The Real Story: News Media Fall in Love with Generals
Jim Kouri, CPP
April 15, 2006
Well, this was quite a week. Most notably, it was the week of the news media's newfound love for generals. Suddenly, the Washington press corps is lap-dancing for these warmongering men who command troops to go into battle and kill, destroy and annihilate.
And if you believe that, then you've been snookered by the left-wing press once again.
The mainstream news media have about as much love and admiration for our military's top commanders as they have for President George W. Bush and members of his administration. Unless, of course, the generals don't much care for Bush or his Defense Secretary. And what a bonanza! They've got six retired generals to blast away at Bush through his Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld.
Yes, folks -- count 'em -- six retired generals, some of whom led troops in Iraq, have spoken out against Rumsfeld in recent days, accusing him of arrogance, ignoring his field commanders, and micro-management. Usually the guy who's lower on the Totem poll perceives the folks above him or her as arrogant, so that's just an opinion voiced by most disgruntled employees. Ignoring his field commanders may be a good thing or a bad thing, so it depends on which side of the desk you're sitting. Micro-management? Have they forgotten the old adage? "War is too important to be left to the generals." Can you believe it? The left-wingers in the press actually want generals to have autonomy during a war.
It's not about what these has-been generals are saying. It's about the fact that they are saying it against Secretary Don Rumsfeld. The media love it because Rumsfeld makes them look like the Bozos they truly are during his press conferences. He's the alpha-man and they are the ladies and girlie-men of the press. Feminists and effeminate men have always despised real, tough men. They even have pejoratives to describe them: Neanderthals, Dinosaurs, Rednecks, etc. So if a former general makes negative statements about someone the elite media already hate, they will jump on the story like vultures.
When the New York Times tells me General Zini said Rumsfeld should resign, my reaction is, "So what? Who cares? Is my favorite movie "Patton" on the tube?"
The nation is being divided over this war and these blowhard former military leaders have nothing helpful to contribute to the situation. Let's be clear, we are talking about six former generals. Only six. For every one of them, I'll bet the farm the news media could locate 10 who would praise Rumsfeld. That is, if the news media really wanted to be unbiased.
I'm not saying he deserves praise, I'm merely pointing out that the media breathlessly reporting every syllable these retired men utter is worthless. It won't end the war. It won't create a viable Iraqi government. It won't help to bring our troops home. This is the epitome of arrogance: to believe one's words are powerful enough to bring about change without any further effort or action. Actually, I have more respect for the lefties who protest and march every chance they get. At least they're actually doing something. Here's another old adage: "Talk is cheap."
Sure, General Zini's soundbites will help General Zini sell books. But that's about all. Unless if the leftist media's goal in recording those soundbites is to further undermine the war effort. What better way to undermine a war than to turn the commanders and soldiers against their leader? It worked at the beginning of the Russian Revolution when the soldiers fighting the German during World War I turned on their top commanding officers and beat them to death with their rifle butts.
Am I defending President Bush and his minions? No. Not anymore. Bush lost me when he called the Minuteman Project vigilantes. He angered me when he talked about amnesty for lawbreakers from Mexico. And I turned my back on him when he became a full-fledged big-government liberal. I am not defending President Bush.
What gets my goat is watching and listening to six windbags who said nothing when it would have counted for something; who said nothing until they retired from the military -- pension and perks secured in their wrinkled hands. Besides, anyone who knows anything about the military knows it's not the generals who win wars, it's the colonels and top non-coms who deliver victories. Unless those generals are George Patton, "Chesty" Puller, and some other great leaders. Hear that Gen. Batiste? And Patton spoke out while he was still in uniform. It got him in hotwater with Eisenhower, but he had the courage to speak his mind.
And if you believe that, then you've been snookered by the left-wing press once again.
The mainstream news media have about as much love and admiration for our military's top commanders as they have for President George W. Bush and members of his administration. Unless, of course, the generals don't much care for Bush or his Defense Secretary. And what a bonanza! They've got six retired generals to blast away at Bush through his Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld.
Yes, folks -- count 'em -- six retired generals, some of whom led troops in Iraq, have spoken out against Rumsfeld in recent days, accusing him of arrogance, ignoring his field commanders, and micro-management. Usually the guy who's lower on the Totem poll perceives the folks above him or her as arrogant, so that's just an opinion voiced by most disgruntled employees. Ignoring his field commanders may be a good thing or a bad thing, so it depends on which side of the desk you're sitting. Micro-management? Have they forgotten the old adage? "War is too important to be left to the generals." Can you believe it? The left-wingers in the press actually want generals to have autonomy during a war.
It's not about what these has-been generals are saying. It's about the fact that they are saying it against Secretary Don Rumsfeld. The media love it because Rumsfeld makes them look like the Bozos they truly are during his press conferences. He's the alpha-man and they are the ladies and girlie-men of the press. Feminists and effeminate men have always despised real, tough men. They even have pejoratives to describe them: Neanderthals, Dinosaurs, Rednecks, etc. So if a former general makes negative statements about someone the elite media already hate, they will jump on the story like vultures.
When the New York Times tells me General Zini said Rumsfeld should resign, my reaction is, "So what? Who cares? Is my favorite movie "Patton" on the tube?"
The nation is being divided over this war and these blowhard former military leaders have nothing helpful to contribute to the situation. Let's be clear, we are talking about six former generals. Only six. For every one of them, I'll bet the farm the news media could locate 10 who would praise Rumsfeld. That is, if the news media really wanted to be unbiased.
I'm not saying he deserves praise, I'm merely pointing out that the media breathlessly reporting every syllable these retired men utter is worthless. It won't end the war. It won't create a viable Iraqi government. It won't help to bring our troops home. This is the epitome of arrogance: to believe one's words are powerful enough to bring about change without any further effort or action. Actually, I have more respect for the lefties who protest and march every chance they get. At least they're actually doing something. Here's another old adage: "Talk is cheap."
Sure, General Zini's soundbites will help General Zini sell books. But that's about all. Unless if the leftist media's goal in recording those soundbites is to further undermine the war effort. What better way to undermine a war than to turn the commanders and soldiers against their leader? It worked at the beginning of the Russian Revolution when the soldiers fighting the German during World War I turned on their top commanding officers and beat them to death with their rifle butts.
Am I defending President Bush and his minions? No. Not anymore. Bush lost me when he called the Minuteman Project vigilantes. He angered me when he talked about amnesty for lawbreakers from Mexico. And I turned my back on him when he became a full-fledged big-government liberal. I am not defending President Bush.
What gets my goat is watching and listening to six windbags who said nothing when it would have counted for something; who said nothing until they retired from the military -- pension and perks secured in their wrinkled hands. Besides, anyone who knows anything about the military knows it's not the generals who win wars, it's the colonels and top non-coms who deliver victories. Unless those generals are George Patton, "Chesty" Puller, and some other great leaders. Hear that Gen. Batiste? And Patton spoke out while he was still in uniform. It got him in hotwater with Eisenhower, but he had the courage to speak his mind.
Print
Email
