Lt. General Sanchez Slams Media's Iraq Coverage on FNC

By Brad Wilmouth | May 21, 2008 - 19:45 ET

Monday's The O'Reilly Factor, guest hosted by Laura Ingraham, showed a pre-recorded interview between FNC host Bill O'Reilly and Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, former Commander of Coalition Forces in Iraq and author of Wiser in Battle: A Soldier's Story. During the interview, Sanchez conveyed his disapproval at the mainstream media's coverage of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal. When O'Reilly contended that the "New York Times and the liberal media" "went wild over Abu Ghraib" to "humiliate the Bush administration," Sanchez agreed: "To a large extent, you're absolutely right, because that is reflected in some of the questioning and some, obviously, in the press reports that occurred ... I believe that, in fact, we create the strategic defeat for America to a large extent by the way that we cover it in the press." (Transcript follows)

He further charged that the press "loses its objectivity when it begins to address the issues of Abu Ghraib and the emotion that is drawn out by those photographs. We lose, we lose and abandon the journalistic oath of fair and objective."

As previously reported by NewsBusters, when Sanchez in October 2007 gave a speech in which he criticized Bush administration leadership but also found fault with news coverage of Iraq, the mainstream media ignored his criticism of the media while playing up his criticism of the administration.

Sanchez also insisted that under his command, the military "aggressively investigated" allegations of misconduct by U.S. troops. He also tried to put into perspective that such "mistakes" occur in every war. Sanchez: "One of the key things is that we have always made mistakes during wartime. And, in this war, it was no different. ... Whenever an abuse is identified, we very aggressively investigate it, and we actually court-martial soldiers and convict them and send them to prison." And he contended that the U.S. military in Iraq is "in compliance with the Geneva Convention."

The former commander also expressed his view that a "precipitous" withdrawal of troops would "put the entire region at risk." Sanchez: "Pulling out of there unilaterally and precipitously will, in fact, create a significant national vulnerability and probably will put the entire region at risk. I don't believe that we can afford to do that. I believe we have a responsibility, having gone into that country and changed that regime."

Below is a complete transcript of the interview as it aired on the Monday, May 19 The O'Reilly Factor on FNC:

LAURA INGRAHAM: And in the "Personal Story" segment tonight, war stories. The former commander of the Coalition Forces in Iraq says the liberal media hyped up the Abu Ghraib controversy to destroy American credibility. Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez has a new book out called Wiser in Battle: A Soldier's Story. He recently sat down with Bill.

BILL O'REILLY: General, when you saw the press in America go wild over Abu Ghraib – 50 front-page stories in the New York Times alone -- and you're over there in Iraq commanding forces, what was going through your mind?

LIEUTENANT GENERAL RICARDO SANCHEZ, FORMER COMMANDER OF COALITION FORCES IN IRAQ: Well, Bill, one of the key things is that we have always made mistakes during wartime. And, in this war, it was no different. We actually have mistakes that are made. Abuses do occur. But investigations are being conducted from the very first day we launch our offensive operations into Iraq. There are multiple investigations -- tens, twenties, probably 100 investigations that we conduct over the course of the time that I am in command. Whenever an abuse is identified, we very aggressively investigate it, and we actually court-martial soldiers and convict them and send them to prison.

O'REILLY: But it wasn't good enough for the press, was it?

SANCHEZ: No. Because what happens is we get totally mesmerized by the photos. And the press, in fact, loses its objectivity when it begins to address the issues of Abu Ghraib and the emotion that is drawn out by those photographs. We lose, we lose and abandon the journalistic oath of fair and objective.

O'REILLY: But that's been abandoned a long time ago, General. With all due respect, I mean, we're not living in a country that has an honest press anymore. There are two things in play here. There was, number one, the folks were shocked. The regular folks were shocked by the pictures and that our soldiers could be this brutal toward these Iraqis, bad guys or not. The second thing was that the New York Times and the left-wing media used Abu Ghraib to humiliate the Bush administration.

SANCHEZ: Absolutely.

O'REILLY: To say, "See, the Bush administration is out of control, can't control it. Their callousness has filtered down, and it's Bush's fault." That's what it was.

SANCHEZ: Well, to a large extent, you're absolutely right, because that is reflected in some of the questioning and some, obviously, in the press reports that occurred during that period of time. I believe that, in fact, we create the strategic defeat for America to a large extent by the way that we cover it in the press. Now, I'm not trying to demean whatsoever or walk away from the fact that some abuses do occur. But America is America. And we are very aggressive at addressing these and ensuring that we put the mechanisms into place to prevent them.

O'REILLY: But still to this day they're saying, "Sanchez and Karpinski, they knew about it. And it was their, you know, they made it happen. They covered it up." You hear that all the time, do you not?

SANCHEZ: Absolutely. Absolutely.

O'REILLY: So how do you react to that?

SANCHEZ: Well, you know, there's no way that I can defend myself against that, that extreme element. And what I try to do is just present the facts. The facts are that we were being very aggressive. We were investigating. We were holding our troops accountable. We were being pretty aggressive in implementing those safeguards and oversight mechanisms. And we are in Iraq, in fact, in compliance with the Geneva Convention.

O'REILLY: Last question for you: Most Americans have had it with Iraq. They've had it. You can understand that.

SANCHEZ: Right.

O'REILLY: I've had it with Iraq. But I understand the strategic importance vis-a-vis Iran. But two out of the three presidential candidates basically are going to take our people out of there, so they say. Is that a disaster, in your way of thinking?

SANCHEZ: Pulling out of there unilaterally and precipitously will, in fact, create a significant national vulnerability and probably will put the entire region at risk. I don't believe that we can afford to do that. I believe we have a responsibility, having gone into that country and changed that regime.

O'REILLY: But how much pain do we have to absorb? How much blood and treasure do we have to spend when the GAO says the Iraqi government is corrupt, and they're stealing billions from us?

SANCHEZ: Well, I think we have to hold the Iraqi government accountable and begin, and force them to begin to take on some of those fiscal responsibilities and begin to pay for some of these initiatives.

O'REILLY: So you do believe the Iraqis should pay for some of these?

SANCHEZ: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. They should have started paying for it a long time ago.

O'REILLY: General, we appreciate you coming on in here. The book, again, is Wiser in Battle: A Soldier's Story. Thanks, General.

SANCHEZ: Thank you, sir.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Stories like this will NEVER

make it in the fantasy press due to the fact it doesn't fit the agenda. Add to that, if there is any truth, then the fantasy figures of the "modern school of journalism" have no clue what to do with the facts. To quote an ole timer - "what we have here, is a failure to commnicate!"

There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V

Not just

Abu Ghraib....every single day our military men and women are having success, after success in Iraq and Afgahnistan. In the MSM there is a complete, total, purposeful blackout of all US military accomplishments in the war on terror. This is total propaganda for the enemy, conducted by american"journalists", and our own democrat (and some Republicans) elected officials, an act of treason in any other era. And those politicians that do support the war on terror, and our troops....too many of them avoid the questions about their support or dance around the questions, instead of saying "DAMN RIGHT I SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!!" 'I SUPPORT THE WAR ON TERROR TOO!!" and repeat it every opportunitiy that you can....the left takes lies and repeat them over and over and over again and succeed at convincing people of lies. "A lie told often enough is believed, how much more the truth." it says in the Bible...I wish our side would do a better job of telling the truth. The truth of our servicemens and womens service is, INSPIRING, it is PRAISEWORTHY, it is HONORABLE!! It makes me feel so unworthy of theyre sacrifices.

A tough subject

I have sympathy for the general here.  Abu Ghraib probably cost him his job.  I'd be unhappy about the situation, too.  But, I don't know if I agree with everything he brings up.

 in this war, it was no different. We actually have mistakes that are made. Abuses do occur.

And with today's technology and 24/7 media, we will hear about them more often than in wars past.  No getting around it.  You could liken it to the Clinton affair.  The media used to cover for Kennedy's affairs.  Now, it's the headlines.

the press, in fact, loses its objectivity when it begins to address the issues of Abu Ghraib

This is an opinion the General is entitled to.  But, I'd imagine any coverage of that scandal would be subjective in his mind because he was one of the people held accountable for it.  Unfairly, I'd say.  But, because he was the one in command, that's the way it goes.

 we lose and abandon the journalistic oath of fair and objective.

The coverage of Abu Ghraib was of an atrocious, despicable act.  A digusting manner in which a VERY SMALL number of our fighting men and women treated the enemy.

But, isn't that exactly what it was?  In which case, how could the coverage have been unfair?

I'm interested in opinions.

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000

Curator: You must be

Curator:

You must be kidding.

The coverage of Abu Ghraib was of an atrocious, despicable act.  A digusting manner in which a VERY SMALL number of our fighting men and women treated the enemy.

But, isn't that exactly what it was?  In which case, how could the coverage have been unfair?

The New York Imes led with at last count that I am aware of, 48 CONSECUTIVE cover stories regarding an event in which a Svengali named Charles Grainer led half a dozen of his followers to do such antics such as place womens underwear on detainees heads, photograph naked detainees, and encourage his female followers to perform lewd acts in front of detainees.

All actions bad enough, BUT 48 CONSECUTIVE Front Page stories?

WEre there no firefights during that period worthy of better coverage (Answer YES, many).

Hell we cannot even get the New York Times to run a story in its pages of the fact that the Defense Department has announced on 25 April 2008 that SPC Ross McGinnis will be awarded the Medal of Honor Posthumously in a White House Ceremony.

Interesting isn't it Curator, Ross McGinnis has had ZERO coverage on the NYT and LAT since 25 April, but I betcha Abu Ghraib has made a reappearance since then.

Why is this?  Not a newsworthy story?  Hell no.

Not a good story? Hell no, not if you ask people familiar with it.

Local appeal?  Hell no.

The only answer is lack of desire by the MSM (Especially types like Pinch Sulzberger) to show a heroic story that in the 1940's would have graced every paper in America within hours of the announcement.

Now your turn, give me a reason why in the past month the story has disappeared?

Don't know for sure...

 The New York Imes led with at last count that I am aware of, 48 CONSECUTIVE cover stories

I don't read the NYT every day... so, I'm not sure about how many consecutive cover stories they had.  But, I know there were many.

Without knowing how many, I'm tempted to say they were legitimate.  It was an appauling story which angered a lot of people.

As for Mr. McGinnis, I couldn't agree with you more.

Media in general has done a very poor job of recognizing the individual accomplishments and accolades of our fighting men and women.

 

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000

Without knowing how many,

Without knowing how many, I'm tempted to say they were legitimate. 

Sure, it was a useful story, but did all of those stories require front page coverage?  Some of the stories simply amplified items of informaotin that had already been discussed the day before.  Few of them actually added something new to the narrative on Abu Ghraib and furhtered the story.

Face it, call a spade a spade, the NYT did the stories because of personal motivations of the ditorial staff and ownership.

At the same time, other NEW stories have NEVER appeared.  Why is that? Simply because the NYT eidtorial staff does not wish that news to be printed.  As my old Journo Dean used to say, "They are the ultimate Information gatekeepers from hell."

Media in general has done a very poor job of recognizing the individual accomplishments and accolades of our fighting men and women.

That is not the only thing, the only information the Press has disseminated so far is information that they know will make the US effort look bad. It is the preferred narrative and it is what gets printed/shown.

I just heard today that the Iraqi Peroleum industry is now setting records for pumping and delivering Iraqi Crude.  That this occurs within five years of our invasion is a marvelous story since their infrastructure was TORCHED prior to our invasion.  Did that make the cover of the NYT?  We have record gas prices, but a good news story such as that doe snot make the paper?

They do not WISH the story to be told.

 

 did all of those stories

 did all of those stories require front page coverage?

I honestly don't know.  But, I respect your belief that they didn't.

the Iraqi Peroleum industry is now setting records for pumping and delivering Iraqi Crude. ... Did that make the cover of the NYT?

Speaking as a journlist now, it's hard to legitimize a story about something good going on in the petroleum industry when the average consumer is seeing no benefit. 

Let's say prices go down next week... then, media can start asking questions like "Why is it dipping?"  One answer may be the Iraqi Petroluem records.  But, right now, the story is how America is hurting because of the gas prices.  If it goes down... then you examine why and can explore the Iraq Petroleum.

Its J-school 101... report on what affects your customer (viewer, reader)

They do not WISH the story to be told.

I respect your opinion.  But, in all my years, I've never met one reporter who wished a story was not told for any reason.

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000

Speaking as a journlist

Speaking as a journlist now, it's hard to legitimize a story about something good going on in the petroleum industry when the average consumer is seeing no benefit. 

So stories are only carried on those items that self reinforce?  nonsense.  Truth is truth.  This story SHOULD be covered, but it goes against the desired outcome and thus is not covered.

My Old Dean would be having a hissyfit.

Let's say prices go down next week... then, media can start asking questions like "Why is it dipping?" 

Nothing like predictive analysis, right?  THis is so sad.  They have the answers now, but do not wish to see them in black and white.

Its J-school 101... report on what affects your customer (viewer, reader)

Or what you want the reader to believe.

I respect your opinion.  But, in all my years, I've never met one reporter who wished a story was not told for any reason.

Then start asking around the newsroom about SPC Ross McGinnis.  You will undoubtedly get blank stares.  They will not even know who he is.  Why, because the announcement was NOT COVERED by the NYT on purpose.

I think you misunderstand me...

 So stories are only carried on those items that self reinforce? 

I'm not sure what you mean about 'self-reinforce,'... but, the reason the story isn't as big as the gas prices is because it hasn't had an impact yet.  Sure it deserves to be covered and sure, it's timely... and I'm sure its been covered somewhere (how'd you hear about it?).  But, what's affecting people now are the gas prices.  That's your story.

Nothing like predictive analysis, right?  THis is so sad.  They have the answers now, but do not wish to see them in black and white.

I'm honestly confused by what you're trying to say.  What answers?  To what questions?  I don't know where you're going here.

Its J-school 101... report on what affects your customer (viewer, reader)

Or what you want the reader to believe.

This is obviously your opinion and/or cynicism (sp).  I'm beginning to think that any story you don't agree with, you automatically believe to be biased.

the announcement was NOT COVERED by the NYT on purpose.

As much as you're entitled to your opinion, I don't think there's anyway for you to prove the intent of the NYT.

"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000

Nothing like predictive

Nothing like predictive analysis, right?  THis is so sad.  They have the answers now, but do not wish to see them in black and white.

I'm honestly confused by what you're trying to say.  What answers?  To what questions?  I don't know where you're going here.

Lets try some predictive analysis then.

If you do not allow domestic production of motor fuels through legislation, and rely on a very efficient world wide market for said fuels - Lets do a prediction - What will happen when other countries begin bidding for the same foreign oil stocks we used to previously purchase.  Supply does down and PRICE GOES UP!  Gee, we knew that ten years ago but the press is stunned and searching for answers like "EXON is soaking us".

Want another?  If it is impossible to gain increased refining capability due to Ecological conserns.  The supply of avaialable motor fuels will a. Go Down, or b. Go up.

If a., then the price goes UP.

We could do this all day long, but the press is still not capable of doing this predictive analysis. 

This is obviously your opinion and/or cynicism (sp).  I'm beginning to think that any story you don't agree with, you automatically believe to be biased.

I cite you repeated examples, yet you do not WISH to see it.  Just like the press does not WISH to see the stories I have mentioned in print or on the screen.  It IS that simple.

As much as you're entitled to your opinion, I don't think there's anyway for you to prove the intent of the NYT.

Okay, lets take the three recent examples.  Did the NYT Cover the nominaiton and announcement of the award of the MOH to SFC Paul Ray Smith, the first posthumous Awardee in the GWOT priro to the ceremony?  NOpe.

Did the NYT cover the nominationand Announcement of the award of the MOH to the second recipient who was the first Marine to be awarded since Vietnam prior to the ceremeony?  Nope.  And when they did they did a sappy story about the presidnet crying at the ceremony.

Now we have SPC Ross McGinnis.  No coverage. Self explanatory

Predictive analysis----Wanna lay a bet on the 4th, 5th, & 6th Awardee?

More predictive analysis?  But I BET they will cover the day Charles Grainer is released from Leavenworth....   Bet they even have a Perp-walk picture.

There is none so blind as they who do not desire to see.

First off -  why are we

First off -  why are we hearing from a LTG that has been retired for several years?  Hey, I know.  He is on book tour!

What does his book say?  It indicts the "administration" for deriliction of duty.  Of course, it doesn't dawn on the good general that being 4th in the chain of command from the President when he was the commanding general of coalition forces in Iraq that he wasn't part of the administration.

When LTG Sanchez criticizes almost everyone above him, he fails to criticize himself when the insurgency took root on his watch from 2003 - 2004.

LTG Sanchez fails to criticize himself, but has plenty of invective for his boss, Paul Bremer who he would barely talk to.  I guess chain of command only worked from the top down and not from the bottom up when he was the commanding general. 

LTG Sanchez wants us to remember those rascally media boyz when it come to Abu Gharib, but one must ask why?  The reason is that LTG Sanchez wanted and thought he deserved to be General Sanchez.  When that didn't happen, he thought he would be handed one of the many high ranking civilian jobs that go mostly nameless in Washington, but that didn't work out either. 

Too bad Sanchez, your a loser and a bitter one at that.  Maybe you ought to be thankful that you were chosen to lead the greatest bunch of fighting men and women the world has ever seen.  Maybe you ought to be humble that you were given that privilege.  Instead, Sanchez' is still whining. 

Sanchez, you could have praised the men and women that you lead and stood up and saluting them on the BOR show like they saluted you your entire military career.  Instead, it was all about you . . .

 

The biggest mistake in Iraq

was to let the press MSM tag along.  Not only do our soldiers have to worry about staying alive, they also have to worry about some liberal pencil neck reporter portraying them as monsters.

We should only use the military to kill and destroy.  How they do that is up to them.  

What the msm intentionally

What the msm intentionally did with Abu Greibe is and always will be unforgivable...the enemy within at work was despicable...day after day after day...all for an agenda, called defeat, defeat of our Pres. getting reelected at any cost...including some of the Iraqis and our military. 

I saw this interview...I thank Lt. Gen. Sanchez....I thank our military.

Btw...I do get sick of BOR too and his self-righteous know it all opinions..but that's just me.

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill