Whatever the realities of war against a foe that blows up innocent people in restaurants, threatening to veto the latest Pentagon spending bill because of an amendment that “sets standards for the treatment of prisoners in U.S. military custody” is not, on the face of it, a smart propaganda move. I don’t know the back room maneuvering behind this bill, but it passed the Senate by 90-9 and it would appear complaining (via Scott McClellan) that the amendment is “redundant” (please!) is just handing yet another club to the war’s opponents. At this point, it would seem the smarter move would have been to have gotten out in front on this amendment and applauded it, especially if it is indeed redundant. If it is not, and there are certain problems embedded in the text, they may not be worth confronting at this point – at least publicly. At the moment, this seems one more example of this administration’s unsure and somewhat unsophisticated hand in the world of public relations.
Of course this is only my preliminary response and, like most blog posts, subject to revision. I invite your comments.
(And, yes, of course, much of this may relate to John McCain’s presidential ambitions but so what? There are larger issues at stake here.)
UPDATE: Apropos Iraq, the Washington Post editorial today is definitely worth reading. In general, the Post has had much less of an ax to grind than the NYT in its coverage of the war and cannot be as easily dismissed. Of course, people on the scene may be somewhat more realistic. Judging progress to democracy in midstream, especially in the Middle East, is more than a little deceiving. In this instance, the old Maoist canard “Two steps forward, one step backwards” seems to apply. In fact, “Three steps forward, four steps backward, five steps forward” might be more like it.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
19 Comments
1. Lola:Okay . . . how do you deal with people who don’t feel guilty about cutting other heads off, when you’ve got to get actionable information from them?
Oct 6, 2005 - 7:03 am 2. ex-democrat:roger – the WaPo may or may not be less defeatist than the NYT (i wouldn’t know as I quit reading either of them a long time ago) but i do hope that when Pajamas Media finally appears it does a better job of prioritizing the news.
For example, this story seems to me to be more significant than any others in the MSM http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051006/ap_on_re_eu/britain_iraq_5;_ylt=AuNotFpzo6xU2Ay6AfwNFWpK2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw–.
Oct 6, 2005 - 7:19 am 3. Always right:Yes, I agree with the bad PR part. So far whoever handles the WH public relation could not have done a worse job for this admin. [Who do they hire anyway, leftovers from the previous admin?]Also WH news corp (MSM) is a major problem, IMO.
However, I don’t like the redundant amendment. If there is already a code for treating detainees in US military custody, what’s needed is to enforce it, not to add more “paragragh x, section y” to the spending bill.
Amendments usually says there is a deficiency in the original “texts”, therefore you need additions to correct the oversight. Not only it is not needed, it shows to the world that we were guilty of not providing the highest standards to treat these thugs, therefore giving the anti-war crowd (here and abroad) more ammunitions to enflame their bogus claims.
Not that any “positive” treatment on our part would get accepted/spread by the usual suspects in the first place, anyway.
Oct 6, 2005 - 7:33 am 4. Lola:Watching Bush’s speech . . . he specifically named Theo van Gogh. Anyone in Hollywood still recognize the name?
Oct 6, 2005 - 7:35 am 5. thibaud:Yes, the NYT has shamelessly hyped Abu Ghraib (400+ articles since March 2003!). Yes, Andrew Sullivan is a male version of an hysteric (a testeric?). And yes, there are “ticking bomb” situations in which torture may– emphasis on may, not must– be justifiable.
All that said, torture is bad policy. True ticking bomb situations are very rare, and in any case, as the British found in Ulster and the French found in Algeria, torture doesn’t yield much valuable information. And in reality, many of those tortured and, yes, killed by our troops have been innocent. Again, ignore the mSM’s bleating and look at the situation on the ground, with an objective eye. Bush/Gonzales’s torture policy has not helped us, and in many ways, esp in Iraq, it has hindered our efforts.
I’m not calling for Bush to crawl to Canossa or beg the forgiveness of Gail Collins or Teddy K. But it’s long past time that the administration admitted its torture policy is at best an honest failure, and must quietly be put aside in favor of something along the lines of a default standard of no torture in any instance unless specifically authorized, on a purely case by case basis, by the man who sits in the Oval Office.
Think this is “soft”? “unrealistic”? Then go talk to the British and the French, who learned the hard way that torture doesn’t work, and corrupts and thereby harms the torturer as much as the tortured.
Oct 6, 2005 - 7:37 am 6. Ron Wrght:IRAQ – US Troops Criticise Media Coverage
Roger,
You’re up early.
You’re exactly right. People on the scene [Iraq] with their own eyeballs may have very different perspectives than what the MSM is reporting.
GO Pajama Media as the alternative source of news/info of the day that is more reality based than the MSM.
See this recent piece I posted:
IRAQ – US Military and Iraq forces have launched major offensive campaigns in Western Iraq – Operation Anbar, Operation Bawwabatu Annaher, Operation Iron Fist, and Operation Hiba. Funny the MSM hasn’t covered the magnitude and scope of this story.
Instapudit is linking to several sites this morning including Bill Roggio of The Fourth Rail.
Bill Roggio is covering this breaking story as it develops from his extensive info sources including some “eyeballs” on the ground in Iraq. He also includes several links to frustration expressed by US military personnel about the very distorted media coverage. These out of perspective, out of context, and out proportion media reports only embolden the enemy, draws out these battles, and risk more lives. Further these “news” accounts are shifting world opinion based on flawed and inaccurate information.
The Blogos now has the power to bring these alternative reports and information directly to the American people who then can decide for themselves what is true and what is not. The Blogos is on point to wage and win this “War of Information” in support of our brave men and women taking this fight down the throat of the enemy in the GWOT.
ron
*****
REMEMBER IRAQ- Bill Roggio is paying attention to what’s going on even if others aren’t, and his latest is a must-read. And note the media criticism from Capt. Jeffrey Pool.
UPDATE: More background here.
ANOTHER UPDATE: More media criticism from the troops. We’re hearing a lot of that, and with good reason.
[...]
[Report from LTC Tim Ryan]
01:19am: The Whole Story
Soldiers are getting sick and tired of the media [aren't we all] , but nobody has expressed this as eloquently as LTC Tim Ryan, who opens his article with this excellent rant:
All right, I’ve had enough. I am tired of reading distorted and grossly exaggerated stories from major news organizations about the “failures” in the war in Iraq. “The most trusted name in news” and a long list of others continue to misrepresent the scale of events in Iraq. Print and video journalists are covering only a fraction of the events in Iraq and, more often than not, the events they cover are only negative.
The inaccurate picture they paint has distorted the world view of the daily realities in Iraq. The result is a further erosion of international support for the United States’ efforts there, and a strengthening of the insurgents? resolve and recruiting efforts while weakening our own. Through their incomplete, uninformed and unbalanced reporting, many members of the media covering the war in Iraq are aiding and abetting the enemy.
The fact is the Coalition is making steady progress in Iraq, but not without ups and downs. So why is it that no matter what events unfold, good or bad, the media highlights mostly the negative aspects of the event? The journalistic adage, “If it bleeds, it leads,” still applies in Iraq, but why only when it’s American blood?
[...]
Read More and follow the links in Instapundit’s post:
Link
Oct 6, 2005 - 7:40 am 7. vegetius:25 killed yesterday in a mosque.
10 killed today.
Some where today in Iraq a 19 year old private
will have to go through a door to a house filled with jahadhis ready to kill him and his fellows.
I’m sure glad the worlds greatest deliberative body is worrying about the really terrible stuff.
Oct 6, 2005 - 8:53 am 8. dougf:I did read the WP editorial,but what exactly was I expected to learn from it?
The proposed Constitution does not seemingly appeal to the Sunnis. Now that is a piece of news that is truly earthshaking,considering the quality of their leadership,and their fixation on their ‘right-to-rule’.
NOTHING really appeals to the Sunnis except a re-instatement of their previous ability to run the country to suit primarily(if not excusively) themselves. While they complain about the ‘theoretical’ possibility of a breakup of Iraq, they provide de-facto support for the terrorists running amok there.
The only reason that they are even coming to the negotiation table is because their campaign of terror is not succeeding as they might have wished. They fear they will be left behind without any OIL to sustain their delusions of grandeur.
If the Sunnis fear exclusion perhaps they might work a little harder to weed out the fanatics from their midst. Frankly I think that on balance the ‘others’ in Iraq have behaved in a relatively moderate manner. Especially considering the provocations.
If the Sunnis think things are bad now what will they think in another 12 months as more Kurdish-Shiite force becomes more capable? They are running the very real risk of losing their place in Iraq permanently.
The WP offers no magic bullets to resolve the issue, just more MMQBing.The Constitution is not the end solution in Iraq. It is merely a step. The real solution is for the Sunnis to see that they can never WIN, but that they can LOSE in a big-time way. Every day that future comes closer and closer. We, nor the Kurds,nor the Shiites, can stop it, but the Sunnis can. It’s their call.
Enough with the Sunnis; what about the rest of the country.
Oct 6, 2005 - 9:29 am 9. PJ:BTW he hit the ball out of the park with this morning’s speech.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051006-3.html
He actually named the enemy. He stuck up for Theo Van Gogh, after Hollywood ignored his murder. He has thrown down the gauntlet to the appeasers and the Democrats. How can anyone deny the idealism of this mission and the moral bankruptcy of the left?
Oct 6, 2005 - 9:38 am 10. Ron Wrght:GWOT – Major Strategic Foreign Policy Speech Just Delivered By President Bush
Damn straight PJ!
See this post I just sent around. I took the liberty of excerpting some of the high points here.
A MUST READ go to the White House Press Release link at the bottom
*****
GWOT – Major Strategic Foreign Policy Speech Just Delivered By President Bush
Washington, D.C.
President Bush swings from the hips today and delivers barn burner speech calling a, “shovel a shovel.” He clearly announces for once the GWOT is a war of ideologies. For the first time he identifies we are at war with an ideology some have called, “. . . evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism.”
This is the speech the Blogos has been waiting to hear for a long time. Much of what was said is old news to us but the American people are still clueless because of the lack of reporting of the real issues by the MSM.
The Blogos needs to spread President Bush’s words far and wide to ever corner of the earth so that the enemy clearly knows we will not shrink from the battle and its days are numbered!
Ron
(HT PJ at Roger L. Simon)
*****
President Discusses War on Terror at National Endowment for Democracy
Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center
Washington, D.C.
[...]
In this new century, freedom is once again assaulted by enemies determined to roll back generations of democratic progress. Once again, we’re responding to a global campaign of fear with a global campaign of freedom. And once again, we will see freedom’s victory. (Applause.)
[...]
Recently our country observed the fourth anniversary of a great evil, and looked back on a great turning point in our history. We still remember a proud city covered in smoke and ashes, a fire across the Potomac, and passengers who spent their final moments on Earth fighting the enemy. We still remember the men who rejoiced in every death, and Americans in uniform rising to duty. And we remember the calling that came to us on that day, and continues to this hour: We will confront this mortal danger to all humanity. We will not tire, or rest, until the war on terror is won. (Applause.)
The images and experience of September the 11th are unique for Americans. Yet the evil of that morning has reappeared on other days, in other places — in Mombasa, and Casablanca, and Riyadh, and Jakarta, and Istanbul, and Madrid, and Beslan, and Taba, and Netanya, and Baghdad, and elsewhere. In the past few months, we’ve seen a new terror offensive with attacks on London, and Sharm el-Sheikh, and a deadly bombing in Bali once again. All these separate images of destruction and suffering that we see on the news can seem like random and isolated acts of madness; innocent men and women and children have died simply because they boarded the wrong train, or worked in the wrong building, or checked into the wrong hotel. Yet while the killers choose their victims indiscriminately, their attacks serve a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs and goals that are evil, but not insane.
Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it’s called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom
[...]
any militants are part of global, borderless terrorist organizations like al Qaeda, which spreads propaganda, and provides financing and technical assistance to local extremists, and conducts dramatic and brutal operations like September the 11th. Other militants are found in regional groups, often associated with al Qaeda — paramilitary insurgencies and separatist movements in places like Somalia, and the Philippines, and Pakistan, and Chechnya, and Kashmir, and Algeria. Still others spring up in local cells, inspired by Islamic radicalism, but not centrally directed. Islamic radicalism is more like a loose network with many branches than an army under a single command
[...]
The influence of Islamic radicalism is also magnified by helpers and enablers. They have been sheltered by authoritarian regimes, allies of convenience like Syria and Iran, that share the goal of hurting America and moderate Muslim governments, and use terrorist propaganda to blame their own failures on the West and America, and on the Jews. These radicals depend on front operations, such as corrupted charities, which direct money to terrorist activity. They’re strengthened by those who aggressively fund the spread of radical, intolerant versions of Islam in unstable parts of the world. The militants are aided, as well, by elements of the Arab news media that incite hatred and anti-Semitism, that feed conspiracy theories and speak of a so-called American “war on Islam” — with seldom a word about American action to protect Muslims in Afghanistan, and Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo, Kuwait, and Iraq.
[...]
The murderous ideology of the Islamic radicals is the great challenge of our new century. Yet, in many ways, this fight resembles the struggle against communism in the last century. Like the ideology of communism, Islamic radicalism is elitist, led by a self-appointed vanguard that presumes to speak for the Muslim masses. Bin Laden says his own role is to tell Muslims, quote, “what is good for them and what is not.” And what this man who grew up in wealth and privilege considers good for poor Muslims is that they become killers and suicide bombers. He assures them that his — that this is the road to paradise — though he never offers to go along for the ride.
[...]
When 25 Iraqi children are killed in a bombing, or Iraqi teachers are executed at their school, or hospital workers are killed caring for the wounded, this is murder, pure and simple — the total rejection of justice and honor and morality and religion. These militants are not just the enemies of America, or the enemies of Iraq, they are the enemies of Islam and the enemies of humanity. (Applause.)
[...]
nd Islamic radicalism, like the ideology of communism, contains inherent contradictions that doom it to failure. By fearing freedom — by distrusting human creativity, and punishing change, and limiting the contributions of half the population — this ideology undermines the very qualities that make human progress possible, and human societies successful. The only thing modern about the militants’ vision is the weapons they want to use against us. The rest of their grim vision is defined by a warped image of the past — a declaration of war on the idea of progress, itself. And whatever lies ahead in the war against this ideology, the outcome is not in doubt: Those who despise freedom and progress have condemned themselves to isolation, decline, and collapse. Because free peoples believe in the future, free peoples will own the future. (Applause.)
[...]
we’re determined to deny radical groups the support and sanctuary of outlaw regimes. State sponsors like Syria and Iran have a long history of collaboration with terrorists, and they deserve no patience from the victims of terror. The United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor them, because they’re equally as guilty of murder. (Applause.) Any government that chooses to be an ally of terror has also chosen to be an enemy of civilization. And the civilized world must hold those regimes to account.
[...]
The terrorists are as brutal an enemy as we’ve ever faced. They’re unconstrained by any notion of our common humanity, or by the rules of warfare. No one should underestimate the difficulties ahead, nor should they overlook the advantages we bring to this fight.
Some observers look at the job ahead and adopt a self-defeating pessimism. It is not justified. With every random bombing and with every funeral of a child, it becomes more clear that the extremists are not patriots, or resistance fighters — they are murderers at war with the Iraqi people, themselves.
[...]
There’s always a temptation, in the middle of a long struggle, to seek the quiet life, to escape the duties and problems of the world, and to hope the enemy grows weary of fanaticism and tired of murder. This would be a pleasant world, but it’s not the world we live in. The enemy is never tired, never sated, never content with yesterday’s brutality. This enemy considers every retreat of the civilized world as an invitation to greater violence. In Iraq, there is no peace without victory. We will keep our nerve and we will win that victory. (Applause.)
[...]
With the rise of a deadly enemy and the unfolding of a global ideological struggle, our time in history will be remembered for new challenges and unprecedented dangers. And yet the fight we have joined is also the current expression of an ancient struggle, between those who put their faith in dictators, and those who put their faith in the people. Throughout history, tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that murder is justified to serve their grand vision — and they end up alienating decent people across the globe. Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that regimented societies are strong and pure — until those societies collapse in corruption and decay. Tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that free men and women are weak and decadent — until the day that free men and women defeat them.
[...]
White House Press Release
Press Release Link
Oct 6, 2005 - 11:26 am 11. Keith_Indy:So does the amendment substantially change current law?
Generally if a law is being changed, it states what about that law is being changed, chapter and verse.
Since there is no such language in the amendment, I would have to conclude that the amendment would not change the law.
Here is the current law on torture:
*********************
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C >
Oct 6, 2005 - 1:28 pm 12. Keith_Indy:It would also seem to me that this amendment does not set any new standards, notice the way the first section is worded.
“not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation.”
So, we already have standards which are supposed to be enforced, and this amendment in effect seems to be saying, please make sure the standards are enforced.
Oct 6, 2005 - 1:31 pm 13. Terrye:I don’t know what the point of vetoing a bill with 90 votes would be but I assume that there is something in there they see a problem with down the road.
and yes PR is not their forte.
I don’t think there is a torture policy in the Bush administration, in fact I would say that never in history has there been greater scrutiny paid to the fate of detainees or prisoners.
I think that many of the failures in that regard have been failures of discipline.
But then again there is debate as to what torture even is so I guess we can forget any consensus on that.
I hear and read so many different takes on Iraq that I do not pretend to know what will happen. I even heard that some people are saying the Sunnis might vote in favor of the constitution in larger numbers than previously thought. It seems their big concern right now is the next election in December where they hope to gain more influence. I guess we will find out soon enough.
In some ways I don’t care what the Sunnis want. They have lorded it over everyone else for decades without caring what they felt or thought or suffered, so there is a part of me that thinks a little humility might not be a bad thing. They are a minority and the rest of Iraq could obliterate them if they so desired. But I pray that does not happen.
The Iraqis are taking more and more control of their destiny, and I think there will be many problems along the way but there is no easy way to make this happen. Well except for bringing in some strong man like Saddam and looking the other way.
The editorial seemed to be a laundry list of potential disasters. Since when was Iraq not a disaster? Just because a film crew did not show up when Saddam put tens of thousands of people in some mass grave it does not mean this was a civil and peaceful society. The violence was just more hidden. until the bones surfaced somewhere anyway.
And that was a good speech Bush gave. At least he named the enemy.
Oct 6, 2005 - 1:32 pm 14. Syl:Bush should definitely veto!
Oh, there will be complaints that of all the legislation he should have veto’d he chose this.
And the complaints from the usual suspects on the left as well.
The point is we are at war. We have to get serious. We have to admit it to ourselves. This amendment is a bandaid to appease those in our country who do not believe we are at war nor that we have to fight. It is redundant and therefore has no meaning beyond appeasement of ourselves.
I think giving in by letting this amendment through would bolster the feeling that the anti-war types are right. Back in the sand of the nineties their heads will go.
Oct 6, 2005 - 10:55 pm 15. Roy Lofquist:Dear Sirs,
The Uniform Code of Military Justice is a law authored and passed by the Congress. To pass another law that possibly conflicts with this established law is mischevious, pernicious and contrary to the principle of legal clarity.
This law is an attept by Congress to poach upon the clear Constitutional prerogatives of the executive. One such horrid example of Congressional meddling was the Boland Amendment. This amendment was the point of the spear in a vicious partisan assault that polarized the country, comforted our enemies and disrupted the body politic. The President has no choice but to veto it.
Regards,
Roy
Oct 7, 2005 - 7:13 am 16. markus:Roy –
Do you really believe that a President has the authority to do whatever he wants in foreign policy, even if Congress passes legislation PROHIBITING the funding of a certain action? Do you accept ANY checks and balances on the executive power to involve Americans in a military conflict?
It seems as if you would be much happier living under an absolute monarchy, and that you want to move our presidency in that direction.
from Wilkepedia:
“When the CIA carried out a series of acts of sabotage without Congressional intelligence committees giving consent, or even being made aware beforehand, the Republican-controlled Senate became enraged, leading to the passage of the Boland Amendment and subsequent cutting off of appropriated funding for the Contras.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boland_Amendment
Oct 7, 2005 - 8:27 am 17. Roy Lofquist:Dear Markus,
From the same Wikepedia entry:
“Reagan’s people used non-appropriated money spent by the National Security Council to circumvent the Amendment. No court ever made a determination whether Boland covered the NSC, and no one was ever indicted for violating it.”
“The Boland Amendment prohibited the federal government from providing military support “for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of Nicaragua.” As such it was thought by many to be an unconstitutional interference with the President’s ability to conduct foreign policy.”
The Boland amendment specifically directed the disposition of certain funds. These funds were not involved. The amendment was a strawman to pursue a political end.
We do have in place the checks and balances concerning the executive use of armed force. There is the Constitutional requirement that the Congress declare war, as clarified by the War Powers Act of 1973. In this case we do have a declaration of war.
107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
October 10, 2002
The President has almost unlimited discretion in time of war. The only control that Congress can exercise is through appropriations. This is explicit in the Constitution and by more than 200 years of precedent.
The bill in question is a specific directive from Congress regarding the conduct of the war. It is patently improper.
Regards,
Roy
Oct 7, 2005 - 5:26 pm 18. joe:Gee, you all are amazing. Amazing in both the thoughtfulness of your comments and the topics posted. I always pop in to read these and get a sense there are real people in the world who actually think. Lately, due to other pressing activity I have been unable to do this for a few weeks.
I found time this morning to enjoy your stimulating comments. I think I got more than I wanted.
At some point there is a real possibility McCain could be the Republican candidate. I find that a bit depressing as well as presenting what would be a difficult set of choices for me
.
Oct 9, 2005 - 5:27 am 19. john:I think its a terrible thing to do. I can’t understand what these people get doing these kind of shameful act.
Oct 11, 2005 - 6:52 am