Yet wrt Sanchez's hitting the media and the partisans, that's hardly news - loads of people have criticized both during this long debacle. What *was* news was a person at this military level speaking about the "imcompetence" etc of the Bush admin
He's not an objective observer; he was in command and is thus passing the buck for his own failures. A more objective reporter would have noted that. Besides, this is hardly the first general making the less-than-startling observation that going in light with no plans for dealing with an insurgency has not worked out quite as planned. I don't see how you can call it new or startling. What is more remarkable to my mind is the way the coverage had to carefully pick out the 10% (at most) of Sanchez' remarks that blasted Bush, and totally ignore the 90% that blasted the press and Washington DC partisan politics.
The press are the only group that have the luxury of declaring that cricisims of themselves or politicians they happen to like are "not newsworthy." They use and abuse this privilege often. Is it really too much to ask that coverage of the speech mention the main points addressed?
Wrt "phoney soldiers". I know Rush later claimed he was referring to a single particular soldier. You might believe him, but I don't.
One question: have you read or listened to Rush's actual words? The one paragraph Media Matters seized upon was ambiguous. But if you even listened to five minutes of Rush's program, the reference to Jesse Macbeth, whom he had just been discussing, becomes clear. Did you actually listen, yes or no? If not, on what basis do you not believe Rush?
I think a big part of the problem in the US is the black/white polarization: you are either left or right. No center, no in-between, no nuances, no compromises. You're one or the other, good or evil
Agreed. But polarization can only be increased by the general acceptance of the idea that you stick at nothing to attack your enemies, and false charges are as good as true ones. That is why I am so disturbed by acceptance of the "fake but accurate" standard of journalism. |
