Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates went to extraordinary lengths last week to try to persuade a major news organization not to make public a photo of a 21-year-old Marine rifleman dying in Afghanistan, saying that to do so over the express objections of the family was “unconscionable” and “appalling.”
The Secretary’s appeal, made in a phone call and letter to Tom Curley, president and CEO of the Associated Press, was rejected. The AP stood by its decision to distribute the picture to its clients and also made the photo available to all on its Web site.
It was a tough call, but the right one.
A number of news organizations did use the dark, somewhat fuzzy picture, according to the trade publication Editor & Publisher, but a number of others, including the Stars and Stripes newspaper, did not.
Those that chose to run it should not be faulted, nor should those that chose not to. This was a difficult editorial decision that each news outlet had to make for itself, based on its own standards and sense of its audience.
As hard as it may be to view that picture, especially for the Marine’s family, it belongs in the public domain as a legitimate piece of visual history in a conflict that as of this writing has taken 562 American lives in combat, with no end in sight.
It honors his death, and those of all others, by showing what it means to give one’s life for one’s country. It is also a testament to courage and comradeship. Two fellow Marines can be seen risking their own lives to tend to their fallen buddy under fire.
Suppressing or withholding the photo would have ill served the open society that the dead Marine, Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard of New Portland, Me., gave his life to serve so well so far from home.
Secretary Gates’ arguments should have been part of every responsible editor’s deliberation, but it was never Gates’ decision to make nor, and I say this with great disquietude, the Bernard family’s. A free press is messy, even painful as here, but as Jefferson counseled, it is essential to our form of government.
The American military and visual journalists have a long and sometimes stormy relationship dating to the Civil War, when Mathew Brady and his associates used a camera – “the eye of history,” he called it – to document war and warriors, including the fallen. Viewers far removed from the fields of battle were shocked by the graphic carnage, and editorialists worried that relatives would recognize loved ones among the photographed corpses.
By World War I, governments had come to respect and even fear the power of visual imagery, and photos of that conflict were censored along with news accounts.
The proscription on images of American war dead lasted until 1943, when President Roosevelt was finally convinced that showing the ultimate sacrifice that combat troops were making overseas would stiffen, not weaken, spines on the World War II Home Front.
Many people blame unfettered press coverage for the loss of Vietnam, especially the nightly TV footage of dead and wounded GI’s being lugged to helicopters in jungle clearings.
That sentiment led to renewed efforts at strict news management, if not outright censorship, during the 1983 Grenada invasion, which I could cover only Stateside, the 1989 Panama invasion and the 1991 Gulf War, which I covered (or rather tried to) from Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.
A decade after the Gulf War, Walter Cronkite, who had been a front-line correspondent in World War II and later reported from Vietnam, observed in The Christian Science Monitor that “as a result of the censorship in the Persian Gulf, we have lost our history” – especially the military, who had been deprived of “independent news people out taking pictures or writing...with the troops in action.”
By the time of the Iraq invasion in 2003, the Pentagon realized it had little hope of controlling the press, for no other reason than it had lost control of the means of transmission. Journalists who can talk and upload text and images directly to their newsrooms are not easily tamed.
Thus the concept of embedding journalists with units to share the rigors and dangers of war was reborn. Empathy would be asked to replace censorship.
Much has been written critical of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the “victim or villain” stereotype of Americans who wear or wore the uniform endures in some quarters. But it is heartening that news coverage has for the most part evolved back to where at the individual level, military service is generally appreciated and portrayed for what it is.
AP photographer Julie Jacobson did nothing unkind or untoward by photographing Bernard’s final moments from a short distance off and passing that image on to her editors. One need only read the compelling, sensitive account she co-wrote to appreciate the depth of what she both witnessed and experienced.
If the camera is the eye of history, shutting it to a moment as stark and full of meaning as what transpired on that Afghan roadside Aug. 14 would constitute a warping of history. Bernard was a Marine at war. Jacobson was a war correspondent chronicling his patrol and all that entailed, including his being struck down by enemy fire. Everyone was doing their duty.
The photo is disturbing but not prurient. She did not alter or intrude herself on events by taking it. There is no issue of publication before notification of kin. Bernard was buried more than a week before the AP distributed the photo with the proviso to editors not to make it public until the next day, to give them time to weigh using it.
The AP took the additional step of advising the family of its intention to run the picture. That relatives asked after viewing it that it be withheld is powerful and persuasive but not dispositive.
Families have – and should have – the power to forbid coverage of the return of their fallen loved ones to Dover Air Force Base. Those are demonstrably private moments, and I detest the exploitation of war dead by people who would use images of flag-draped caskets to assail the very causes that the people in those caskets died for.
But war is a public undertaking and death on a battlefield is a public event, especially when journalists have been invited along to chronicle the waging of war.
I say this not only as a journalist but also as a former soldier who long ago held a young comrade on a battlefield as the life slipped out of him, and as one who later stood before that man’s relatives recounting his last moments and watching their anguished eyes peer back into the last ones their loved one ever saw.
Americans today wear their uniforms voluntarily and proudly, and rightly so, but we also need pictures like Jacobson’s to remind us of Robert E. Lee’s admonition, that it is good that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it.
Photo of dying Marine
Why does this become such an issue of showing an American soldier dying. Why do we not continue to show the twin towers being hit, which would really keep the reason in the eye of each American as to why our soldiers are dying. The media, in my opinion, NEVER has the American people formost in there choices of articles or pictures. As it is THEIR opinion and the American people would be smart to remember that!
AMEN!
AMEN!
Photo of dying Marine
Not only is it only there opinion, if you disagree they cry "Freedom of the Press". They seem to forget, they have that freedom because young Marines, like the young man, sacrificed his life. It should be up to the Family in situations like this. It is NOT news (we know he died). it is sensationalism. Respect the dead and and family that is grieving.
Bernard Photo
Kudos to Mark Pendergrast - Stars & Stripes would do well, for its own credibility, to enter the 21st century of journalism; what has been happening in Iraq & Afghanistan since 2002 is an example of dinosaur warfare, with our guys being killed by ancient strategies enhanced by our military's inability to think it through intelligently and stand up to inept political Administration policy...it's not exactly rocket science to perform basic journalistic standards, although S&S has religiously defended even the most absurd policies. AP has an extremely courageous staff, in many ways equal to that of front line troops.
If S&S wants to remain a puppet news agency, so be it...but don't expect any respect from readers who want to see good analysis, including photos.
Marine rifleman dying
Bullpucky...so I ask how Ms. Jacobson or the corporate bosses who approved her photo would feel about recording as “public domain as a legitimate pieces of visual history “ their own dying. It will happen one day and who do you want it to be bared to? This event is the deepest spiritual and most personal happening that we experience in our short time on earth.
If you answered, the article wins and "It honors… death" I will say you’re liars or ignorant to that moment in life when we die. I have seen many deaths both on the battlefield and in civilian Hospice situations and I can tell you there is nothing in the "public interest” that justifies recording the event for the public. Think about it…seriously.
Death is the second most personal of life's experiences after birth and there is nothing more important than honoring it in absolute privacy when it occurs. I guarantee you that when you die you will want it to remain a private and sacred affair, hopefully shared with the ones you love the most. But certainly not exposed to the world. Nothing can justify that...nothing.
So, to all you media types who are trying to justify this in the name of “journalism”...I say, put yourself in this situation or your son/daughter’s and then tell me how you can wish for the intrusiveness of unknown thousands, perhaps millions of people who have no empathy, let alone sympathy for your passing.
Or is selling you sole to newspapers and internet more important than your personal ethics and dignity toward yourself and family? If so, I say I hate your cowardness and greed.
Photo of fallen Marine ends up doing more harm than good
As a Public Affairs Officer currently serving in Afghanistan, I must object to Mr. Prendergast’s conclusion regarding the Associated Press photo controversy. While he does make a persuasive case of why some news outlets chose to publish the photo of a mortally wounded Marine, I hardly think the American public will “grow too fond of war” without such pictures. That might have been true in Robert E. Lee’s time, but not today. With the 24 hour news cycle and hundreds of embedded journalists in this theater alone, I think Americans are well aware of the costs and sacrifices our forces and allies are making. And since the fallen Marine’s family objected to having the photo published, the AP and editors should have erred on the side of caution. The Bernard family should have been given the benefit of the doubt and had their wishes respected. What possible value did publishing the photo serve? Instead of adding to the story, the photo has now become the story and compounded the grief Lance Cpl. Bernard’s family and comrades feel. I think in the zeal some editors speak about a free press, they lose sight of the consequences of their actions. Nothing will bring the Bernard’s son back, including not publishing that photo. But the story of Lance Cpl. Bernard’s courage and sacrifice still could have been told without that one particular photo being published.
You may not want to be informed; some of us still do
I can't help but think that almost none of the AP's critics - not the Constitution-(mis)quoting bloggers who get off hating the free press doing its job, nor the politicians who would seek to benefit from the controversy around this Marine's death - would ever have even known (or cared) who Lance Cpl. Bernard was, much less the sacrifice he made for his country, were it not for this photo. I know I wouldn't have.
people can still be informed
Julian,
How does anyone's "right" to see the picture overrule Lance Cpl. Bernard's right to die with dignity?
Your argument that people "wouldn't have known (or cared)" about Bernard's death without the accompanying photo is simply arrogant. Do you think if a death isn't publicized in the most graphic manner that it didn't occur?
You said you wouldn't have cared, but if you did you would have known of his sacrifice because his death was listed on page 3 (without pictures) just like all the other deaths you should be caring about.
Bb
Response to Mark Prendergast's column "A tough but correct call"
Media-paid Mark Prendergast's self-serving arguments are dead wrong, and the family of our recently fallen Marine were absolutely right.
No matter how he might white-wash it, the Associated Press (led by Tom Curley) quickly released this photo to make money - and to earn "praise" from other self-centered media interests.
Make no mistake, the Associated Press is in a struggling and yet, profit-making, business.
In the news business, time is money.
There was absolutely nothing noble about their motives nor their cold-hearted decision to ignore a still-grieving family whose son just made the ultimate sacrifice.
Mark Prendergast writes as if he is defending some noble academic journal with historical value that was being published years later - while totally ignoring the cold hard reality that the AP is a profit making business.
There was nothing noble about AP-Tom Curley's self-centered decision. Nor was there anything noble about Stripes-Mark Prendergast when he chose to use his access to a "bully pulpit" to justify the unjustifiable.
The noble people involved here was Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard, his family, fellow Marines and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.
As I sit here in Afghanistan, it struck me that while Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard volunteered to join the US Marines (as I did the ARNG), he did not get to choose when & where he was going to fight that day.
He certainly had no say-so that a reporter would be allowed to capture his final moments - just so her employer could sell it to the highest bidder.
Tell me, what, if anything, has the AP and Stripes offered to do that might actually help this grieving family and/or Lance Cpl. Bernard's fellow US Marines who fought so hard to protect us?
If my pointed words here "sting" - this discomfort is nothing compared to the unnecessary pain inflicted upon the family of Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard by AP-Tom Corley, and media people like Mark Prendergast who choose to defend such shameful behavior.
Tim Tatem
Savannah, Georgia
Marine's photo
There is no argument of value in favor of running the picture of the final moments of life for this American hero. The family of Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard requested twice that this picture not be published. To think that the AP wouldn't honor this request is infuriating to me. Perhaps their argument was that the young, mortally wounded Marine was an adult, and his family had no justification or legal right to request it not be published. Did Ms. Jacobson call out to the dying young man while she was clicking away with her camera, asking his permission to publish the photos? Yes, I know it is not a requirement that permission be granted. It's just that the truly right thing to do would be to honor the wishes of the families of those who have given their very lives.
Talk all you want about the rights of the press to publish what them deem necessary for the public to see, but what has happened to human decency and respect? The AP decided they, not Bernard's family should make that call. Shame on them. There are more than enough maimed and killed soldiers on our battlefields that the press can wait to find one whose family wants the picture published. The AP did this family and its son an injustice, and chipped away at the moral decency of our society in the process.
To Publish or Not to Publish
I think if I was the editor of a newspaper and a family had asked me not to publish the photo of their dying son, I would not have published, but then that’s me. We are caught in a Catch-22 situation here, press freedom on the one hand, and respecting the wishes of a family that has just lost its son. This question of the heart v. the head; has split America down the middle. You can’t have both it would seem, but you can appreciate both points of view.
Mark Prendergast argues for press freedom, and I must say I thought the article was very good, and in no way disrespectful of America’s fallen heroes as some posts have stated. Part of this view, mainly coming from outside the military, is that Secretary Gates is using the grief of the dead soldier’s family to support a policy of censorship. Indeed, if the military campaign in Afghanistan is so successful, why do we need to send more troops there? This depressing photograph adds to all the other bad news from Afghanistan: for example, that Hamid Karzai rigged the votes in the recent election, the rift with Germany about the bombing of the fuel tankers, and the military campaign bogging down generally, with our old friend “mission creep”. Sorry to put it so depressingly, but they are the facts.
An important question addressing these facts and one that would save soldiers lives in the future (Afghans too) and raise the debate above the Glenn Beck level; would be to ask the Pentagon if it could perhaps improve its military strategy in Afghanistan (it’s been there long enough now), this is a real war it’s not Hollywood, where cute kids from mud hut villages just love GI’s. This failure of policy is one that has recently been criticized by America’s own General Staff and a failure that cannot be shoved onto the Germans no matter who made that gaff. I know this is a bit like asking a banker to stop giving himself bonuses. But the Empire is guided by its corporate and geopolitical masters who define what policy is taken. And President Obama obviously listens to such people.
President Obama says we are in Afghanistan because of terrorists, but there were no Afghans on the planes that flew into the World Trade Center. Not one! Most of them probably wouldn’t even know where New York is, or appreciate or even want Jeffersonian Democracy, made difficult because they’ve never even heard of Jefferson. The destiny of countries now shape their leaders rather than vice versa; Obama has been reshaped to fit the Empire’s image, as has Karzai been reshaped by the Afghan warlords. The days of great American leaders, such as Franklin D. Roosevelt are well and truly over. What America now has, is an Empire without an Emperor. It looks lost and it is.
So the Pentagon will continue with its plodding, parochial, blinkered approach to warfare, committing the same mistakes as the Russians did in Afghanistan, and the S&S will continue to criticize its censorship. Annoying though it is for S&S, it’s really a minor issue when compared to the military blunders being made. When one becomes a lackey, or co-conspirator, as the Pentagon has to corporate America and its grand strategy, one loses a lot more than integrity.
Cheap gas is something Americans have grown to expect, this means that Zbigniew Brzezinski’s “Grand Chessboard”, is even more important today. Brzezinski is the Godfather of American geopolitics, and it would seem President Obama’s adopted guru, we are there for some of the last of the earth’s dwindling energy resources, located as they are around the lands of the Caspian Sea – not far from where Marine, Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard lost his life.
Not Acceptable
I could buy the argument presented by the author had the words been written by someone other than a journalist. Coming from the pen of a journalist, the ideas presented are nothing more than a justification to do as he wants to do with photos in the name of careerism, disguised beneath the flag of patriotism. The family must be considered first and foremost. If permission is granted by them, and then the military service, publication is acceptable. But to continually throw the trite comment around, "the public has a right to know" does not set well. By the way, regarding the use of Jefferson, I believe Jefferson had little use for newspapers, although he recognized their need.
Totally Not Acceptable
If the journalist feels as adament about printing this photo of the Dying Marine, then what about all our Veterans from Viet Nam and other wars who died? Do the families have to suffer seeing their loved one die in a national or global publication? Yes, we have "Freedom of the Press", but how about having a conscience and put yourself in that families position.
Photo of Lcpl Joshua Bernard dying.
The decision to publish the picture of Lcpl Joshua Bernard as he was dying, was not a difficult decision or the right one... it was just wrong.
There was no need to publish this photo. The photographer was looking for either a pulitzer moment or had a political agenda... there are no other reasons.
When the parents of Lcpl Bernard were shown the picture, and were told that it was going to be released for publication, my question is why did the photographer even show the parents the photograph?
The photographer already had it in her mind that she was going to release the photo. Was this some sort of sickness on the photographers part to inflict pain on them? It certainly didn't comfort the parents of Lcpl Bernard.
Mr. Prendergast talks of a holding a dying comrade... did the parents of that Solider you held have to endure the pain of seeing that picture splashed all over the news, is that what you Mr. Prendergast, would show the world if you could? I say in your heart, you would not - but for this publication you would say, it was a hard decision - but the right one.
Again, there was no need to show this picture to the world.
Mr. Prendergast is not what I would call a Ombudsman... I know what the dictionary says an Ombudsman is... but in the Military (and in the civilian world) they are an advocate - you sir are no advocate by saying this was the right decision to show this picture.
You have made similar comments supporting, dare I say "journalists" in the past - such as the story regarding the commander kicking out the journalist.
The commanders on the ground work in the real world, not a clean, politically correct world. They have a tough enough job as it is, they don't need some weak knee journalist that doesn't show a story in the context of the battle field before him.
We know that war is hell, and we know of General Lee's statements - but that by no means justifies showing this photo, or any similar photo's.
I would hope that you're tenure at Stars and Stripes is coming to an end - the New York Times would be willing to take you in I'm sure.
Thomas Jefferson?
Free Press? Jefferson counseled? That is actually funny to me, because Jefferson and Hamilton were two of the most blatant manipulators of the press in their day as any. Their antics in the monarchist verses republican debate during Washington's tenure, which are spelled out in Flexner's 4 volume biography on the first President, are some of the most shameful and despicable acts in recorded history by a public servant or elected official.
That is not to say that others haven't done so - they have - but please, stop holding up Jefferson as a champion of the free press - he most decidedly was not.
Journalistic Arrogance not "Right to Know"
It should come as no surprise I am opposed to Mr. Mark Prendergast's point of view. I too have been an Ombudsman and Inspector General (US Dept of Transportation and US Army).
Journalism as an entity exists only so long as I don't push a button and has little legitimacy in my eyes for that reason alone. In my opinion, the entire universe of journalism is out of control.
"Ambush" has always been that media's stock in trade - fueled by necessity to sell their product for stockholder profit (families be damned); not discounting the perception that just about every journalist I ever met has the Pulitzer Prize as their highest personal goal.
Journalists don't report news, they opinionate and editorialize. How often after a major political figure (the President?) has spoken, have I been subjected to the ultimate arrogance of "stay tuned and we'll explain to you what was said," as if the American public is incapable of interpreting the event for themselves.
I truly believe the time is past that in equal measure to the film and music industries, any written media depicting images of pain and suffering (in whatever measure) should be prefaced with a warning page that 'graphic images' follow - alerting the reader to pass them by.
"Public Domain" as a argument in favor is absolute bovine spatter. I am a private person. I took no oath to be fodder for journalistic sensationalism and have given no permission to capture my image for any such reason, and I'm not aware of any constitutional provision that as a soldier I have agreed to such.
There is no "honor" in death and I'm not aware of any human being in the +62 years I've walked this planet putting their hand in the air and volunteering to die. That an individual does so to protect a friend(s) is an instant circumstantial decision, and I have serious doubts that images of high accolade were in his/her mind at the moment of that action.
That Mr. Prendergast and others like him attempt to sanitize the ugliness, death and destruction that war brings, into some Kumbaya mind-numbed notion of honorable self-sacrifice, went out with the trenches of WWI.
And don't come on to me with any of that 'lost the war in Vietnam' nonsense. The 1968 TET Offensive was a military disaster for the North Vietnamese Army and the US Miliary never lost a battle in that conflict. The apologists of America did, but you won't see any journalist ensuring that message is presented in proper perspective.
Mr. Prendergast defends AP photographer Julie Jacobson's actions by stating she "did nothing unkind or untoward by photographing Bernard’s final moments from a short distance off and passing that image on to her editors. One need only read the compelling, sensitive account she co-wrote to appreciate the depth of what she both witnessed and experienced."
Really? And how much sensitivity do we apply to the money she was paid for that, and how much profit did AP realize from that story? Will she or AP share any of the financial proceeds with the family of that dead marine? Answer those questions for me please. In the interim, I'll continute to hold my view that journalism feeds on and profits from the misery, pain and suffering of humanity and the highest accolate it will ever receive from me is "Ghoul."
The Media
I agree with those posts who criticize the media. Here is a quotation by Paul Craig Roberts who writes for CouterPunch: his latest article; Another War in the Works.
‘Does anyone remember all the lies that they were told by President Bush and the “mainstream media” about the grave threat to America from weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? These lies were repeated endlessly in the print and TV media despite the reports from the weapons inspectors, who had been sent to Iraq, that no such weapons existed.
The weapons inspectors did an honest job in Iraq and told the truth, but the mainstream media did not emphasize their findings. Instead, the media served as a Ministry of Propaganda, beating the war drums for the US government.
Now the whole process is repeating itself. This time the target is Iran.’
So those who criticize the media are spot on. The whole article is there to read in CounterPunch. Oh; by the way, Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration.
freedom is not free
It's not all about the flag waving.If we can see images of soldiers waving goodbye to their families surrounded by flags,we should also be able to see the consequences of the decisions our leaders make.
photo of dying Marine
Hoo-Yah,we need those in congress and the senate to see these images. it makes me ill to think that the majority of them are only in office to claw and scratch for every election to the "CLUB" so they can remain in office and receive,after only 2 years of service(or dis-service)full pensions and benefits which the average service member may NEVER get, even after a lengthy enlistment and much sacrifice. i have sons and would not like to see the photos if they depicted one my sons but i would be completely in favor of the world seeing MY FALLEN HERO! As an American vet and PROUD AMERICAN,i claim this young Marine as part of my family! GOD love him and his family for his sacrifice! REST IN PEACE DEVIL DOG!!!!WE LOVE YOU!
Thanks!
I really love reading articles that has lots of knowledge to impart. I admire those writers who share the best of their knowledge in writing such articles. Keep up the good work and continue inspiring readers.Thank you so much.
Best regards,
Gold
http://www.goldcoinsgain.com
Sorry, it was a bad call....
Sorry, it was a bad call! Demoralizing at best to those currently serving and a right to privacy issue as an HM, I will take as MY right to defend! It will never happen on my watch!
publish photos
So, now we'll start publishing photos of deadly carwrecks?
Dying Marine
I firmly believe that the media should be barred from things military. They are notorious for screwing everything up. If the family requested that the photo not be used, it should not have been used. I applaud the stripes for not printing the photo. thank you
I firmly believe that the
I firmly believe that the military should be barred from all things media.
They are notorious for screwing everything up.
Where is our ombudsman?
Mr Prendergast,
You haven't written anything since 6 Sep, over 2 months ago!
The Return of the CIA and Special Forces to Afghanistan
The Ombudsman is taking a break, so I’ll change the subject slightly.
President Obama is going to send in the CIA, Special Forces and Spies, in an attempt to halt the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan from getting worse. I hope he knows that this is a gamble, a dicey move, what with the Army, Marines and various NATO forces already there – these operations have a tendency to get out of control. If they don’t take out the hard core Taliban and quickly, things could turn very nasty for all concerned, I say that because the history of such operations is not exactly glowing – for those of us who’ve read a bit of history. I would say that this is the last train, if this operation does not show signs of success, and early on at that, then get the hell out; or at least start planning on getting out. Or plan on staying there for another 20 years.
Down Sizing ITT Systems
On monday 30 November 2009. Its was like any other day except at 073 duiring an all hands meeting we the employees here in Qatar where notified that we (ITT) just found out that 100 of you where going to be terminated and with a pause for effect only PM Keling said starting TODAY and no questions will be addressed.I under stand about cuts but what Itt has done here during the holidat of EID it is against the law to let anyone go,We ask for Contracts we are denied.Qatar labor laws are ton being followed and for those that gave up there lives here to work in the middle east deserve better than that.Qatar labor laws state that if you have been on your job for more than 6 months you are intitled to your full compensation.I fall short by 18 days, but i will reach my 6 months 26 December 09 but then Mr Harwell said we will make arrangements to get me out before 25 December we retun next monday when i will find out my fate.
Excellent article!
For some reason, Rumsfeld and crew decided not to expose the 'shopping' public to the reality of war and the gruesome details so many would as soon not be reminded of.
It's fine that many root for the war and display ribbon decals on the backs of their SUVs, but war is ugly and expensive and as long as the average citizen is not asked to sacrifice, it will remain as 'someone else's' fight.
Bush was wrong not to meet with the mother who lost her son, wrong for that administration not to allow the press to print photos of flag drapped coffins and even worse, not supplying our ground forces with the necessities to fight insurgent warfare from the beginning.
Thanks for giving us both points of view. Hopefully this administration has learned from the lessons of 1969 and 2004.
F. Manuele
Serious Security Compromise
But check this out. This is shocking! The enemy is tapping into out drone feeds because we didn't encrypt the signals.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908#34473097
Why is this not front page news? And who is accountable for this unbelievable failure?
A Benediction
Any takers on saying a few parting words on the close of the first decade of the 21st century? No? Not interested? Then I shall give, with your permission of course, the benediction.
Let us bow our heads and pray for the recovery of the all powerful leader of the Western World, the United States of America, which did suffered a massive (financial) heart attack in 2008 and is now still weak but slowly recovering (in hospital) through 2009. Through the bounteous generosity of the American tax payer – and some pretty powerful electric shock treatment – it was *****ed from the jaws of death. However: the situation is still serious, as the banks are financially bankrupt, the politicians are intellectually bankrupt, American industry is morally bankrupt, the American media is ethically bankrupt – and full-spectrum dominance may need a Bypass-Operation to keep it going. But the American people themselves like the true patriots that they are, soldier on – such good and faithful servants. Let us hope they remain so and keep believing the lies of the corporate media, because if they ever find out who has just robbed them – as the Teletubbies say: Ou Ooo!
Well said Mark...
...but where the hell is the Ombudsman? Extended vacation? Writer's Block? Or just MIA?
Regarding "true patriots," are they the ones who just follow whoever shouts "red white and blue" the loudest (or even painted on the side of buses of travelling circus shows)? Or are the "true patriots" those who thoughtfully consider on balance the full dynamics of America's founding principles in their sense of historical, contemporary and judicial interpretation?
Maybe that's all too much trouble.
The Death of Howard Zinn
In to-days S&S Top Stories AP, there is a long article about the death of J.D.Salinger and everyone has heard of, if not actually read; Catcher in the Rye. But there is no mention of the death of Howard Zinn. Zinn a historian; wrote the book: A People’s History of the United States. For those who have read this book, American History will never be the same again. One historian has said: American History is the only subject in which students graduate from high school; dumber than when they started: and Zinn wanted to change this. But the reason he is not mention in the mainstream media is because he opposed the Vietnam War – he was in short, that terrible thing to be in America, a radical. He also took part in the Civil Rights Movement; he was then, someone who fought for the rights of others. While Salinger died a recluse but gets the big obituary, Zinn who spent his entire life fighting for the rights of others gets nothing. But that is the world in which we live.
The Death of Howard Zinn
How did the creation of the US benefit the upper class according to Howard Zinn...?
According to Howard Zinn in A peoples' history of the united states, how did the creation of the United states benefit the upper class?
beauty feast
I agree
Zinn's book was profound and he leaves a leagcy with the milions who have read him, or will read him. But you are right, he deserves at leas a mention.
I can also recomend Dont Know Much About History by Kenneth C, Davis.
Lies My Teacher Told Me
Correct: and another good book is, “Lies my Teacher Told Me” Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong, by James W. Loewen.
It’s interesting that one of the first things that the Reverend Jesse Jackson said in his recent visit to Wiesbaden (Army Airfield) was the importance of understanding history. I’m not sure if everyone got that message because the questions he was later asked when the floor was open, was the standard fare of: “what do you think of gays in the Army?” Oh dear.
Okay: I know that for some, (taking their cue from the mainstream media): this may well be a burning issue of life and death. But it pails into insignificance when we consider: “Sir; do you think that the US and Israel will attack Iran?” or, “why is it that weeks after the earthquake, many people in Haiti are still not being helped?” or even; “has the civil rights movement failed in its original goals as laid down by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. ?” These questions and questions like them were not asked. And they were not asked because as the genuflecting media likes to say, we have all, “moved on” since the days of the civil rights movement. Oh really? Leaving out those living in nasty caravan parks or have lost their homes completely, what have we “moved on” to? Are we morally and ethically more advanced as a species than we were in the 1950’s, has human nature taken a miraculous turn for the better? I think not.
And what do the history books and media say; vis-a-vis Dr. Martin Luther King’s scathing criticism of America’s foreign policy as it then was and still is; what has been called by Eisenhower, “the military industrial complex” or more recently; “the Empire”? Well, to quote that famous line from Wittgenstein which the groveling American media have taken to heart: “what we cannot speak about, we must pass over in silence”. And indeed they do.