Ahmadinejad wants debate with Bush, hires Al Gore as coach

[sohotrightnow]

"But it is apparent that many have still not learned history's lessons," he said, adding that part of the problem is that the American news media have tended to emphasize the negative rather than the positive.

He said, for example, that more media attention was given to U.S. soldiers' abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib than to the fact that Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith received the Medal of Honor.


check

Both points seem dead on accurate to me. Obviously, your mileage varies.

When the negative stories outweigh the positive stories of course the media is going to report on them. As much as you would like to believe the "liberal, mainstream media" is making stories up, they are reporting what they see in Iraq. Abu Ghraib was a horrible incident and did not help the US win many friends...after all, the reason we are fighting in Iraq is to rid the world of this sort of behavior correct? One soldier winning a Medal of Honor does not and should not receive more attention than the incident that happened at Abu Ghraib...and to report otherwise would only reinforce the belief that this administration is hiding the problems that persist each and every day in Iraq.

[Kyle Berggren]

"SMITH, PAUL R.

Rank and Organization: Sergeant First Class, United States Army
For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty:Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in action with an armed enemy near Baghdad International Airport, Baghdad, Iraq on 4 April 2003. On that day, Sergeant First Class Smith was engaged in the construction of a prisoner of war holding area when his Task Force was violently attacked by a company-sized enemy force. Realizing the vulnerability of over 100 fellow soldiers, Sergeant First Class Smith quickly organized a hasty defense consisting of two platoons of soldiers, one Bradley Fighting Vehicle and three armored personnel carriers. As the fight developed, Sergeant First Class Smith braved hostile enemy fire to personally engage the enemy with hand grenades and anti-tank weapons, and organized the evacuation of three wounded soldiers from an armored personnel carrier struck by a rocket propelled grenade and a 60mm mortar round. Fearing the enemy would overrun their defenses, Sergeant First Class Smith moved under withering enemy fire to man a .50 caliber machine gun mounted on a damaged armored personnel carrier. In total disregard for his own life, he maintained his exposed position in order to engage the attacking enemy force. During this action, he was mortally wounded. His courageous actions helped defeat the enemy attack, and resulted in as many as 50 enemy soldiers killed, while allowing the safe withdrawal of numerous wounded soldiers. Sergeant First Class Smith’s extraordinary heroism and uncommon valor are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, the Third Infantry Division “Rock of the Marne,” and the United States Army."

from http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/mohiraq.htm

We went weeks without seeing that on the local news... I knew about due to the net, but most people are don't read anymore. I'd say that's more important than 98% of what you see on your local news this evening.

Dan, I too would love to see a written response format for a debate like this...

[DanGenck]

I think Adam's disappointment with Mr. Rumsfeld's statements relates to the fact that Mr. Rumsfeld has the gall to say that Americans are "morally and intellectually confused" on national security.

If there is any intellectual confusion, the confusion comes directly from poor leadership and a "gray" mission at best. First we were in Iraq for WMD, then to stop Al-Qaeda, then to free oppressed people, and now to stabilize the Middle East.

So which is it? It wasn't WMD (didn't exist). It wasn't Al-Qaeda links (didn't exist before American troops brought them to Iraq).

Any confusion is coming from a poorly defined and poorly executed world plan to stop terrorism, which perfectly explains why critics of Mr. Bush's policies exist and why they question almost all of his decisions. Our current hubris with regards to national security is leading to more dissent and division between America and the Middle East, and potentially more terrorism in the future. With the potential for these results, issues are always going to be looked at with a fine tooth comb.

And the implication that "morals" are somehow involved in this process is just common administrative rhetoric insinuating that Democrats are the only people ever to exist that somehow lack a moral base.