Journalism's American patriots ~ opinion echo

An undated file photo of Peter Arnett, right, with Stars and Stripes reporter Wally Beene in Vietnam. Stars and Stripes photo.

Many journalists served in the military.  Others also served by reporting during wars. To this opinion by T.R. Reid, published in the Colorado Springs newspaper The Gazette, I would add the name of Ernie Pyle.  Also, a salute to Richard Engel.  

Journalists served. Donald Trump did not.

T.R.Reid opinion published in The Gazette of Colorodo Springs

For Americans of a certain age, the welcome news that unemployment has fallen to 3.7 percent brought back memories of the last time the rate was that low, in the boom years of the mid-to-late 1960s. Those of us finishing high school or college then graduated into a red-hot employment market with a broad choice of jobs and careers.

But for male grads back in the late ’60s, there was another consideration. The U.S. was snarled in a lethal war in Vietnam, with casualty rates sometimes reaching 100 American deaths in a week. Our country needed young men to serve; interestingly, the military draft then excluded women, a situation that everybody considered perfectly normal. Millions of new graduates responded, signing up for the military and serving the nation on active duty.

This group included me (and, incidentally, my college classmate Robert Mueller III, now the special counsel investigating the 2016 election).

But some of our contemporaries found ways to duck their patriotic obligation. One such was a 1968 college grad, Donald Trump. His family paid a doctor who wrote a letter saying Donald was too frail to serve his country.

After the Vietnam war, I became a reporter at The Washington Post. The paper was a hotbed of former military personnel, many of them Navy types, like me. There were so many of us Navy veterans in the newsroom — including Bob Woodward and our great editor, Ben Bradlee — that we used to joke we could man the bridge of a battleship, just with Post reporters.

So it’s galling to have a draft dodger like Donald Trump call us reporters “the enemy of the people.” The man has no right to challenge ink-stained veterans like me about our devotion to the American people. We proved our commitment — at a time when Trump ducked out.

Trump doesn’t like the press, but that’s hardly unusual.

Most politicians resent reporters. After all, we feel it’s our job to tell the public when our elected leaders lie or cheat, or when their policies fail. We also report when government policies succeed, although the politicians complain we don’t do that enough.

This adversarial relationship between the press and public officials is a central pillar of our system. If the American people had to rely on the politicians, or their nasty negative campaign ads, for all our information about public affairs, democratic government could not work. Reporters believe it’s their mission to help the people know the truth.

Most politicians lie, or at least stretch the facts, now and then. But the outpouring of sheer dishonesty has reached breathtaking new levels under Trump. Many media outlets — including The Washington Post — have had to beef up the fact-checking staff just to keep up with the stream of falsehoods emanating from our president these days.

It’s not surprising that Trump is unhappy when reporters point out his lies. So he lashes out at us: the media are “biased”, or “corrupt”, or “failing,” or “fake.” In a rally last summer, he summed up his view of the press rather vividly in just two words: “They’re scum.”

That’s all fine with me. Blaming the messenger is part of the standard back-and-forth between government and media. Donald Trump can call me “scum” all he wants.

But it’s not OK for a guy who skipped out when it was his time to serve to label veterans like me “the enemy.”

Donald Trump is not the only political leader who evaded military service. in the Vietnam years. Indeed, there’s a distinguished collection of them, ranging from Bill Clinton to Newt Gingrich and Dick Cheney. But at least those others never had the sheer gall to challenge my patriotism; rather, when I covered those three, they thanked me for my years in the military.

So it’s infuriating to have Trump, of all people, call us reporters “the enemy.” When the American people needed us, we stepped up. Donald Trump stepped aside. Which one is the real “enemy of the people?”

T. R. Reid, of Denver, a reporter, is the author of “A Fine Mess,” (Penguin, 2018).

No facts - no sympathy Donald Trump gets more free media

On a morning on March 22, 2016, when the world is mourning even more terrorism attacks in Brussels in Belgium, with dozens dead resulting from bombing attacks at the Zaventem airport and Maelbeek metro, the Today Show decided to interview Donald Trump. So, Donald Trump gets even more free media time, but what does he do? He offers "NO facts- NO sympathy" and no information about what he would do if her were (God forbid) elected president or leader of the free world. 

Terrorist bombing in Brussels Belgium March 22, 2016

Instead, Donald Trump opened his free interview talking about his crazy poll numbers. After that, he then said he would close all US borders. HELLO? So, will Americans form a human chain along all of the US Canada and Mexico international borders? How would Trump-Drumpf close the US borders? Trump did not explain how to close US borders. In fact, closing borders is irresponsible and, indeed, even impossible. Rather, the right answer is to build excellent communications with Canada and Mexico to prevent illegal immigration between all three nations.

Rather than open his interview with Savannah Guthrie and Matt Lauer, with appropriate messages of sympathy to the Europeans and the entire Belgian population during this sad time, Trump spoke about his poll numbers instead of offering useful information.

Shame on Today for giving stupid Donald Trump even more free media time, when the wanna-be president, leader of the free world, contributed no facts about the Brussels bombings.

Although the surrogate NBC correspondent, Kelly O'Donnell, went on Twitter to explain how the 2016 presidential front runners were invited to be interviewed, but only stupid Donald Trump responded, that was a weak excuse for giving free media time to a candidate. Obviously Ms. O'Donnell, American only has one president at a time and stupid Drumpf-Trump is not the one.  

In the event Donald Trump had something to add to the Belgian condition, other than stoke more fear, then, maybe, there was a reason to include him in a free media blitz. Otherwise, Trump's "no facts-no sympathy" interview was a total waste of time and denigrated quality journalism.

NBC employs classy journalists like Pete Williams, Richard Engel and Tom Costello. Therefore, it makes absolutely no sense to pay for experts to report the news instead of wasting important media time creating news with the "no facts-no sympathy" commentary by Donald Trump. 

My sympathy to the people of Europe and particularly the Belgians.

These are terribly tragic times, but Donald Trump is not the person to improve our human condition.

Brian Williams is a wanna be Iraq war victim without serving

Let's have Richard Engel and Rachel Maddow co-host NBC News.

Many journalists, since the Greek writer Homer described the Trojan Wars, have become famous by reporting about wars.  

NBC television journalist Brian Williams apparently wants to become a famous war reporter, but he must begin by telling the truth, first.  Unfortunately, Williams created a myth  about his war experience while he was reporting from Iraq.  

Now that Williams is being held accountable for reporting about being involved in a helicopter attack that didn't happen, at least not like he described it, he's retracting his story. He says, somehow, he became confused about the information.  

This is just another example of how I've blogged, for months about how Brian Williams is reporting entertainment news rather than behaving like a journalist.  

Two recent examples of his inability to get the news right was when he reported on the live NBC broadcast musical "Peter Pan" as though the television program, starring his own daughter, was a regal coronation. Under the title of ludicrous news was a recent report about how automatic dish washers are more effective if the water spray hits dishes sideways, or something bizarre like that...as though we're going to climb into a cycle to find out for ourselves.  

Now, Williams is finally admitting to creating war news. He's being held accountable, by those who were there, for his myth about involvement in a helicopter attack in Afghanistan, but he made up most of the story.  

Obviously, Williams is a "wanna be" war correspondent, who wants to be  famous, just because he can make up a good story.  

I'm the wife of a real war hero who served twice in Vietnam. My husband was with the US Seabees MCB71 and on the USS Intrepid. Frankly, I'm offended by the wanna-be war myths created from those who yearn to be among the brave, by creating myths.

Brian Williams had a chance to serve his country in the US Military.  I don't know him personally, but every American who is qualified to serve in the military has a chance to do so, if they choose.  Williams probably passed on his chance but now wants to be a hero, nonetheless.  Well, he can't. 

It's truly time for NBC to find a real journalist to lead the news team. The network needs somebody who cares more about the people they're reporting about than their own ego.

I don't know  who created the quote but it's a mantra among journalists:  "Don't create the news, just report the news".

I vote for foreign NBC news journalists Richard Engel and MSNBC pundit Rachel Maddow to co-host NBC nightly news.

Here's the mythology story, created by Brian Williams, reported from The Daily Beast.

Brian Williams’ War Story Is FUBAR

The claim that his helicopter was hit by an RPG in Iraq blew up in his face. Now the NBC anchor is busily apologizing to salvage his reputation—and career.

The Brian Williams Apology Tour has begun—and who knows where it will end?

The NBC Nightly News anchor publicly apologized three times Wednesday—during his regular broadcast, in a Facebook post, and in Stars and Stripes—after the military-focused newspaper published a damning story that Williams and NBC have been claiming falsely “for years” that, during the 2003 Iraq invasion, he was aboard a U.S. Army helicopter that was hit and forced down by rocket-propelled grenades.

“The story actually started with a terrible moment a dozen years back during the invasion of Iraq,” Williams told viewers during last Friday’s broadcast of the top-rated NBC Nightly News, “when the helicopter we were traveling in was forced down after being hit by an RPG.” Video accompanying the story showed a severely damaged helicopter, its skin pierced by an RPG, and strongly suggested that Williams had been a passenger on the combat-hobbled aircraft.

Williams has told the story of being hit by enemy fire at least twice on national television, most recently during Friday’s Nightly News segment about a retired Army sergeant who protected him and his NBC colleagues in the war zone. ButStars and Stripes reported that contrary to Williams’ tall tale, his Chinook helicopter was miles away when an entirely different chopper took enemy fire.

The Nightly News story focused on honoring retired Sgt. Tim Terpack, who, as Williams’ guest at a New York Rangers hockey game last Thursday, was introduced by the Madison Square Garden announcer with the erroneous anecdote and received a standing ovation from the crowd as the two men hugged.

Williams quickly retracted the story after Stars and Stripes confronted him with testimony from the crew of the 159th Aviation Regiment’s Chinook that actually was downed by rockets and small-arms fire; service members who were on the scene at the time also took to Facebook after Friday’s broadcast to contradict the Williams account.

“I would not have chosen to make this mistake,” Williams told the newspaper, adding that he was sorry. 

“I don’t know what screwed up in my mind that caused me to conflate one aircraft with another.... No, we never came under direct enemy fire to the aircraft.”

In a remorseful Facebook post, Williams wrote: “I spent much of the weekend thinking I’d gone crazy. I feel terrible about making this mistake....”

And in his apology on Wednesday’s Nightly News broadcast, Williams pleaded with viewers to trust his good intentions, cut him slack for his love of the U.S. military, and forgive his faulty memory: “[I]n an effort to honor and thank a veteran who protected me and so many others following a ground-fire incident in the desert during the Iraq War, I made a mistake in recalling the events of 12 years ago. It didn’t take long to hear from some brave men and women in the air crews who were also in the desert.... This was a bungled attempt by me to thank one special veteran, and by extension, our brave military men and women—veterans everywhere—those who have served while I did not. I hope they know they have my greatest respect… and also now my apology.”

Unfortunately for Williams, this is not the first time he has made “this mistake” on network television. On the March 26, 2013 episode of CBS’s Late Show With David Letterman, he told the host (at the 3 minute, 50-second mark): “Two of our four helicopters were hit by ground fire, including the one I was in.”

“No kidding!” Letterman exclaimed.

“RPG and AK-47,” Williams elaborated.

“What altitude were you hit at?” Letterman asked.

“We were only at 100 feet doing 100 forward knots...”

“What happens the minute everybody realizes you’ve been hit?” Letterman asked.

“We figure out how to land safely—and we did,” Williams answered. “We landed very quickly and hard...”

Stars and Stripes left open the possibility that Williams also misreported the incident initially on March 26, 2003, but it turns out that back then, at least, he never claimed to have been aboard the attacked chopper—during two different broadcasts on that date. Television news analyst Andrew Tyndall dipped into his videotape library and screened the Nightly News segment in which Williams said “he was in a convoy of helicopters, one of which got hit,” Tyndall told The Daily Beast.

NBC News, meanwhile, unearthed a March 26, 2003, Dateline segment in which Williams reported: “On the ground, we learn that the Chinook ahead of us was almost blown of the sky.”

Whether Williams’ Chinook was flying in close formation with the chopper that was hit—as his NBC reports imply—or was traveling as much as an hour behind it—as Stars and Stripes’ witnesses contend—remains a matter in dispute. “Williams arrived in the area about an hour later on another helicopter after the other three had made an emergency landing, the crew members said,” Stars and Stripes reported.

The Williams claim to have been under fire recalls 2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s false assertion that, as first lady in March 1996, she came under sniper fire during a trip to Tuzla, Bosnia. “I remember landing under sniper fire,” Clinton said during a speech. “There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base." 

CBS News video of Clinton’s arrival showed no such thing; instead she alighted on the tarmac and greeted a welcoming child who offered her a poem.

Needless to say, the standards of veracity and accuracy demanded of a network news anchorman are much higher than those expected of a politician. Clinton ended up in a world of hurt for her Bosnia fabrication, and Williams, at least for the near future, might suffer a similar hard landing.

“The actual lie is a trivial one,” Tyndall said, noting that it has zero public policy or political implications. “But the motive for the lie is really damning. Telling fibs to make yourself seem braver than you are? Why would you do that? The actual consequences of the lie are minimal, but the moral problems the lie raises are massive.”

Tyndall, however, said Williams can recover. 

“But it all depends on how much is mobilized against him and how contrite and forthcoming he is in response to it. This is not fatal, but it’s really bad.”

Women fighters in Kobani Iraq - evil ISIS is afraid and should be

"She was a teacher before the war. As women we need to stand shoulder to shoulder with our male comrades and fight ISIS," she says."....Richard Engel

Has this been a secret? There appears to be a heretofore unknown toxin for defeating the evil ISIS Islamic extremists and all the radical spin off Al Qaeda groups trying to take over the world as we know it.....it seems women fighters put these horrible terrorist men into religious limbo.  According to reports by NBC foreign reporter Richard Engel, the evil ISIS fighters believe they won't go to their concept of "heaven" if they're killed by a woman.
Who knew?  So there's a plan.  Let's have more women fighters! 

As a matter of fact, I even saw a Kobani facebook page to  "like" in support of these heroically brave
women fighters!  
https://www.facebook.com/kurdish.female.fighters.ypj
 

Engel in Kobani: Women Are on the Front Lines Against ISIS

 

 By Richard Engel

KOBANI, Syria — The tip of 26-year-old Viyan Peyman's rifle pokes through a hole in a wall on the front line of Kobani, a Syrian city that has been under ISIS attack for the last two months. Peyman is laying on a mattress, dressed in fatigues.

The room, in what until recently was a family home, is now a sniper's nest, dirty and darkened by a thick curtain.

She hides behind heavy sandbags, scanning for her next target in the street below. Her finger is always on the trigger. She fires shots sparingly to save ammunition and to hide her location.

Kobani is now a city of snipers, and, less than 200 yards away in an adjacent building, an ISIS fighter has his weapon trained this way. "ISIS are just across the street, and when I see them, I shoot them," Peyman says.


NBC News Viyan Peyman, a Kurdish sniper fighting against ISIS in the Syrian town of Kobane.

She speaks eloquently in Kurdish with poetic flourishes.

She was a teacher before the war. 

"As women we need to stand shoulder to shoulder with our male comrades and fight ISIS," she says.

The Kurdish fighters here all call one another comrades. They're secular nationalists. They have no ranks. ISIS propaganda videos claim the group has captured 90 percent of Kobani. It's not true.



During four days in the city, it appeared to NBC News that the Kurdish fighters, mainly of the People's Protection Unit and the Women's Protection Unit, control about half of Kobani. ISIS controls the other half.

Between Peyman and another female fighter is a box of homemade grenades. Made of empty cans, they use nails, screws and bolts for shrapnel.

The fighters "light it and throw it out," Viyan says, gesturing to the hole in the wall. Asked why there were so many women on the front line, she proudly declared that it was in their blood.

"We stand and fight, especially here in the Middle East, where women are treated as inferiors," she says. "We stand here as symbols of strength for all the women of the region."


NBC News "As women we need to stand shoulder to shoulder with our male comrades and fight ISIS," Peyman says.

Peyman has already bled for her city. She was shot twice — once in the leg, a second bullet in the stomach — but she returned to her post.

Her goal, she says, is to defend both Kobani and women's rights. Inside its self-declared caliphate, ISIS has forced women to wear veils. The group has taken women as prisoners, raping and enslaving them, according to rights groups.

"I promised myself that no matter where there is a minority that is under attack, I will be there to fight for their rights. That's the pledge I made," Peyman says.

During a brief pause in the fighting, she steps into the hallway to smoke a cigarette. She sings a folk song she wrote herself.

The lyrics honor friends she's lost. Shots ring in the background as she sings. The fight for Kobani is far from over.

For ISIS, crushing these secular, pro-U.S. fighters would be a major propaganda victory. But fighters like Peyman are putting up a fight the militants appear not to have anticipated.

They are strong women and brave men standing their ground and defending their homes. For now, at least, Kobani is holding on.

Carlo Angerer of NBC News contributed to this report.

Richard Engel

Richard Engel is widely regarded as one of America’s leading foreign correspondents for his coverage... Expand Bio

 

Wouldn't it be just the best way to see these evil ISIS extremists leave this earth......being shot by women. 









Drone Warfare: Terrorism and Winning a War

Winston Churchill encouraged people to read quotes.  
He said, "It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations."

As deadly as Drone Warfare is, it's Sir Winston who gives me the  words to support my opinion about how our nation's National Security is dependent on killing terrorists, with drones (Winston Churchill is my authoritative source):

"A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject."

"If you are going to go through hell, keep going."

Critics of American "drone warfare" say killing terrorists with drones creates threats to National Security, because we're motivating more enemies to take the places of those who are killed. Of course, if the Pakistan and Afghan government were diligent allies against terrorism, a war threatening all Americans, then, maybe, we wouldn't need drones.  Instead, it's the Pakistan government that's most critical of drones - yet, they're the same country where National Security Enemy Number One, Osama Bin Laden found refuge for nearly a decade!

Since I'm uneducated about war, I take Sir Winston's advice about how to respond to critics of drone warfare.  "A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject."  Americans will never change the minds of the terrorist fanatics who want to kill us.  Terrorists who follow Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda movement want to kill us because they disagree with American and Western society's freedoms of speech, religion and how women are treated with respect.  

I'm wondering if drone warfare might effectively bring an end to terrorism, if we keep it going?

What little I know about warfare tells me that, when the drone critics, in Pakistan, provide harbor for the enemies we're fighting in the War on Terror, then the "drone warfare" is working. Maybe, we need more, rather than fewer, drones to finish this war.  

Although I have enormous respect for NBC news reporter Richard Engel, his apparent criticism of drone warfare, in my opinion, is misplaced.  Rather than count  how many armed militants are killed by drone attacks, Engel might consider how many civilian lives are potentially saved, when drones strategically target and kill those who want to kill Americans.  

Americans invest enormous resources to win wars.  Not winning is more costly than winning.  "If you are going to go through hell, keep going."

Let's count the casualties in the three years of the Korean Conflict.   Data from the US Department of Defense reports 33,686 battle deaths, along with 2,830 non-battle deaths during the Korean War and 8,176 missing in action. South Korea reported some 373,599 civilian and 137,899 military deaths.  

Of course, drone warfare was unheard of in the 1950s, but after loosing so many lives, it seems to me the huge numbers of deaths were not worth the peace.  Drones, had they existed, would likely have accomplished more than all the reported deaths. General Douglas MacArthur was fired over his conflict with President Truman about how win the Korean War.  Instead of winning in Korea, an unacceptable truce was declared. Since then, millions of North Koreans have suffered human rights indignities, tyranny and starvation because of our reluctance to win the "Korean War".  

Operation Desert Storm, or the Gulf War, is another example of the cost of not winning a war.  During the successful campaign of 1990-91, the Middle East war expert, General Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. recommended finishing the war by attacking Baghdad, in Iraq.  Instead, President George H. Walker Bush disagreed.  Therefore, Americans didn't finish this war and now Iraq continues to be a nation in strife as a result of a subsequent American led invasion, begun on March 20, 2003, to capture and kill the dictator, Saddam Hussein. 

Americans cannot be paying, with lives, and money, for a war on terrorism and then not win.  

Sir Winston said, "The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see."

Let's finish the war on terror, begun on September 11, 2001, when America was attacked by terrorists who continue their pursuit to kill all who disagree with their fanaticism.  If drones are winning this war, then we must support their continued use.  

I'm not educated about warfare, but I can read quotes and understand what history taught us about the cost of loosing wars.  

My Egyptian Zen Prophesy - Elections and Governing

http://oneturkeyrun.blogspot.com/2011/02/egyptian-zen.html

My February 2011 blog (link above) titled Egyptian Zen, prophesied the political anxiety stirred by the outcome of Egyptian elections held over the past weekend. Obviously, I'm not a reporter of prophesy, but I didn't have to be either one to make my prediction.

In other words, the Egyptian Spring's election may have bought on an unexpected frost.  Rather than electing someone who Westerners might consider to be politically secular, the people picked, instead, a conservative religious leader.

Journalist Richard Engel reports the Conservative Muslim Mohammed Morsi is the new Egyptian president, the first one ever elected by this country where the roots of modern civilization began with the rise the Pharaohs.http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/24/12379018-mohammed-morsi-egypts-next-president-protesters-bloodshed-will-not-be-in-vain?lite

"Morsi becomes Egypt’s fifth president, following Mubarak, who was president for nearly 30 years before mass protests across the country forced him to resign in February 2011."


Although Egyptians demonstrated their collective genius by building extraordinary architectural and social systems, they are only now understanding the risks and benefits of living under a popularly elected democracy. As in any democratic process, the governing is more challenging than politics. As I wrote in February 2011, "Egyptian Zen", we'll see if the democratic process really works in a country where benevolent, powerful pharaohs have been the cultural, as well as political leaders. By a margin of about 51.7 percent, the Egyptians seem to have elected their image of the Biblical Moses to lead them into democracy. Whether or not this metaphor works to bring the people out of the dessert and into the light of freedom still remains to be seen. 

Will Mohammed Morsi deliver on his acceptance speech promise to be the President of all the people, including the 48 percent who didn't vote for him?

In Egyptian Zen, the answer is "we'll see".