CBS- "...that keeping it was a rolling battle." - Shades of Khe Sanh! (Hold my Mic Barf Alert)

CBS 60 Minutes II ^ | 3-26-03 | Scott Pelley

[sonofatpatcher2]

The Battle For Umm Qasr

Correspondent Scott Pelley (CBS)

For the Marines of Fox Company, the war began with light and thunder, alongside British Royal Marines. The first casualties that night were their preconceived notions of the enemy.

Sergeant Robert Coppola, from L.A., was among the first Americans who rolled through the breach and into the fire.

“It was supposed to be a relatively easy target--just a lot of workers, not any resistance at all,” he says. “And then, before we came in, they told us there was a tank regiment in the area and they had a bunch of Republican Guard and regular Army down here. So we came across the breach and we took contact. So the whole plan--okay, no more soft target, now we have to go hard target.”

That meant, he says, a change from “a little lackadaisical” by Marine standards to the assumption that “we're going into a battle.”

Their objective was the port at Umm Qasr. They took it without much of a fight. But soon they found that keeping it was a rolling battle.

SNIP

That “hit and run” is repeating itself all over southern Iraq. When the main allied force moves through, Iraqi troops fill in from behind, shooting up convoys headed in every direction and harassing troops left behind to hold the ground.

[sonofatpatcher2]

Last night I was at a friend's home and he was watching "60 Minutes II" on CBS. Dan Rather, Jim Stewart, Vicky 'Whatshername' and Scott Pelly, all gave reports slanted with the "Things aren't going well! Its all a big mess! We are taking fire! Quagmire!!!" mode that kicked in a flashback to Vietnam as Scott Pelley talked about the Umm Qasr fire fight. I had seen a day or so earlier on FOX via Sky News.

At the siege of Khe Sanh, there was a wrecked airplane (C-130 I seem to remember) just off the runway that was the favorite spot for all the correspondents to film their standup reports. Each and every time they reported on the fighting it appeared dozens if not hundreds of US planes had been destroyed by VC/NVA fire. The truth of the matter was only one, that one plane, was every wrecked during the whole battle of Khe Sanh!

"With all these losses how can we be winning?" was each and every one of these SOB's tone.

I got the same feeling from the report on Umm Qasr. My friend's wife comments she had also seen the same skirmish reported on CNN, NBC and ABC also. The same building being shot at by USMC tanks and grunts.

This so called big battle is being reported and re-reported again and again as a major attack by Saddam's forces. Gad, the Newsboys of Vietnam are trying the same thing on this war: they want to win it by making it appear we are losing it!

HorseHockey!

We cannot let the press lose this war like they did in Vietnam. But they sure are trying.

God help the United States if we let the Anti-war protesters and Liberal Press lead us by the nose to defeat.

However, there was a bit of truth in Scott Pelley's report. He interviewed a young soldier who was choked up with tears seeing the Iraqi children getting water with smiles on their faces. His compassion and concern shows the true face of this war. The liberation of an oppressed people.

Giving credit where credit due, Pelley said: "Americans like Randy Beutel may be witnessing the first free citizens of a new Iraq. When he saw the children running toward him, he thought of his own young niece and nephew back home. 'It’s hard to explain the feeling of joy,' he says. 'Now I know why I'm here.'"

[Pan_Yans Wife]

The liberal press do not understand that Randy Beutel's good will toward the civilians is the reason why the Coalition forces will win this battle, and the next, until we are victorious. Goodness will prevail. America, Britain and Australia MUST defend the innocent people of Iraq. The war will continue until we have won.

[mhking]

[Liberals are Evil Socialists!]

The enemy is within the liebral elements of the demonrat party. Their mousepieces are the treasonous negative agenda monger reporters. Even if they could, they have no mental ability to be anything but biased. Don't forget when this is over, the war within the war is still over the liberals efforts to alter America to look more like France. Public Enemy #1 is and always will be the liebrals and their lies.

[Wright is right!]

Pelley, even if he felt differently about the war, still has to make his reports fit the network template that anything Bush's military does is bad - or find himself without a CBS paycheck. The same thing goes on the regular 60 Minutes. If your story doesn't fit Don Hewitt's worldview, you're not on the air that week.

This is something to be borne in mind as you watch the Embedded Pixels do their reports. They can send back any story they like, but if the news directors don't like it, you aren't getting on the air.

Michael

[sonofatpatcher2]

"What sh*t are you walking about?
We journalists only speak the truth!"

[Pan_Yans Wife]

I agree with you. We can lament the bias in the papers today, only to wake up in ten years and read the same bias in the textbooks at the schools, hear the teachers chanting it until our children learn it by rote, and then get to spend countless hours trying to un-brainwash our children!

I'm trying to nip this in the bud, today. I point out where I disagree with the liberal teachers and the press, to my son, on a frequent basis. I want him to learn the truth from me, before he believes their lies, later.

[VOA]

bump

[Ben Ficklin]

I watched Sixty Minutes 2 last night and I have got to disagree with you.

Those on this thread from last night also disagree with you

[chilepepper]

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW.

I'm going to punch the ABUSE button on this one. You have made me lose my appetite and a perfectly good steak will go to waste as a result. (well, maybe my dog will eat it)

[Crusader_062002]

How is it the soldiers who are facing the resistance still believe we are winning when "News" men and women who sit in airconditioned offices believe we are loosing?

Because they want us to lose.

[optik_b]

I saw the 60 minutes II show last night and I have to totally disagree with your characterization of the coverage. They have a few segments. One described teh total brutalitiy of the Fedayeen from a man who was inside the Iraqi regime when it was setup. He described the tactics they would use and gave some information on what we're up against. His final advice was to push on toward baghdad and that once the regime was toppled to deal with the fedayeen.

Then there was a story that you mentioned with Scott Pelley in which they basically showed the courage of our soldiers and described the difficult resistance they were meeting but they also showed our marines overcoming it and they showed the civilians happy to receive our aid. They had some amazing footage of the supply route which was lined with Marines protecting it.

The show closed with Dan Rather saying that some Iraqis had a taste of freedom and they wanted more and that it would be coming.

[sonofatpatcher2]

Been on the web and believe I have found a photo of that C-130 under yellow arrow:

Found this here.

[sonofatpatcher2]

Re: I watched Sixty Minutes 2 last night and I have got to disagree with you.
Those on this thread from last night also disagree with you

Okay, you disagree with me and perhaps I am so turned off by CBS/NBC/CNN/etc that I am slanted in my viewing, but I can only say what I feel. I see Dan Rather talking about all the "things" not going right.

I see that same tone used by covering the same small fire fight over and over again as if the whole of the Iraqi population is coming at out troops with righteous murder in their eyes and hearts.

I see the war protesters being covered as they are the only voice that matters.

I see News Anchors who don't know a M1A2 from an SUV saying our troops are meeting hard resistance.

I see the faces and bodies of our POWs and KIAs shown as trophies.

Yes, we disagree, but I still see what I see even if it is shaded by my experiences.