A Positive Sign Lost In Headline From Iraq

The decision of the Iraqi Interior Ministry to create a unit to monitor and address misstatements of facts in news coverage coming from Iraq might be the most visible sign of the progress the coalition has produced there. Iraq is a sovereign nation, after all - note, they did not kick the media out. They are addressing the issue the way most any open government might and Iraq demands a political solution as much as it does a military or law enforcement effort.

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq's Interior Ministry said Thursday it had formed a special unit to monitor news coverage and vowed to take legal action against journalists who failed to correct stories the ministry deemed to be incorrect.

The AP attempts to make some hay out of it and not only falls short, in a sense they point out the very type of progress in Iraq they've been so content to ignore.

Under Saddam Hussein's regime, the government imposed censorship on local media and severely restricted foreign media coverage, monitoring transmissions and sending secret police to follow journalists. Those who violated the rules were expelled and in some cases jailed.

That's true, he did - along with a huge number of other outrageous crimes the AP and other MSM outlets have been slow to point out as part of the very rationale for America staying the course.

But the Iraqi government hasn't and doesn't appear to be doing that for which Saddam Hussein was notorious - censoring the press. They are leaving the MSM free to report as they wish, but they are also choosing to hold them to account.

It's ironic that organizations like the AP have an obvious issue with the development. They appear to have forgotten that somewhere buried in the people's right to know rests the concept that what the people have a right to know is ... the truth, not the hasty, often inaccurate reporting of media outlets chasing nothing more noble than deadlines, circulation numbers, or quite possibly the dubious political agendas of stringers they may not really know or understand.

You can catch up on events via Gateway Pundit and Bizzy Blog, each offers many additional links.

Comments

[TomPaine]

You. Must. Be. kidding.

A government agency enforcing its version of the "truth" against reporters.

You, an American, think this is a good thing?

That explains a lot about the crap that you write here.

[salvage]

ahahahhahahaha!

That's freedom!

[Reality.Check]

"That's true, he did - along with a huge number of other outrageous crimes the AP and other MSM outlets have been slow to point out as part of the very rationale for America staying the course."

You mean all of the crimes against humanity the Americans facilitated economically and diplomatically? The millions of casualties of the Iran-Iraq War, funded by the US? The invasion of Kuwait that the US encouraged?

Looking forward to your response.

[Dan Riehl]

Looking forward to your response.

Happy to oblige. Why don't you freedom and America loathing Liberal scum bags go write something worthwhile, like your obituary?

[salvage]

AHAHAHAHAHA! Oh Danny you are now my favorite wingnut, you make Debbie Schlussel look like Einstein.

[Rick]

The invasion of Kuwait that the US encouraged?

That from a poster chosing the deliciously ironic handle "Reality Check." It is getting very hard to parody these appeasing goofballs.

Cordially...

[Reality.Check]

Dan:

Nice. Instead of responding, you insult. Because you have no response. The historical record is clear and public, and it challenges your assumptions. So you tell me to die.

Yes, Rick, that's right. It's not a conspiracy theory. Look up U.S. diplomat April Glaspie's meeting with Saddam on the eve of the war. It's a matter of the public record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie

Looking forward to your response. I didn't insult or threaten you. I hope you will treat me with the same respect.

[Ed]

Do you really expect someone who is in favor of Government Ministry of Truth to treat you with respect?

As Dan said in his response, he wants liberal obituaries, not opinions. I'm not sure even Debbie Schlussel is going that far, calling for the death of his political opponents.

[Dan Riehl]

I'm not sure even Debbie Schlussel is going that far

She's a chick, what do you expect? Good heavens. I get a little medieval on your asses for fun and your skirts go all a flutter. Like I said yesterday ... l-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-osers!

[Rick]

No, not a conspiracy theory, but an egregious account of events. Glapspie didn't stamp out Saddam's imperial ambition, but that's not remotely the same as "encouraged."

The Iran-Iraq War* just broke our hearts, much the same as the Hitler-Stalin deathmatch. But Saddam got most of his backing and weapons from France and Russia. Always the sophisticated realpolitick states, those two.

Cordially...

* Just another battle in Islam's 1300 year Civil War

[Reality.Check]

The US was interested in diminishing and containing Saddam's power. His invasion of Kuwait was a suitable and desirable (in the eyes of policymakers) pretext for that policy, as Saddam's ambition and unexpected resilience threatened American interests in the region. So, if the US didn't "encourage" him to invade, its leaders were quite satisfied that he did, despite all of the President Bush's righteous indignation over the violation of Kuwait's sovereignty. The hawks even drove the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter down to Capitol Hill to give false testimony about Iraqi soldiers ripping premature babies from incubators in Kuwaiti hospitals to further justify the American response. Again, all a matter of the public record.

Further, the Iran-Iraq War wasn't about Islam. It was about oil-rich regions of southwest Asia. It was a war between an aggressive, superpower-backed tyrant and an ideological nation. It's worth noting that the US was the only state to oppose UN resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, which we now so righteously condemn. The US also supplied arms to both sides. We're talking about over a million casualties -- that doesn't break your heart?

[Tom]

Man, Iraq is turning into a neocons wet dream, isn't it? To be free, we must destroy your freedoms. Hmmm, does that sound like something that will work? It doesn't to me. Like a lot of you, I also noticed when Dan had no sensible remark to state, he insults all who disagree. Dan - a quick insight for you: As the wingnuts and neocons continue to self-destruct, you will have fewer and fewer commenters who believe what you believe. Insulting them all could create a problem for you. Blogs only survive when there is a free flow of information - both pro and con. How can your blog survive when it is only you who are allowed to comment on it without being insulted? Think about that. Please don't quit your day job - welfare is already out of countrol.

[Dan Riehl]

How can your blog survive when it is only you who are allowed to comment on it without being insulted?

Telling people they are dumb when they obviously are isn't insulting them, it's providing positive feedback, as in your case. You are either dumb, or haven't read enough to know that liberal commenters insult me here everyday, as well as disagree with me. And I don't ban them, or even threaten to do so.

If you can't take the heat, take a walk, no problem. But don't tell me how to run my blog, or my comments area, particularly when, as stated, you either haven't read much of it, or ... you're dumb.

[Tom]

Dan - I agree that you can (and will) run your blog exactly as you wish. No problem. I guess I was trying to be a public service to indicate that, as a new visitor, I was a little shocked when the dialog turned into a yelling match (mostly by you). If that is how your research has anticipated the length of time your blog will be around, I say go for it. I also know that by publishing a controversial topic on your blog will, no doubt, bring out all sorts of opinions. I thought blogs such as your would appreciate the fact that not everybody shares your (or my) world view. Complicated topics to consider. Anyway, I guess you could say I was dumb, I commented on your blog didn't I? Cheers...

[Rick]

The US was interested in diminishing and containing Saddam's power. His invasion of Kuwait was a suitable and desirable (in the eyes of policymakers) pretext for that policy, as Saddam's ambition and unexpected resilience threatened American interests in the region. So, if the US didn't "encourage" him to invade, its leaders were quite satisfied that he did, despite all of the President Bush's righteous indignation over the violation of Kuwait's sovereignty. The hawks even drove the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter down to Capitol Hill to give false testimony about Iraqi soldiers ripping premature babies from incubators in Kuwaiti hospitals to further justify the American response. Again, all a matter of the public record.

Nope...no conspiracy theory here. No indeedy.

And Iran's imperial Shia state, bordering on Iraq's suppressed-Shia state, had no sectarian component at all. Uh-huh.

Well, let's hope the next outbreak is a little more clear cut. If the only indigenous choices in the region's over-rated "stability" is between wild-eyed theocrats and wild-eyed tyrants, then let those "conflicting" (not much, sad to say) tendencies burn out in fighting each other, rather than the civilized world.

Cordially...

[Phoenix]

Freedom of the press does not equal freedom to press your personal agenda at the expense of truth. No one is censoring anyone. They're just holding the press accountable for getting the FACTS right. We don't hold the press accountable for anything, and anyone can press whatever issue they want. So.... ?

The only problem is when people who don't access their ability to think choose to believe the news that fits what little they do bother to think.

[Dan Riehl]

as a new visitor

And therein lies the key, Tom. You started talking like you know what's what around here after probably seeing only one thread. I recognize the names of most people posting comments - the liberals from previous flame fests, probably a few going on in other threads right now. What you did was make assumptions. And, yes, that is dumb.

[Tom]

Dan - You are probably right.

[Dan Riehl]

Well, for the record - I allow all points of view here, which is more than I can say for many blogs. And, yes, things sometimes get silly because of it. But no one with valid counterpoints is attacked ... unless their tone is agressive to start. Though I will admit that that's very relative in web discussions, which tend to come unhinged, or grow angry, sooner, as opposed to later.

[Tom]

Yep - I agree that the discussion - both pro and con - can turn to something nasty very quickly. I'm not sure why the discourse gets so aggressive, except that these are topics of great interest. I will say that even though I am on "the other side" (progressive), I still learn lots from all of the blogs out there (right/left/center) and I do hope that all voices stay loud and proud - even voices of which I competely disagree. I know America is stronger because of blogs (yours included).

Cheers...

[Honeyed Menace]

I don't know how you can say things get silly around here. I've never seen it.

[Officious_Pedant]

The lede to the story is the kicker:

"BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq's Interior Ministry said Thursday it had formed a special unit to monitor news coverage and vowed to take legal action against journalists who failed to correct stories the ministry deemed to be incorrect."

Not empirically incorrect, with facts to show the story to be incorrect, but DEEMED incorrect by the Ministry. And that's a sign of progress? Kind of akin to a painted school house that no one attends because the violence is such that getting to school could get you killed?