Given that, it seems highly ironic that the journalists covering the story attempted to cover up the acidic, biting, and mostly accurate criticisms of their own performance in this war while giving front-page treatment to Sanchez' criticisms of the political structure at the same time. If Sanchez has such credibility and standing to bring this kind of criticism to bear on Washington, why didn't the Post and other news agencies give the same level of exposure to his media criticisms as well? He basically accuses them of cynically selling out the soldiers to defeat American efforts to win the war, and made sure that those accusations came first before his assessment of the political failures, but you'd never know that from the Post.
The Post then goes on to obfuscate a key part of the second half of Sanchez' speech. While he criticizes the Bush administration in sharp terms, Sanchez blames the Democrats in equal measure. He calls out partisans on all sides for exploiting the war for their own political benefit rather than the good of the nation, and blames the lack of range for strategic options on the
corrosive debate that has hamstrung the range of choices.
Please read the whole thing because one piece doesn't do it justice. I would also like to acknowledge the acknowledgement by Morning Coffee as they listed me, Proprietor Nation, as their allies in covering this story.
Finally, I like to lead by example. I believe the only way to stop this perpetual media bias is to meet each and every one head on. I have already pointed out several pieces of media bias. It isn't enough to merely point it out. You must also make your voices heard. In my last piece on this I called for everyone to write the ombudsman of the Washington Post. Well, I decided to go first. Here is my email.
LTG (Ret) Rick Sanchez gave a speech and for the first 60% he made a scathing indictment of the media. For instance this is his description of the media's description of him,If you want to reach the post ombudsman yourself please go here
""LET ME REVIEW SOME OF THE DESCRIPTIVE PHRASES THAT HAVE BEEN USED BY SOMEOF YOU THAT HAVE MADE MY PERSONAL INTERFACES WITH THE PRESS CORPS DIFFICULT: "DICTATORIAL AND SOMEWHAT DENSE","NOT A STRATEGIC THOUGHT", LIAR, "DOES NOT GET IT"AND THE MOST INEXPERIENCED LTG.IN SOME CASES I HAVE NEVER EVEN MET YOU, YET YOU FEEL QUALIFIED TO MAKECHARACTER JUDGMENTS THAT ARE COMMUNICATED TO THE WORLD.""
He spent another 20% of the speech with a scathing rebuke of politicians in general and the corrossive environment that Washington creates for the war effort. For instance, here is
the scathing indictment Beltway politicians,
THERE HAS BEEN A GLARING, UNFORTUNATE, DISPLAY OF INCOMPETENT STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP WITHIN OUR NATIONAL LEADERS. AS A JAPANESE PROVERB SAYS, “ACTION WITHOUT VISION IS A NIGHTMARE.” THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT AMERICA IS LIVING ANIGHTMARE WITH NO END IN SIGHT.SINCE 2003, THE POLITICS OF WAR HAVE BEEN CHARACTERIZED BY PARTISANSHIP AS THE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC PARTIES STRUGGLED FOR POWER IN WASHINGTON. NATIONAL EFFORTS TO DATE HAVE BEEN CORRUPTED BY PARTISAN POLITICS THAT HAVE PREVENTED US FROM DEVISING EFFECTIVE, EXECUTABLE, SUPPORTABLE SOLUTIONS. AT TIMES, THESE PARTISAN STRUGGLES HAVE LED TO POLITICAL DECISIONS THAT ENDANGERED THE LIVES OF OUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS ON THE BATTLEFIELD. THE UNMISTAKABLE MESSAGE WAS THAT POLITICAL POWER HAD GREATER PRIORITY THAN OUR NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES. OVERCOMING THIS STRATEGIC FAILURE IS THE FIRST STEP TOWARD ACHIEVING VICTORY IN IRAQ - WITHOUT BIPARTISAN COOPERATION WE ARE DOOMED TO FAIL."
The last twenty percent was spent with a scathing indictment on the Bush Administration specifically. It seems your paper was asleep or just didn't notice the first 80% of the speech because the only part that you, and the echo chamber we call the Mainstream Media, noticed was the part where your nemesis George Bush got criticized. Every headline and every story talked only of the mistakes made by the Bush administration, and not the mistakes made by you the media and the whole Washington culture in general.
Furthermore, Sanchez said something else that no one in the Main Stream Media covered.
"'America has no choice but to continue our efforts in Iraq. A precipitous withdrawal will unquestionably lead to chaos that would endanger the stability of the greater Middle East. If this
occurs it would have significant adverse effects on the international community. Coalition and American force presence will be required at some level for the foreseeable future. Given the lack of a grand strategy we must move rapidly to minimize that force presence and allow the Iraqis maximum ability to exercise their soveriegnty in achieving a solution.""
A couple of weeks ago, your newspaper published four stories related to Iraq on the same day. Three of them received front page coverage. They included a continuing piece on IED's in Iraq, a piece on Blackwater, a poll negative to the war, and finally a story that showed that casualties were down across the board last month. The three negative stories enjoyed front page coverage while the positive one was buried on page 14. Do you think that no one will notice your continued and consistent bias. Is this what passes for journalism at the Post these days?
Are you reporting the news or trying to influence it? I also notice that yesterday in Baghdad only four people died throughout the entire nation. That is the lowest total in a very long time. I didn't see that story in your newspaper. If you covered it, you probably buried it along with every other positive story you cover.
If you ever wonder why your circulation continues to dwindle, stop. The reason is because we
are all onto your bias. If you think ideology is more important than circulation, then keep this up. Soon, no one will be reading the paper though.