Eat your heart out Michael Savage.

Michael Savage is a radio host. Michael Savage isn’t sane. One of his favorite topics is how the marine from Hamdaniya were being prosecuted for doing their job too well. Now that just anal but what he means is that even if they killed the Iraqis it wasn’t so bad because they were from the Sunni Triangle. Now the odds that they are terrorist sympathizers is reasonably high, but that it isn’t a capital crime. Far more important is the damage the crime does, if it happened, to the U.S. efforts. Michael Savage put 2 and 2 together and got 5. He knew that they were accused by Iraqis and that they were arrested. Therefore he assumed that the military indicted them solely based on the accusations. When you combine this with Newsweek breaking the story and Murtha convicting the soldiers in his mind you get a crusade made for ratings gold.

Savage, who believes that we should bomb the entire Sunni Triangle out of existence after getting everyone out, (how moderate) routinely had on attorneys and parents of these soldiers on. Throughout the interviews he would never consider these people biased at all. Not only would he interrupt the guests observations with calls for the soldiers’ releases he would frequently call for the prosecuters to be fired and court-martialed.

Now we have information, although from an unrealiable source, that two of these have confessed. Now the defense for the others are claiming that the confessions were coerced, but the defendants claimed to have confessed aren’t denying it. This leads me to believe that they really are guilty.

O fcourse my disdain for Michael Savage could have something to do with my opinion also. Savage is a chameleon who is either crazy or a really good actor. His positions are the standard Buchananite ones for the domestic front and economics while he is a solid Pattonite in foreign affairs. His anger is what makes me suspect him of being a fraud so much. It doesn’t seem possible that one person can get so angry at illegals, Bush, liberals who attack Bush, gays, people who talk to him at restauraunts, and virtually every other group out there. Such a person would either be commited for high blood pressure or violent behavior.

Webloggin  takes Michael Savage’s position and attacks the media for reporting on the story. Now the media is irresponsibly reporting on this story as being part of a trend, but I think that it is important to know and have some level of public awareness for military abuses. Having no coverage would, in my opinion, be worse than biased coverage because we have to let the Iraqis know that we will fairly deal with any claims against them. Also the fact is that the military isn’t leaking allt he details of their case while the defense is. Given that the soldiers confessed leads me to believe that the military has reasonably convincing evidence even if they coerced the confessions. If you support the military at least show some confidence that it isn’t evil enough to fabricate a case on no evidence. They might be innocent but it’s looking less and less likely.

2 Responses to Eat your heart out Michael Savage.

  1. Webloggin says:

    Thanks for the link back to our blog but you couldn’t be more off base. I can’t speak for Bookworm who wrote the article but I can speak to the facts.

    First and foremost you compare what Bookworm wrote to what Michael Savage has been saying. Specifically you state:

    Webloggin takes Michael Savage’s position and attacks the media for reporting on the story.

    Had you bothered to read the whole Webloggin article you would see that it is more about what the press doesn’t cover. However, Bookworm’s article parallels a small part of what you are saying. Specifically when she says, “I’ll concede, though, that the story out of Hamdaniya is news, even though I’ll also argue that American newspapers would not be impairing their ethics if they chose not to cover it.”

    Hence Bookworm is not asking the press or even taking them to task for specifically covering the incident. Rather she is pointing out that the press overwhelmingly concentrates on any bad incident that occurs while ignoring many positive events that U.S. military may be accomplishing.

    She also covers how this may serve to hurt morale as well as the war effort. You don’t have to agree with the war in Iraq to explore these statements.

    This painting with a broad brush approach has been done many times throughout history as well as in recent events. There are numerous examples of the press taking on a story that turns out to be propaganda yet they seldom return to set the record straight. Damage done. Yes, it happens on both the left and the right.

    The problem when it happens to the U.S. military personnel is amplified in the minds of those who respect the soldiers for putting their lives on the line to protect us back at home. I think they minimally deserve the very basic American right of innocent until proven guilty.

    The press often take the opposite approach due to bias, the need to sell papers (if it bleeds it leads) and political or ideological agenda. There is often an underlying presumption of guilt until proven innocent. This is not really a service unless you subscribe to the agenda. It certainly wasn’t for people who have been exonerated after the fact such as Ilario Pantano.

    You state that it is important to cover these incidents; sort of like a check on the military. For that reason alone you should be able to understand that it is equally important to put that same check on the press; especially those in the MSM who have an international stage from which to preach. Bookworm is doing this in her article.

    Comparing Bookworm’s article to Michael Savage is intended to be an ad hominem attack and I understand the need to bolster your argument. Unfortunately Bookworm’s article is not the example you seek.

  2. mike529 says:

    My comparison of him to Savage was not meant to be ad hominem my reference was to his statement about the evidence in the case:
    At the heart of the case is a body so badly decomposed nothing can be discovered from it. It yields no clues. On one side of the body are Marines who confessed to a murder, but now claim that their confessions resulted from coercion. On the other side are claims from some Iraqis that these Marines seized this Iraqi man, killed him brutally, and tried to cover it up. The Iraqis refuse to give their statements in court. From a legal point of view, with no physical evidence, no witnesses, and confessions that may be the result of coercion, it’s not much of a case.
    My major arguement was with the presumption that the only evidence was the accusation of the soldiers which is what I meant by the comparison. I should have made that clearer.

    Specifically when she says, “I’ll concede, though, that the story out of Hamdaniya is news, even though I’ll also argue that American newspapers would not be impairing their ethics if they chose not to cover it.”
    I didn’t see this quote in the post at all. In fact the contrast to the World War 2 press was pretty clearly saying something different. For example, I think covering the Abu Ghrai story was necessary. Having it on the front page for three months was clearly overkill. The point of the post wasn’t to defend the media just to defend the coverage. What was done with the stories was bad because they presumed guilt. But having them covered is not evidence of the decline of the press only how they cover it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: