help him build his strength when the war was finished? It was the least of two evils and the only recourse at the time. It's like torture or flying prisoners to countries where we know that torture occurs. If it's a choice of someone killing 3,000 Americans and some people getting tortured, we live with the guilt of ordering the torture. It is the decision you make when confronted with a dilemma where there is no morally and ethically good answer. Every choice open to us sucks, and we order our sons and daugthers to do evil in our name to save us and then jail them for folliowing those implied orders to the nth degree.
G.H.W. Bush made a number of deals with countries in the area, too many in fact, because the U.S. was hamstrung to enter Baghdad after Gulf War I and couldn't stop the slaughter of the Marsh Arabs and Shiites in the south because of deals with Saudis. We drew the line when Saddam went after the Kurds, much to the chagrin of our NATO ally Turkey.
Saddam Hussein had access to oil and untold riches and wealth. He could have built hospitals. He could have built schools. He could have built manufacturing facilities. He could have developed an economy. He didn't. He built palaces. Instead of spending the money on his people, he kept, hoarding billions in European banks. You ought to read this post on my blog.
Despite what you might interpret from your readings in the leftist mass media, Saddam Hussein didn't name his sons "Moonbeam" and "Aquarius," nor did they sit around a beach campfire singing Kum-ba-yah. The only weinies they roasted belonged to their enemies, which they had cut off. These were bad, evil people. They would feel no compunction whatsoever using WMD, against other Iraqis who were not Sunnis and against anyone else. And they needed to be taken out.
Again, thanks for stopping by The 6th Estate! Please tell your friends.
Post a Comment
<< Home