Home
The "New" Abu Ghraib Pictures
There are “new” pictures of Abu Ghraib out, not new in the sense of being new but new in the sense of being old photos that were not published during the height of the Abu Ghraib scandal (see here, here, and here). Pathetic, cowardly news operations that did not dare print pictures of the Danish cartoons (and would not level with the public about why: fear) will gleefully publish these pictures.
The pictures are shocking, but I would argue that, though they are old, those news organs that have chosen to print them are not out of bounds. It is too bad they couldn’t muster the same courage to print the more genuinely newsworthy cartoons of Muhammad.
While I support the right to carry these pictures, I do suspect the motives: most likely many editors view these pictures as a golden opportunity to show U.S. personnel in Iraq as sadists more than liberators and thereby undermine the whole effort to bring a new way of life to the Middle East. I am sorry that some of my countrymen have resorted to this kind of inhumane treatment of prisoners. It is both morally repugnant and counterproductive. But this in no way affects our noble goal in Iraq, and the majority of our military do not engage in sadism. By the way, I think you could make an argument for not publishing these pictures: They do harm America, and they are not representative of the way we behave. I can see why the administration did not want them to be made public, but the decision to publish or not to publish is made by editors.
Nevertheless I'd say fie on our media for refusing to publish the Muhammad cartoons and then publishing this flagrantly anti-American stuff designed, like Newsweek’s woefully underreported Koran in the toilet story, to inflame murderous the thugs. Our mainstream media are part of a degenerate elite that lacks a moral compass (oh, and courage--they lack that, too).
The best thing I’ve seen on these buffoons in the press and their decisions about what matters is a hilarious piece by Tony Blankley. Here is a tidbit:
“In the absence of any pressing news these days--other than Iran's nuclear weapons development crisis, the election of Hamas terrorists in Palestine, ongoing worldwide Muslim riots and killing in reaction to a cartoon, Al Gore's near sedition while speaking in Saudi Arabia, the turning over of our East Coast ports to be managed by a United Arab Emirates firm, the criminal leaking of vital NSA secrets to the New York Times, Mexican military incursions across our southern border, the Iraqi crisis, Congress's refusal to deal with the developing financial collapse of Social Security and Medicare, inter alia--the White House press corps has exploded in righteous fury over the question of the vice president's little shooting party last weekend.
“As I understand the profound concern of the ever-alert White House reporters, they smell a constitutional crisis because the shooting party failed to alert the media of the accidental shooting down in Corpus Christi, Texas. Well, actually, they did alert the Corpus Christi media--but that didn't count. Unless the exalted ones have been formally informed by an official government press secretary, no public communication has technically occurred.
“I checked the bylaws of the White House press corps, and they are right. It seems that the bylaws refer to Article XXIII of the U.S. Constitution, which expressly designates that White House reporters with a minimum annual income of $375,000 (plus minimum stock options equal to not less than two-thirds their yearly salary, plus use of driver and long sedan during business hours, of which hours must include post-deadline dinner engagements of a semi-social nature) are the exclusive recipients of all government information.
“If information isn't hand-delivered in gilt-edged paper to them while they are reclined on their chaise lounges, it hasn't been released to the public. And if they don't report a fact, it hasn't happened. This provision is vital to a vigorous and independent free press. [I should note, my copy of the Constitution must be outdated, because it doesn't have an Article XXIII.]”
The pictures are shocking, but I would argue that, though they are old, those news organs that have chosen to print them are not out of bounds. It is too bad they couldn’t muster the same courage to print the more genuinely newsworthy cartoons of Muhammad.
While I support the right to carry these pictures, I do suspect the motives: most likely many editors view these pictures as a golden opportunity to show U.S. personnel in Iraq as sadists more than liberators and thereby undermine the whole effort to bring a new way of life to the Middle East. I am sorry that some of my countrymen have resorted to this kind of inhumane treatment of prisoners. It is both morally repugnant and counterproductive. But this in no way affects our noble goal in Iraq, and the majority of our military do not engage in sadism. By the way, I think you could make an argument for not publishing these pictures: They do harm America, and they are not representative of the way we behave. I can see why the administration did not want them to be made public, but the decision to publish or not to publish is made by editors.
Nevertheless I'd say fie on our media for refusing to publish the Muhammad cartoons and then publishing this flagrantly anti-American stuff designed, like Newsweek’s woefully underreported Koran in the toilet story, to inflame murderous the thugs. Our mainstream media are part of a degenerate elite that lacks a moral compass (oh, and courage--they lack that, too).
The best thing I’ve seen on these buffoons in the press and their decisions about what matters is a hilarious piece by Tony Blankley. Here is a tidbit:
“In the absence of any pressing news these days--other than Iran's nuclear weapons development crisis, the election of Hamas terrorists in Palestine, ongoing worldwide Muslim riots and killing in reaction to a cartoon, Al Gore's near sedition while speaking in Saudi Arabia, the turning over of our East Coast ports to be managed by a United Arab Emirates firm, the criminal leaking of vital NSA secrets to the New York Times, Mexican military incursions across our southern border, the Iraqi crisis, Congress's refusal to deal with the developing financial collapse of Social Security and Medicare, inter alia--the White House press corps has exploded in righteous fury over the question of the vice president's little shooting party last weekend.
“As I understand the profound concern of the ever-alert White House reporters, they smell a constitutional crisis because the shooting party failed to alert the media of the accidental shooting down in Corpus Christi, Texas. Well, actually, they did alert the Corpus Christi media--but that didn't count. Unless the exalted ones have been formally informed by an official government press secretary, no public communication has technically occurred.
“I checked the bylaws of the White House press corps, and they are right. It seems that the bylaws refer to Article XXIII of the U.S. Constitution, which expressly designates that White House reporters with a minimum annual income of $375,000 (plus minimum stock options equal to not less than two-thirds their yearly salary, plus use of driver and long sedan during business hours, of which hours must include post-deadline dinner engagements of a semi-social nature) are the exclusive recipients of all government information.
“If information isn't hand-delivered in gilt-edged paper to them while they are reclined on their chaise lounges, it hasn't been released to the public. And if they don't report a fact, it hasn't happened. This provision is vital to a vigorous and independent free press. [I should note, my copy of the Constitution must be outdated, because it doesn't have an Article XXIII.]”
<< Loose Canon Home