With all due respect to Rush (his rant is behind his firewall), Michelle Malkin (also at Hot Air in a vid with O'Reilly), Allah at Hot Air, and all the others who are justifiably "Venting" at CNN -- You're STILL missing a BIG, BIG point -- We aren't getting "the unvarnished truth" from our military, because they are constrained about issues relating to the safety of soldiers and their families HERE, IN THIS COUNTRY. Since they are limited in what they can show of our soldiers' exploits, it is incumbent on media outlets to be VERY restrained in what they will show of the enemy's.
Let me break it down as briefly as I can (more detail is at my post Sunday at BizzyBlog):
- Thanks to jihadists in the US, the military has to consider potential danger to soldiers and their families that might occur if their war exploits are publicized.
- Patterico's 5-part interview with Guantanamo Bay nurse "Stashiu" and the report by Andrew Selsky of the Associated Press on his Gitmo together prove that concern about the safety of returning soldiers and their stateside families is definitely warranted.
- Media organizations like CNN, who HAVE to know the constraints the military is under in reporting good battlefield news, have a special duty, even beyond "normal," to NOT push enemy propaganda on the public.
- CNN instead went in the OPPOSITE direction with their terrorist sniper video last week, and by doing so in light of our military's constraints, has for all practical purposes, intentionally or not, allied itself with our enemy in the propaganda war.
It is therefore very difficult to credibly disagree with Michelle Malkin's contention on O'Reilly last night (a contention O'Reilly didn't buy, and should) that CNN wants the terrorists to win. AT BEST, it can be said that CNN, intentionally or not, is doing its level best to bring about that result.
______________________________
ADDENDUM: And I would also ask readers to consider how many of our Senators and Congressmen know full well the communication constraints our military operates under. Certainly those on the defense-, intelligence- and homeland security-based committees cannot be unaware of the potential domestic threat to our soldiers and their familiies, especially those who might perform heroically on the battlefield. I would argue that even more than has been the case in previous wars, our legislators and other government officials have a duty to be measured and discreet in their criticism. Is that what we have been seeing for the past 3-1/2 years?
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
