Entry: Nightline: Politicising the War Dead Friday, April 30, 2004



It wasn't enough for the Left when the "mainstream" media made it a point to include the daily US soldier body count from Iraq in every news report in every medium. It wasn't enough when they unapologetically added the number of those killed in accidents in Iraq -- which, frankly, could have happened almost anywhere -- to those killed in combat, just to inflate the American body count further. It wasn't enough for the Left that, for the last half of 2003, the media talking heads almost gleefully announced a second daily Iraq soldier body count, with the tagline, "since President Bush declared major combat over on May first." Support for the liberation of Iraq from dictator Saddam Hussein remained strong, despite the best efforts of the Left to instill an anti-war attitude into every viewer.

Dissatisfied at the refusal of the unwashed masses to go along with their determination to undermine support for the President and the war in Iraq, the Left began attacking him for not attending the funerals of dead soldiers, despite the fact that such events have been rare occurences in our history. President Johnson, who presided over the Vietnam War around which the Left has based their opposition to all things military since, only attended two military funerals despite the fact that 58,169 service members died. Bill Clinton, beloved of the Left, did not attend any funerals for the military except for the sailors killed in the al-Qaeda attack on the USS Stark. Not even the 18 Army Rangers who died in Mogadishu in 1993 merited a Presidential funeral attendance.

When that didn't drum up the anti-war sentiment the Left wanted, they began attempting to politicise the military itself. Falling back on standard Democrat class warfare tactics, the anti-war Left, led by Charlie Rangel (D-NY), began -- isn't irony incredible? -- actually calling for a draft, claiming that an all-volunteer military was "unfair" to minorities and the poor. As tragic as it was, the recent death of Army Ranger Pat Tillman in Afghanistan quickly squashed the Left's claim that people only enter the military due to economic hardship or other disadvantage. Tillman, a rising football star, turned down a $3.6 million contract with the Arizona Cardinals out of sheer patriotism after 9/11, becoming an Army Ranger instead.

Back to the dead, then. The Left has been attacking President Bush for not allowing photos of soldiers' coffins to be taken, implying that he was attempting to hide something. What he might be hiding, no one can say, since the death toll (as I pointed out earlier) has been announced several dozen times daily since the first day of combat in Iraq. The problem with that particular line of attack is that the Pentagon's rule against photographing the coffins of war dead has been in place since 1991, and was not invented by President Bush to keep anything "secret." The Left runs on sheer emotionalism, however, and many believed viewers would "feel" more objectionable towards the war if they could only see some coffins, since merely announcing numbers wasn't causing anti-war sentiment to rise. Finally, the Left got what it wanted -- a photographer broke the long-standing rule and shot several pictures of flag-draped caskets. Unfortunately for the Left, the remains were being treated with all the honor and respect they deserve, instead of being stacked like cordwood or cargo. "I let the parents know their children weren't thrown around like a piece of cargo, that they instead were treated with the utmost respect and dignity," said the woman who was fired for taking the pictures. Guess the Left just can't catch a break. The "coffin photo controversy" was quickly (pardon the pun) buried.

Ted Koppel must be growing impatient with the persistent "failure" of mainstream America to feel the anti-war sentiment the Leftist elites want them to. How can they undermine support for President Bush in the fall election if most Americans stubbornly refuse to personally blame him for each and every American death in Iraq? Well, Ted's got what he thinks is the answer. Tonight's "Nightline" will be almost exclusively devoted to reading the names of every American man and woman killed in Iraq, while pictures of the dead are shown and wistful music, no doubt, tugs at the heartstrings. "Just look at these people. Look at their names. And look at their ages. Consider what they've done for you. Honor them," says Koppel by way of defense, claiming that this is not a political statement. If you believe that, then give me your name. I've got some Florida swamplan... uh, prime real estate to sell you.

If it's simply an honor roll of America's war dead, as Koppel and other Leftists claim, then where are the names of those who have died in Afghanistan?

   21 comments

Jamie from Alabama
April 30, 2004   11:32 AM PDT
 
And what about the men/women who died in Mogadishou, in Kosovo, the bombing of the U.S. Cole, etc? And what about those Americans killed in Kosovo just last week by a Palestinian U.N. worker?

Besides the usual politicizing just to get vieweres, I think that there is a concerted effort my the media to turn this into another Vietnam. Add this to the showing of the Iraqi prisoners who were abused by American soldiers, the daily mention of number of troops killed in the fighting, etc. The mainstream media will not rest until they undermine all support for our troops. It is shameful and disgusting.

By the way, Specter didn't waste any time showing his true colors, did he? I just read this over on NewsMax:
After winning by only 16,000 votes out of more than 1 million cast, an embarrassment for an incumbent, Specter scrambled to emphasize his differences with Bush.

He bragged of his support for fetal stem-cell research and his opposition to school choice, tax relief and the administration's minimum-wage plan.

"I intend to retain my independent voice. The people of Pennsylvania have not elected me to be a rubber stamp," Specter said.

"I don't give anybody a blank check, including the president of the United States."

Now, does anyone still want to argue that he isn't a RINO?
Jamie from Alabama
April 30, 2004   11:51 AM PDT
 
Did you see the story in the Washington Times about "Baltimore-based Sinclair Broadcasting is pre-empting the live program on its ABC affiliates, citing ethical conflicts "

Its a great article... here is the link:
http://tinyurl.com/ypnhj

By the way, not only will this be on regular TV, theyalso plan to broadcast it on the network's Jumbotron screen over Times Square. I suppose they will say that is something they normally do, right?
Jamie from Alabama
April 30, 2004   12:16 PM PDT
 
Sorry to keep bothering, but Drudge just reported that "U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) issued the following letter today to Mr. David Smith, President and CEO of Sinclair Broadcast Group, in response to the preemption of this evening's Nightline program:

I write to strongly protest your decision to instruct Sinclair's ABC affiliates to preempt this evening's Nightline program. I find deeply offensive Sinclair's objection to Nightline's intention to broadcast the names and photographs of Americans who gave their lives in service to our country in Iraq.

The man is unbelievable.
me again, sorry
April 30, 2004   03:27 PM PDT
 
Sinclair Broadcasting issued a statement in regard to reaction to their decision to not air Niteline. They also replied to Senator McCain.... It is the letter to the Senator that I really, really like.

http://www.sbgi.net/

I'm glad someone is standing up to the mainstream media and calling attention to what they are doing.
JM
April 30, 2004   09:27 PM PDT
 
I have to say, that David Smith guy -- the head of Sinclair -- REALLY impressed me with his response to RINO McCain.
Jamie from Alabama
April 30, 2004   09:30 PM PDT
 
I was very impressed as well. He was on Bill O's show tonight and he impressed me some more. Its about time someone stood up and spoke out against the media ploys like what ABC is doing tonight and what CBS did when they showed those awful pictures. That's all anyone is talking about on the Iraqi websites. It had exactly the affect that they wanted - to inflame the Iraqis against the coalition troops.
Jamie from Alabama
April 30, 2004   09:32 PM PDT
 
And NOW I just read a report about some pictures of British soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners! The anti-war crowd is on a roll and gathering steam as we speak. They could care less about the repercussions of what they are doing.
StarkTruth
May 1, 2004   07:48 AM PDT
 
Actually that is wrong, they do care about the repercussions of what they are doing. They are hoping to get Bush out of the White House. Their greatest accomplishment in life was causing the military defeat in Vietnam. Don't forget, they hate American. Now, they don't hate all things American, but they hate capitalism. They hate that Bush doesn't want to be a part of the Global community with the pathetic UN. They hate that they have lost control over the House, Senate and Whitehouse. It is not that they don't realize what they are doing, it is that the know exactly what they are doing. Make no mistake, vitriol is like a cancer and it blinds people from right and wrong.
WK
May 1, 2004   02:06 PM PDT
 
I agree 100% with the valid criticism of Koppel not reading the Afghanistan war dead.

I heard Koppel on radio yesterday with concern that dropping of his broadcast by Sinclair was the first time this has happened to Nightline in its 24 years.

If so, that reflects very unfavorably on Koppel. He is sliding in his later years, showing controversial stories that can be contrued as demoralizing our troops and implying support for the anti-war position. The man is beginning to remind me of Andy Rooney, who has graduated to the looney bin with the Iraq war and anti-Bush rhetoric he spouts out any more. What is with these media lefties? They have a right to show programming they think will appeal to lefties, I have a right to not watch their propaganda.

BTW, count me as one of those that has the fullest respect and honor for our fighting forces. They get the benefit of the doubt from me in all cases in controversial stories. Can our elite media say the same thing? If they are say yes, they are full of bs.

This outrage over alleged prisoner mistreatment pisses me off. I fault those that did the mistreatment and they'll get their punishment I'm sure, but where is the damn outrage by Arabs and others to the taking of our hostages. There is no outrage that way because they are not our friends, period.

A key part of the terrorist strategy is using the western media to demoralize the American and western public, and damn they are effective at using the elite media in just that way. For one, I will not subject myself to the elite media networks and their bs editorializing any more. Thank goodness for the internet blogs.

Keep up the good work in here, keep getting the word out above the crap of the elite media.
Harry
May 3, 2004   06:52 AM PDT
 
If somebody dies serving their country it should at least deserve a mention among the important news items of the day like the Michael Jackson trial or which politician said what about another.But Michael,Kobe and others have pushed an awful lot of the casualties off the news bulletins altogether.This is just an attempt at redressing the balance.John McCain doesn't seem to think it's unpatriotic.

If people are dying every day for their country, isn't it right that it at least gets reported?If this was a war that people believed in,there would be no controversy.America can accept casualties in a war that they think needs to be fought.

And if news media reporting the news is politicising the dead,what is it when GWB shows bodies being carried from Ground Zero in a campaign advert?
Ken
May 3, 2004   09:11 AM PDT
 
Harry, did you even BOTHER to actually read the article before posting your comment? It sure doesn't seem so. Read it, then comment. That's how things are usually done.
Harry
May 3, 2004   10:38 AM PDT
 
Yes I read it.And even if we disregard what John McCain said and agree that Nightline was politicising the dead,why is it OK for GWB to do the same thing in a campaign ad?
Ken
May 3, 2004   12:05 PM PDT
 
For crying out loud, the two had nothing to do with each other. At least apples and oranges are both fruit. Bush did not "politicize" the dead; he reminded us of a terrible thing that happened and his response to it. The RIGHT response... which we would never get from Kerry. He has already stated that terrorism is a law enforcement matter. That kind of fuzzy thinking GAVE us 9/11 in the first place.
Harry
May 3, 2004   01:06 PM PDT
 
How is using images of the dead at Ground Zero in a political campaign advert not politicising the dead?
Ken
May 3, 2004   01:46 PM PDT
 
We were ATTACKED on 9/11, you ignoramus. (Man, they're right... the Left HAS forgotten.) Bush's response to a national emergency and a surprise attack SHOULD be the focus of a campaign ad. If the ad showed a picture of a flag-draped coffin and a voiceover said, "This is what Kerry will bring us," then THAT would be "politicizing" the dead. Of course, the Left already knows all this; they require those of us on the Right to spell everything out as if to little children so they can try to find a word or phrase to attack in the explanation.
Harry
May 3, 2004   02:34 PM PDT
 
Using dead Americans for political gain is something that can be attributed to both sides.You would presumably argue that the troops killed in Iraq are part of the same War on Terror as the 911 dead,so I can't see a difference.If it's wrong for Nightline to broadcast that show,it's wrong to use 911 images in a political advert designed to get a particular candidate elected.It's hard to think of a clearer definition of politicising the dead than using the 911 images.
Ken
May 3, 2004   02:44 PM PDT
 
"so I can't see a difference"
Well, there's your problem in a nutshell. "The dead" were not being used in that 1/10th of a second in a campaign commercial. Who was it? What was the message being sent? Where was the lie about intent? "The dead" WERE being used in an hour-long anti-Bush commercial thinly disguised as a news special "honoring" them.
Name
May 3, 2004   03:38 PM PDT
 
Check out Mark Steyn's take on Koppel's stunt:
"Costs don't exist in a vacuum, but relative to their benefits. For example, the cost of Ted Koppel to ABC is said to be $6 million per year. That sounds a lot when you consider that Skip, the busboy at Denny's, would be happy to do it for $28,000, but cost alone doesn't factor in the benefits of Ted's distinctive portentousness. "
http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn02.html
Harry
May 3, 2004   03:42 PM PDT
 
So how LONG you show dead bodies for is what counts?I'm pleased to see you're finally admitting Bush politicised the 911 deaths.
Name
May 3, 2004   04:35 PM PDT
 
Oh, I'm sorry.. I didnt realize Harry here is just a common garden-variety troll. The best cure is to ignore him.
d_Brit
May 4, 2004   01:10 AM PDT
 
starktruth's comment is simply the "stark truth" about the liberal mind-set

Leave a Comment:

Name


Homepage (optional)


Comments