Posted on 10/13/2007 7:13:36 AM PDT by jdm
It seems that half of the message retired General Richard Sanchez intended to deliver missed the cut at most newsrooms, and with most bloggers. Typical among the reports of his blistering oration is the front-page treatment given by the Washington Post's Josh White, the entire first half of Sanchez's speech -- found in its entirety here -- gets reduced to a single paragraph at the end of the story. Why? Well, it turns out that Sanchez considered his first target the media itself, which he blames for a large part of the problems he sees in Iraq (via Power Line, reformatted by me to normal case):
Almost invariably, my perception is that the sensationalistic value of these assessments is what provided the edge that you seek for self aggrandizement [sic] or to advance your individual quest for getting on the front page with your stories! As I understand it, your measure of worth is how many front page stories you have written and unfortunately some of you will compromise your integrity and display questionable ethics as you seek to keep America informed. This is much like the intelligence analysts whose effectiveness was measured by the number of intelligence reports he produced. For some, it seems that as long as you get a front page story there is little or no regard for the "collateral damage" you will cause. Personal reputations have no value and you report with total impunity and are rarely held accountable for unethical conduct.
Given the near instantaneous ability to report actions on the ground, the responsibility to accurately and truthfully report takes on an unprecedented importance. The speculative and often uninformed initial reporting that characterizes our media appears to be rapidly becoming the standard of the industry. An Arab proverb states - "four things come not back: the spoken word, the spent arrow, the past, the neglected opportunity." Once reported, your assessments become conventional wisdom and nearly impossible to change. Other major challenges are your willingness to be manipulated by "high level officials" who leak stories and by lawyers who use hyperbole to strengthen their arguments. Your unwillingness to accurately and prominently correct your mistakes and your agenda driven biases contribute to this corrosive environment.
All of these challenges combined create a media environment that does a tremendous disservice to America. Over the course of this war tactically insignificant events have become strategic defeats for America because of the tremendous power and impact of the media and by extension you the journalist. In many cases the media has unjustly destroyed the individual reputations and careers of those involved. We realize that because of the near real time reporting environment that you face it is difficult to report accurately. In my business one of our fundamental truths is that "the first report is always wrong." Unfortunately, in your business "the first report" gives Americans who rely on the snippets of CNN, if you will, their "truths" and perspectives on an issue. As a corollary to this deadline driven need to publish "initial impressions or observations" versus objective facts there is an additional challenge for us who are the subject of your reporting. When you assume that you are correct and on the moral high ground on a story because we have not respond to questions you provided is the ultimate arrogance and distortion of ethics. One of your highly respected fellow journalists once told me that there are some amongst you who "feed from a pig's trough." if that is who I am dealing with then I will never respond otherwise we will both get dirty and the pig will love it. This does not mean that your story is accurate.
Given that, it seems highly ironic that the journalists covering the story attempted to cover up the acidic, biting, and mostly accurate criticisms of their own performance in this war while giving front-page treatment to Sanchez' criticisms of the political structure at the same time. If Sanchez has such credibility and standing to bring this kind of criticism to bear on Washington, why didn't the Post and other news agencies give the same level of exposure to his media criticisms as well? He basically accuses them of cynically selling out the soldiers to defeat American efforts to win the war, and made sure that those accusations came first before his assessment of the political failures, but you'd never know that from the Post.
The Post then goes on to obfuscate a key part of the second half of Sanchez' speech. While he criticizes the Bush administration in sharp terms, Sanchez blames the Democrats in equal measure. He calls out partisans on all sides for exploiting the war for their own political benefit rather than the good of the nation, and blames the lack of range for strategic options on the corrosive debate that has hamstrung the range of choices.
And most importantly, none of the press has managed to pick up on this key sequence in Sanchez' broadside at the American political establishment:
America has no choice but to continue our efforts in Iraq. A precipitous withdrawal will unquestionably lead to chaos that would endanger the stability of the greater Middle East. If this occurs it would have significant adverse effects on the international community. Coalition and American force presence will be required at some level for the foreseeable future. Given the lack of a grand strategy we must move rapidly to minimize that force presence and allow the Iraqis maximum ability to exercise their sovereignty in achieving a solution.
Iraq is still a vital national interest to the United States. We have a responsibility to get it right, and our political establishment needs to unite to find the grand strategy that serves that purpose rather than their own selfish desires. In fact, Sanchez made clear that the media has to do the same as well. Unfortunately, the media doesn't have the guts to report that honestly.
You are very welcome.
I am posting something in the next few seconds in which you may be interesteded.
There was mistakes alright and I’m not sure why General Sanchez wants to rehash them considering from all accounts, except his own, things are getting better? The administration has never bashed General Sanchez even though congress did but he seems to target the administration for some unknown reason? I always liked General Sanchez and he got a bum wrap from congress and the media but not the administration.
Thanks for sharing this story with us!
In a way,you have verified my thoughts on Gen. Sanchez. I always thought he was a P,C. choice due to his last name. Bush has placed some hispanics in high places to which they are not necessarily qualified. My first clue came when Bush went to Bagdad on Thanksgiving. In the reports regarding the trip which was secret, Sanchez, wanted to talk about illegal aliens fighting. That wasn’t exactly the right time nor place to discuss this since the trip Bush had taken was so secretive and dangerous.
HAHA I thougth so! All I saw was the headline on Drudge, and I thought to myself "He's probably pissed that we're fighting a Politically Correct war to satisfy the media pinheads."
ping
(I hope I didn’t post this twice.)
Ricardo Sanchez is phenomenal. There were six children. There was a space between the third and forth child. The first three children never went to college. I don’t remember where he fits into the second tier. But I do remember he said the first 3 never went to college. When he was in 2nd grade, all he knew is that he was going to “college” whatever that meant. He did not know what “college” was, but he was going there anyway.
Also, when he was 6 years old, his family was so poor, he had a little job sweeping out his uncle’s barbershop where he would supplement his family’s income.
This man was hard working at a very tiny age.
Anybody who diminishes his character is repugnant.
Thank you again.
The media reports "President Bush can't swim!"
His motivation could very well be political. I’m not sure what sort of “clout” Ortiz might wield; he is a veteran himself and states he is “conservative” on social issues...?
“In a way, you have verified my thoughts on Gen. Sanchez. I always thought he was a P,C. choice due to his last name. Bush has placed some hispanics in high places to which they are not necessarily qualified.
In retrospect, I know you are right in that it may have helped Sanchez. But this was already in the works before that. Sanchez was already climbing the latter before Bush became president. I am not saying you are wrong in any way. I am just saying he was a good soldier in spite of the circumstances. I know what you are saying. Had his name been “Smith,” it may have been a different story. We will never know. You brought up a valid point, but Sanchez was still qualified.
Thank you.
P.S. If you really want to know what was the problem with General Sanchez, (my guess) is that he was human. He was simply too nice. He was a real person. I don’t think that he knew he was going to be stabbed in the back by his government.
----
When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, the men's weapons will grow dull and their ardour will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the state will not be equal to the strain.
Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardour damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will rarely be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.
Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been associated with long delays. There is no instance of a country having been benefited from prolonged warfare -- Sun Tzu
An Arab proverb states - "four things come not back: the spoken word, the spent arrow, the past, the neglected opportunity."
You and I are see this alike.
We take an oath, when putting the uniform on. It is an oath we don't take lightly. Regardless of our personal thoughts, when asked our advice we give it, when given our orders, we salute sharply and carry out those orders to the very best of our ability.
General Sanchez did just that, there is no doubt in my mind.
Today he has both the freedom and I believe the responsibility to come forward with what he spoke of at the Luncheon he was invited to address. To do less, would be an abrogation of his personal integrity, of which I too believe is impeccable.
>> To do less, would be an abrogation of his personal integrity...
I don’t know about that. I heard Marcus Luttrell on Levin’s show yesterday stating how he and his team chose not to eliminate potential threats due to concerns of reprisal in part from the media.
Does Luttrell know something Sanchez doesn’t?
And I believe that General Sanchez in doing so knew the MSM would take his remarks totally out of the context, not to mention the content as they have. And yet he did so anyway. I think it is obvious that the General couldn't care less what the MSM would do with his remarks. That was what my comments concerning, "to do less would be an abrogation of his personal integrity" referred to.
Thanks for the information concerning the great Navy Seal. Another great American hero and son of Texas!
BTW, for those who don't know Marcus Luttrell, here is a link to a great interview of Marcus by none other than Matt Lauer. Click Here!
Must read !
Thank you for your comments on post #115 and #118 (although not directed to me).
“To do less, would be an abrogation of his personal integrity, of which I too believe is impeccable.”
“Major” Sanchez’s integrity was impeccable. This was one of his many positive qualities that had us so captivated. He was genuine. We loved working for him and with him.
I remember someone laughing behind his back saying, “he’s such a nice guy, he’s not going to get anywhere.” But I had to consider this one source.
You can imagine my laughter a few years later when now “General” Sanchez’s face came on the TV screen. I thought I was going to bust a gusset I laughed so hard remembering that quote and the source. I felt personally revenged.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.