Secretary of Defense Warns: Bad War Press Hurts Obama’s Reelection Effort

by lewwaters

Sometimes, a headline is published that just makes the reader go “DUH!” Something so blatantly obvious you just have to wonder how long the rocket scientist who wrote took to figure out a simple and obvious truth.

Such is the case in a recent Stars & Stripes headline, Panetta to Warn That Bad Press Hurts War Effort.

Those of us who served in Vietnam, recalling how our service and effort over there was distorted, misreported, blown out of proportion and sometimes outright fabricated can look at such a headline and say, “ya think?”

Since the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the launch of the War on Terror in both Afghanistan and Iraq, we have repeatedly witnessed the lamestream media once again picking and choosing how they report our Troops efforts and service.

After the 9/11 Terrorist attacks, we invaded Afghanistan on October 7, 2001 to deny Al Qaeda a safe haven and seek capture of Osama bin Laden. October 30, 2001 saw the New York Times run A Military Quagmire Remembered: Afghanistan as Vietnam, already distorting our Troops actions.

Quagmire became a familiar description applied both to Iraq and Afghanistan while Democrats in the House and Senate joined in labeling the war “lost,”, a “quagmire,” “mismanaged” and even to the point of identifying our Troops as “cold blooded murderers,” as did now deceased Pennsylvania Democrat Representative Jack Murtha in 2006.

2003 and 2004 saw an even more concerted effort since it was a presidential election year and Democrats unleashed self proclaimed “war hero” John ‘f’in Kerry (who is rumored to have served in Vietnam) running on an anti-war ticket reminiscent of his early 1970’s anti-war effort.

A brave group of aging Vietnam Veterans, Swift Vets and POWs for Truth stood up to expose Kerry’s nefarious claims, only to be faced with distortions, lies and misrepresentations from both the lamestream media and Democrat Party who thought Kerry was their “ace in the hole” to regain power.

Kerry’s “the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time” repeat of the words once spoken by General Omar Bradley and former President John F. Kennedy failed to unseat President George W. Bush.

That did not deter either the Democrats or the lamestream media who continued their denigration of President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and the Troops, even to the New York Times full page ad labeling General Petraeus as “General BetrayUs.”

We saw Illinois Democrat Senator Dick Durbin stand up and make a floor statement on our Troops in Guantanamo,

“If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.”

Bad war press seemed to be the norm as long as George W. Bush was in office and even after he left we still see bad press concerning his leadership, crediting Barrack Obama with successes set in place by Bush.

For example, the claim of Obama got the Troops out of Iraq. No mention that they left under a Status of Forces Agreement negotiated and signed by Bush before Obama was in office.

And now we see Obama trying to score political points with the killing of Osama bin Laden, taking all credit for himself when he did little more than watch it on television as the intelligence set place by Bush led US Navy Seals to bin Laden, prompting some to condemn Obama’s grab of all credit to himself.

The lamestream media can’t be bothered to report that, though.

Going back to Secretary of Defense Panetta’s warning we see that he isn’t so much concerned about how the media has continually misreported out Troops efforts as much as he is about how the Troops themselves act. We read,

“When Defense Secretary Leon Panetta travels Friday to visit soldiers at Fort Benning, Ga., he’ll personally remind them of the harm that lapses in judgment and unwisely publicized photos and videos can inflict on the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan. ‘We live in a world where these kinds of isolated incidents can become a headline in 15 seconds,’ Panetta said in an interview Monday. ‘And that can do tremendous damage’.”

No, he isn’t so much concerned over what the lamestream media reports as he is over what individuals do that might make the press.

Of course, when Bush was in office, we heard cries of “the Troops have free speech too” and how important it was that their words be heeded. As Marine Sgt. Gary Stein discovered, that same sentiment does not apply now that the Obama regime holds power.

We saw how ‘bad war press’ affected the outcome of the Vietnam War. We see how such ‘bad war press’ elongates the current War on Terror, costing more lives on both sides. We have seen how such “bad war press’ was an integral part of the lamestream media’s first amendment right to Freedom of the Press.

But now, it doesn’t seem to be as much of an integral part.

The difference?

Obama seeks reelection, Democrats wish to hold power in the Senate and Democrats have hopes of retaking power in the House of Representatives.

Make no mistake, Panetta’s “warning” has more to do with winning an election than with actual concern over our war effort.

The only war that matters to Democrats is the war to radically change America into what we never were.

9 Comments to “Secretary of Defense Warns: Bad War Press Hurts Obama’s Reelection Effort”

  1. Frankly, I like hearing every gory little detail:
    Rogue American soldier kills Afghan family
    Afghan soldiers kill American soldiers
    Afghan people overwhelmingly hate the West
    Pakistan military hides Osama
    Pat Tillman assassinated by own troops
    Etc., etc., etc.

    Anything less is censorship and it reminds everyone how ridiculous this whole thing is.

    AVOID FOREIGN ENTANGLEMENTS

    Like

  2. Yes Martin, we should just throw open our borders and allow our citizens to be murdered at will and thank those who did it for population control.

    And somehow, it goes right over your head that your attitude is what prolongs these “limited” wars that brings on the very things you use to turn public opinion.

    Just a little reminder for you http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/chronology.html

    Like

  3. Censorship is NOT the answer.

    p.s. Obama (my hero) using OBL’s death for re-election purposes is an abuse of his position. He can win without that BS.

    Like

  4. Instead of “hearing every little gory detail,” Martin, spend a little time engaged in those gory little details, with the media lying, misreporting and distorting your moves to the entire world. Then see how your attitude is towards some censorship.

    I suspect you think it would be unchanged. You might end up surprising your self.

    Like

  5. I haven’t heard “quagmire” from the media since Obama got elected. And of course none of them (Democrats or their media underlings) would admit that the troop ‘surge’ in Iraq worked.

    Like

  6. Lew, Martin said nothing about throwing open our borders. He (along with G. Washington) simply suggested avoiding foreign entanglements. We have troops in over 150 of the world’s 190 countries, with special ops forces in 120 countries. Our presidents (D and R) for the last 20 years, D and R alike, have gleefully hyper-extended our military. Our troops cannot indefinitely sustain this ops tempo:

    http://crybelovedcountry.com/2012/03/massacre-in-afghanistan-we-have-exactly-three-choices/

    That’s not a liberal/conservative divide. That’s just the reality of human limits.

    Like

  7. Good article from Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs on media hypocrisy regarding war reporting. The NY Times refused to run a “Time to Leave Islam” ad (in response to a previous “Time to Leave Catholicism” ad, which they did publish) because they didn’t want to inflame Muslims and endanger our troops. Well, bless their kind hearts.

    They were, however, happy to print photos of U.S. troops posing gleefully with bodies and body parts of dead suicide bombers. Like *that’s* not gonna inflame Muslims and endanger our troops.

    http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/04/ny-times-hypocrisy-gruesome-prank-coverage-put-our-troops-in-jeopardy.html

    But probably Panetta probably doesn’t take the NYT, or he would have mentioned that, too.

    Like

  8. As one who has served in foreign assignments, we are there for more reasons than many know or realize.

    Our military is much smaller than it used to be with plans being mentioned to cut it further.

    “We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America’s leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.”

    *snip*

    “A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.”

    “Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.”

    “Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.

    Dwight David Eisenhower, 34th President of the United States, General of the Army (5 star retired), Supreme Allied Commander World War Two, from his farewell speech, given January 19, 1961, erroneously titled by some as the “Military Industrial Complex” speech.

    Like

  9. Let’s face it, Panetta seemed to have no problem with reporting every misstep made during Bush’s years, but now it is different.

    All I see different is Obama’s wanting to be reelected.

    Like

%d bloggers like this: