When I was a military journalist, we were trained to crank out this sort of thing as SOP. The chaplain would organize six guys to go paint a flyblown clinic in the Philippines, and we’d blow the story up into a major SeaBee construction project, so that the wives back home wouldn think their husbands weren’t spending their off-duty time getting peso-notes plucked from their teeth by the labia of Filippina bar girls. If the first casualty of war is truth, we were the killer elite.
What really amazes me is that the civillian press ran these letters without any investigation. We were required to submitt all our blatant PR to the San Diego papers, with the understanding that they’d toss the envelopes away unopened.
You forgot to mention that some people didn’t know they’d signed. And that these letters were each specifically sent to the hometown newspaper of each signatory. And, presumably, so were the letters that had possibly fraudulent signatures.
Now, I’ll easily agree that this was merely the work of a low-level employee/officer. But you in turn will have to agree that the rank stench of overt political capitalization is heavy here.
“Political capitalization” to do what? To improve GOP image by sending A-OK letter to seven local papers from one of their own boys in Iraq? One of those seven letters simply forged? You really think GOP is that desperate right now? Any wannabe political operative must have known better.
“Political capitalization” to do what? To improve GOP image by sending A-OK letter to seven local papers from one of their own boys in Iraq? One of those seven letters simply forged? You really think GOP is that desperate right now? Any wannabe political operative must have known better.
Its called ad hominem, Isk. No, it has nothing to do with sexual orientation. It means being incapable of attacking the substance of an argument, and therefore attacking the presenter of said argument, in the hope of undermining its credibility.
Call it all you like, Lucy. I ventured a guess as to your reaction to the same crude bungle, with political message reversed. Just say, am I right or wrong?
Bonus question: If it was President Gore who invaded Iraq, would you care about lies he were to use, as you do now? Yes or No, please.
I am not trying to single you out. I know for a fact that many prominent GOPers would be screaming bloody murder, if Iraq was invaded under Gore. I remember well how horrified they were by martial Clinton during Bosnia campaign.
It’s a dumb question, Isk. Whether I am a rabid partisan seeking nothing more than to undermine Our Leader and his noble crusade or interested in nothing more than Truth and Justice has no bearing on the facts. They are what they are.
I believe if Al Gore were in identical circumstances, my anger would be the same. I further believe that to be ridiculous, that he would not have done so. Since we are arguing now in the vacuum of the theoretical, that becomes silly in a hurry.
I can readily accept the proposition that none of this was directed from on high, since mid-level officers are so well known for thier independence of thought and action. The more important question is “why?”. Why is there a need for such action? You are pretty much compelled to the notion that whoever provoked this inanity did so because of a perception that there was a dearth of positive letters “from the front” being published in the local newspapers back home.
Perhaps it is because our troops on the ground are feeling, by and large, truly splendid as regards thier sacrifices for GeeDubya’s noble cause, but the message is being stifled by dat ol’ Debbil Liberal Media. Maybe thats it. Is that the case you wish to suggest?
“A broad survey of U.S. troops in Iraq by a Pentagon-funded newspaper found that half of those questioned described their unit’s morale as low and their training as insufficient, and said they do not plan to reenlist…”
When this story first broke, the news said that having the same letter signed by a number of soldiers and sent to several newspapers for the purpose of influencing public opinion is against the law. I assume that this is military law rather than civilian.
It coincides with another PR campaign designed to get the “good news” out about Iraq.
Amnesty International does not send out duplicate letters to the press for publication under Letters to the Editor. That would be an attempt to fool the public. AI’s letters go to government leaders and are not intended to fool anyone, but to let the leaders know the strength of opinion.
I didn’t seek theoretical argument, Luci. I asked you a hypothetical question and You told me what You believe, and this is all I wanted to know. Thank you.
There is nothing wrong with a letter-writing campaign, if that is what this was. But it wasn’t. It was a press release disguised as a personal letter, and that is despicable no matter who instigated it.
I don’t know how much investigation most papers do before they print “letters to the editor,” but in my relatively small community the paper actually calls and confirms that the letter you sent was your opinion. I suppose the logistics of reaching a particular soldier at the front may make that difficult, but I’d bet the local paper here would contact the sender’s parents at the very least.
If there is a paucity of praise coming from the front, I should think that families of troops could share letters they receive from their loved ones. If they don’t, it may suggest that the letters they are receiving are less than lauditory.
