DoD Responds To Gannett Times
The left is making much of the editorial from the Army/Navy/Air Force/Marine Times that was sent to the major media on Friday before being published in the aforementioned "Times". Now I have been linked by a left blog already that took umbrage to me dismissing this. Because these "Times" papers are not - in any way - actually affiliated with the military. They are essentially trade magazines. They are also wholly owned by the Gannett media chain.
First thing - when has anything these publications wrote in an editorial been released to the major outlets before it got published? I don't recall this before now. Do you? So, are these editorials targeted at the elections? Only a fool would think otherwise.
Second thing - via Squiggler, here is the official Department of Defense response to the Gannett Times editorial.
On Saturday, Nov. 4, the Army Times published an editorial titled, “Time for Rumsfeld to go.” The editorial included a number of inaccurate and misleading statements.
SUMMARY:
THE ADMINISTRATION HAS PROVIDED A BALANCED PICTURE: The Department has always attempted to clearly and accurately describe the challenges our forces face in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Secretary above all has always been very measured in describing the progress U.S forces are making in what will undoubtedly be a long struggle in the War on Terror.
CHALLENGE THOSE WHO CLAIM ADMINISTRATION OFFERED A ROSY SCENARIO: We challenge those who say the Secretary has ever painted a “rosy picture” to provide his quotes as well as the full context of those remarks.
THIS IS OLD NEWS MASKED AS NEW NEWS: The new “chorus of criticism” noted by the editorials is actually old news and does not include commanders in the field, who remain committed to the mission.
INSULTING MILITARY COMMANDERS: The assertion, without evidence, that senior military officers are “toeing the line” is an insult to their judgment and integrity.
IRAQIS ARE RISKING THEIR LIVES FOR THEIR COUNTRY: Iraqi security forces are making slow but measurable progress. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have made themselves and their families targets and put their lives at risk for their new country. They are increasingly taking the lead in operations. The disparagement of these forces is completely unfounded.
CHALLENGE POSED BY ENEMY IS TOUGH: As long as the enemy is determined to thwart a free and democratic Iraq the stability throughout the country will fluctuate. However, the security situation is not monolithic across the country. Many parts of Iraq are relatively peaceful.
WE WILL GIVE TROOPS WHAT THEY NEED TO WIN: This country and the leadership of the Defense Department are going to ensure that our military forces have the resources to successfully carry out their mission. To suggest otherwise is simply wrong.
SPECIFIC CLAIMS REBUTTED:
“Rosy Scenarios”
CLAIM: “The ‘hard bruising’ truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington. One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.”
FACTS: The President, Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, and others have from the outset of Operation Iraqi Freedom warned the American people that the fight in Iraq could be long and difficult, but ultimately worth the costs. To cite one of a multitude of examples, President Bush said on March 19, 2003 in his address to the nation at the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom: “A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment.”
Abizaid taken out of context
CLAIM: “Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war’s planning, execution and dimming prospects for success. Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: ‘I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I’ve seen it … and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war.’”
FACTS: Military commanders involved in Operation Iraqi Freedom have continually expressed their belief in the importance of the mission in Iraq. The selective use of General Abizaid’s quote from September ignores other things that General Abizaid said at that hearing. For example, he also said:
“This is a hard thing. And it’s going to take a long time. And it’s going to take a lot of courage and a lot of perseverance and unfortunately more blood, and it’s going to take more treasure. But there are more people in Iraq that are working with us to try to make their country a better place than are trying to tear it apart. . . .The people that are trying to tear it apart are ruthless. They are pulling out everything that they can to make it fail. . . .And it’s hard. That’s why we kept extra forces there. And it’s hard and it’s tough and it’s difficult, but we will prevail. . . But I can tell you, people have a right to express their opinion. There’s political activity. There’s freedom of the press. There are things that are happening in Iraq that don’t happen anywhere else in the Middle East. And we ought to be proud of it.”
Selected Leaking to the New York Times
CLAIM: “Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now borders on ‘critical’ and has been sliding toward "chaos" for most of the past year.”
FACT: It is foolish to try to draw conclusions from one piece of classified information leaked to the New York Times. What that page referred to was a snapshot in time.
Military and civilian leaders have repeatedly said Iraq is facing difficult challenges, and that as long as the enemy is determined to thwart a free and democratic Iraq the stability throughout the country will fluctuate. The security situation, however, is not monolithic across the country. Many parts of Iraq are relatively peaceful.
The challenge remains to help the Iraqi government develop a relatively stable country with security forces available to take on the fight against the enemy. This is what commanders are working to do, making adjustments and changes along the way. (There is more, follow the link)
By the way, do you honestly think many in the military will continue to receive this publication after this, Gannett company? Or did you just slit your own throat to try to spite your political opponents?
By Heather Chambers, Sunday, 5 November , 2006 @ 10:14 am
The reporting in the Navy Times changed significantly when the Military Times group (published by service) was sold to Gannett. This editorial made me drop my plans to buy a years subscription for each of my two Navy active duty children, and, I think my husband and I will allow our subscription to lapse. We have subscribed since 1977 when we were commisioned, and kept receiving the Navy Times after my husband and I each retired from the Navy. Too bad and for shame.
By mokus, Sunday, 5 November , 2006 @ 2:08 pm
Gannett has taken over for Dan Rather as the most prominent exemplar of journalistic malpractice in the expanding field of elections fraud.