"Kerry, media obscure real story of the week"

[Syrinx]

The three days of foolishness over what John Kerry really meant when he botched a joke about George W. Bush, with one spurious interpretation being he was insulting "our troops," obscured the real story out of Iraq this week -- that those troops are now taking orders from Iraqis and militant militia leaders.

...

You know there was a time when both Democrats and Republicans of all stripes (and most vocally the John Birch Society types who demand a pull out of the United Nations because they don't want our soldiers working with, and perhaps subservient to, other nations) would have been screaming to the high heavens about just how despicable the incident is. But when first asked about it after it had been reported in several newspapers, Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld said he didn't know anything about it. And, of course, President George W. Bush didn't mention it on the campaign trail this week as he attacked Kerry and equated a Democratic take over of Congress next week with a victory for the terrorists.

As for the controversy over Kerry's botched joke and the way it was reported and interpreted by supposedly credible commentators, I, having covered such well-planned events as the campaign stop Kerry was making for a fellow Democrat, smelled a rat from the beginning. You see, the advance press people almost always hand out the politician's remarks in advance and it seemed to me, all anyone would have to do to determine what Kerry really meant was to check the advance transcript. And sure enough, a reporter who did just that said what Kerry meant to say, quoting his prepared text, is that if you don't work hard in school, "you end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush."

And we're supposed believe that "the liberal media," which has a war to report on, but spent the better part of three days parsing Kerry's awkward reading of his own speech, is ruling America?

(I corrected a typo or two.)

http://stevensonblog.tuscaloosanews.com/default.asp?item=268371

[JI7]

1. the media whores are so fucking snotty with their disgusting faces

acting like there is some confusion on what Kerry meant.

[jody]

2. US "troops are now taking orders from Iraqis and militant militia leaders"? I don't

believe that is true.

[Crunchy Frog]

5. It is true.

That's why a kidnapped American soldier has been left behind enemy lines.

[jody]

6. Sorry, but that doesn't prove taking orders from Iraqis. n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

8. It was at the request of the Maliki government

is my understanding. We can quibble as to semantics, but that pretty much seems to me to qualify as taking orders from the Iraqis.

[jody]

9. To a military commander, there is a big difference between obeying an order and

acting upon a request.

The Iraqi government made a request and the U.S. commander was able to act favorably upon that request.

On the other hand, a legal order if disobeyed would have made the military commander subject to court martial under the UCMJ. Of course that's not the case so it was not a legal order regardless of what some reporter says.

Others can quibble all they want but the senior military commanders in Iraq are professional and know what orders to obey.

Of course whether our troops should be in Iraq is another issue and my wife and I opposed the war long before Bush ordered his unjustified attack against an innocent people.

[Syrinx]

10. it's not every US soldier under Iraqi command

But this has happened in some circumstances, according to reports I've heard on television... MSNBC, I think.

[jody]

12. I understand your comment but reports on television are notorious for

getting significant facts wrong and ignoring the difference between obeying an order and acting upon a request is one such fact.

There may indeed be special cases in Iraq where one or two U.S. troops are placed specifically under the command of an Iraqi but I do not believe a single U.S. commander at any level is placed under Iraqi command.

U.S. rules of engagement may place limits on commanders, e.g. don't bomb a target unless you have permission from some civil official, but such policies are often ignored for example if a commander believes his/her troops will be wiped out if a target is not bombed.

[Rhiannon12866]

3. K&R, my friend. Thanks for another great post.

I agree with you on Kerry. This is just another distraction from the message that he's attempting to get out there. And he was well-spoken, as always, but the MSM decided to run with the distraction...:-(

[formercia]

4. Even the BBC

did a propaganda segment on Kerry. I was shocked and saddened when it ran. They even had some hack from the American legion to put in his two hundreths of a lira.

[blm]

7. They HAD to create this lie - they KNEW Hacking Democracy was going to air

and so they produced a TRASHING THE WHITE HOUSE lie to make people turn against Kerry and be glad they were in the WH - this is EXACTLY the maneuver they did when they had to take office with most people knowing they weren't supposed to be there.

Pumping up the pardon story and trashing of the WH was key to driving down Clinton's personal ratings.

They really had to depend on media complicity to make a DROPPED PRONOUN into a "scandal" didn't they?

[upi402]

11. media traitors betray America for corporatism

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :puke: