Of the broadcast network evening newscast stories Tuesday night on the House debate over the non-binding resolution that “disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush...to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq,” only ABC’s Jake Tapper included the views of soldiers in Iraq. Tapper's report on World News featured soundbites from two Army Sergeants in Ramadi, and both condemned the resolution. First Sergeant Louis Barnum declared: “It makes me sick. I was born and raised a Democrat, but when I see that it just kind of makes me sad.” Sergeant Brian Orzechoski went even further: “I don't want to bad-mouth the President at all. I mean, to me it's treason.”
Video clip (30 seconds): Real (1 MB) or Windows Media (1.1 MB), plus MP3 (200 KB) Audio is over-modulated, but that's how it aired on ABC's DC station.
Earlier in the story, Tapper ran clips from those for and against it as he highlighted how Maryland Republican Wayne Gilchrest is in favor, before noting that “most Republicans criticized the non-binding resolution as worthless.”
One of the anti-resolution soundbites came from Republican Congressman Jack Kingston of Georgia on the House floor:
“If the troops in Baghdad watched what Congress was doing today, they would be outraged. Fortunately for us and the free world, they don't sit around and watch C-SPAN and what silly politicians do.”Jake Tapper took up the challenge: “ABC News asked these Army Sergeants in Ramadi what they thought of the resolution.”
Army First Sergeant Louis Barnum: “It makes me sick. I was born and raised a Democrat, but when I see that it just kind of makes me sad.”
Sergeant Brian Orzechoski: “I don’t want to bad-mouth the President at all. I mean, to me it’s treason.”
Tapper concluded his story: “It is a very simple resolution, Charlie. It basically just says that the Congress supports the troops but opposes the President's plan. It is not binding, it does not cut off any funding for the troops. But simple or not, Charlie, the debate, as you heard, was passionate.”
In highlighting anti-war effort remarks from soldiers in Iraq, ABC and Tapper echoed how the January 26 NBC Nightly News gave rare voice to soldiers in Iraq disturbed by criticism of the war back home. My NewsBusters item recounted (with video):
Embedded with the Army's Stryker Brigade's Apache Company (the Fort Lewis, Washington-based 1st Battalion of the 23rd Infantry Regiment in Hurriya, Richard Engel relayed how “troops here say they are increasingly frustrated by American criticism of the war. Many take it personally, believing it is also criticism of what they've been fighting for. Twenty-one-year-old Specialist Tyler Johnson is on his first tour in Iraq. He thinks skeptics should come over and see what it's like firsthand before criticizing." Johnson asserted: “You may support or say we support the troops, but, so you're not supporting what they do, what they're here sweating for, what we bleed for, what we die for. It just don't make sense to me."
Staff Sergeant Manuel Sahagun directly took on the spin of war critics, complaining that “one thing I don't like is when people back home say they support the troops, but they don't support the war. If they're going to support us, support us all the way." Engel soon powerfully concluded: "Apache Company has lost two soldiers, and now worries their country may be abandoning the mission they died for.”
Exactly two weeks later, however, the February 9 NBC Nightly News ran a dispatch from Engel which showcased soldiers who want the war to end. My NewsBusters item reported:
Engel ran just one soundbite, from a Staff Sergeant with the First Infantry Division, who declared: “It is pretty much almost a lost cause. I mean, nothing it seems we do is doing any good. Every country goes through a civil war. So, I mean, maybe it'd be better for them to have a civil war and hash it out and then try to help them after that." Engel added about the unit he had traveled with which narrowly escaped an IED explosion: “They all told me it's time to end this war. And, Brian [Williams], the soldiers also asked why it seems from here there are no plans to end the war, just discussions of battle tactics?"
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center





Army First Sergeant Louis Barnum: “It makes me sick. I was born and raised a Democrat, but when I see that it just kind of makes me sad.”
Embedded with the Army's Stryker Brigade's Apache Company (the Fort Lewis, Washington-based 1st Battalion of the 23rd Infantry Regiment in Hurriya, Richard Engel relayed how “troops here say they are increasingly frustrated by American criticism of the war. Many take it personally, believing it is also criticism of what they've been fighting for. Twenty-one-year-old Specialist Tyler Johnson is on his first tour in Iraq. He thinks skeptics should come over and see what it's like firsthand before criticizing." Johnson asserted: “You may support or say we support the troops, but, so you're not supporting what they do, what they're here sweating for, what we bleed for, what we die for. It just don't make sense to me."
















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I had to take a break from th
February 13, 2007 - 22:21 ET by bigtimerI had to take a break from the so-called debate on the House floor...I get to fuming!
Thanks for this info...
Staff Sergeant Manuel Sahagun directly took on the spin of war critics, complaining that “one thing I don't like is when people back home say they support the troops, but they don't support the war. If they're going to support us, support us all the way."
Says it all.
Kingston and the democrat on Chris Matthews
February 13, 2007 - 23:56 ET by SportPoliticsI watched most of Chris Matthews tonight,and the most important thing I thought I heard was the democrat weasel saying about this to republican Kingston from the clip above: ~" You know 20,000 troops isn't enough to accomplish the task, three times that number, 60,000 is what they need to go into Bagdad and get the job done, and it will take 8-12 months at that and then they can do it ,and you know that's true yourself, but Bush isn't going to get that ." Kingston didn't deny that he agreed. That was telling to me. My reaction is, if this demcorat knows what is needed, then not supporting that is pushing for defeat. Knowingly pushing for a loss. 60,000 isn't much more than 20,000 with well over a million or two troops, but it is now clear to me that the dimdemUSA has somehow become a nation that plans on losing with the democrats demanding that. I understand their plan. If they push this hard and make it a loss, it makes certain anything like this is far less likely to occur in the future, and we can claim to have brought peace to the world by destroying Bush ( well, at least our rich and fat and happy little 5% of it, and screw the rest of it forever, all 25million Iraqis, just like the democrats told us we did concerning Afghanistan circa 1989, that resulted eventually in 911, but so what, this time it's Bush's and the republicans fault, due to permanent indoctrinated BDS syndrome, and the ever hidden democrat pullout-same as vietnam - yet now Nixon's illegal war according to John Kerry ). I really thought that was amazing, a democrat sitting there on Hardball saying 60,000 for 8 months or so would get the job done, and that republican should well know "Bush wasn't going to get that ". In other words, our congress, headed up by traitorous defeatist democrats including the *****le on matthews, will throw away 4 years of 135,000 + every year for a mere 60,000 for 8 months toward the win, just to slam the opposing party . It told me ever more clearly how an enemy of the USA is the sick, half measured, ignorant and working against the best interests, flip flopping, perverto-sex, drugs and rock n roll goofball called the democrat. I suppose failure in Iraq means the whole world to democrats now. They kept trying to claim they didn't support such a thing, but it is ever clearer that they actually do. There was the admission from one of their own congresspersons that 60,000 extra troops for 8 months would bring success and sure movement toward complete victory, yet he callously quipped the President would not get that. For Chris Matthews part, he chanted and placed on the screen about 8 times, a new poll that says ~" 70% of Americans polled will remember how their congressperson voted on the troops surge and it will affect their coming vote. " The catch was, Chrissy and the poll never said that included those intending to defeat congresspersons who voted against the surge in troops, even though it did. So, Chrissy just played and pretended the whole time that the 70% number was American voters against the surge. The republican never called him on it, and obviously the democrat didn't either. I'm pretty amazed Matthews went that low and got away with it. This is a non-binding resolution, and the republican pointed that out, so I guess a poll that says 70% of the voters will base their 2008 vote on this is damned kooky to begin with. Nice massive lying spin there Matthews. I appreciated your constant jamming of that stat while you kept saying the people want out, all to make a big fat lie of the poll you presented. Do you really think you got away with it Matty ? Do you assume that people who watch you blather are dumber than you are ? I watch it just to see how ******up you and your democrat guests are Chris Matthews, and you certainly didn't disappoint.
SportPolitics Says:
February 14, 2007 - 10:20 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsSport, you said a mouthful there and I agree with you. It really looks like the democrats (and the MSM) are so power hungry and so crazed with BDS that they will sacrifice ANYTHING to disgrace President Bush. I cannot watch the news or read the paper any more, and the paper was a 40 plus year habit for me. I am worried we will lose America soon.
D
Want your elected reps to know what you think? Go to Congress.org, it's real easy.
You can also send faxes to your reps for free from NumbersUSA<
I can't believe ABC had the d
February 14, 2007 - 12:40 ET by TruthMongerI can't believe ABC had the decency, conscience, scruples, balls, etc to actually air this - play it on the house floor and the dims just might get the message...
I challenge these so-called "peace-activists" to organize JUST ONE MAJOR D.C. PROTEST AGAINST AL QUEDA by the end of 2007...
I support the police, but not
February 13, 2007 - 22:23 ET by Mica the MagnificentI support the police, but not their mission. Take two. I support my mayor, but not his job. Take three. I support my bowling alley, but not the sport.
It doesn't make sense any way you say it!
I voted for the war in Iraq, but I didn't support the president to go to war in Iraq. . . Waaaaaaaa! Get Carville on the phone! - - Hillary having a close call with a Kerry moment
Mica,I support athletics but
February 13, 2007 - 22:26 ET by NeoConfirmedMica,
I support athletics but I'm not an athletic supporter.
Neo,I support your right to s
February 13, 2007 - 22:36 ET by Mica the MagnificentNeo,
I support your right to support athletics without being a supporter of athletic supporters.
I will watch what Rosie says on the 'View' to find out if I agree with the above statement - - -Average brain-dead 'View' viewer
Thanks Mica...I'm sure then t
February 13, 2007 - 22:50 ET by NeoConfirmedThanks Mica...I'm sure then that you will support my wife's right to wear support bras without supporting the fact that she wears them for support.
O-k, you win. I'll be the lib
February 13, 2007 - 22:52 ET by Mica the MagnificentO-k, you win. I'll be the lib and surrender.
Since you're playing Lib, wou
February 13, 2007 - 22:59 ET by NeoConfirmedSince you're playing Lib, would you like to surrender now or do you need to analyze the data from 92 polls to make your decision?
Mica the Magnificent
February 14, 2007 - 00:02 ET by SportPoliticsMica the Magnificent - say this to the next liberal :
I support women but not their right to abortion.
I support women but not their mission at the clinic.
I support women, but not their birth control.
etc...
Watch a democratolib fly into a blind raging fury....
I just want the women to bring the baby home, and be taken care of, without any more uneccessary baby deaths.
It doesn't accomplish anything anyway, doesn't make America better or safer, and hasn't defeated poverty,or single motherhood.
I support the women, but I don't support Roe Vs Wade and the ALCU murdering 44 million innocent children.
The baby wasn't a threat to the USA anyway.
I'm not sure if I missed it o
February 13, 2007 - 22:40 ET by FastEdI'm not sure if I missed it or not - what did naysay paloony hear from the troop when she visited recently? Were all those meetings with the trrops held behind closed doors? Did the msm (Lsm) even ask her what they said?
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
I don't think she got much press.
February 13, 2007 - 22:42 ET by acaiguanaI don't think she got much press.
I heard she said it was much worse than she had thought. Kinda hard to imagine her thinking though. Maybe I heard it wrong.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
at what point does anyone in
February 13, 2007 - 23:35 ET by pmohbuckat what point does anyone in washington value the observations, opinions, plans and sentiment of the men and women leading our military? it's my opinion that suit/skirt wearing politicians (regardless of prior military experience) making TACTICAL and/or STRATEGIC combat decisions is WRONG
let the military do its job ... which is to destroy the enemy. let them do it in the manner they are trained and let them use the weapons and tactics THEY determine necessary to complete the task.
once the dust has settled, then the suit/skirt wearing know-it-alls can get involved. it's at the point in which our congress seems content to poll the american people for its battle plan.
IMHO, meddling politicians have dragged out this war ... its not the mission that's the problem, it's congress.
"at some point people need to realize that there is more to being an american than just exercising his/her rights" - me
V Jake Tapper is the man
February 13, 2007 - 23:43 ET by pearlI nearly fell out of my chair when I saw this. There are some good guys at ABC.
V for Victory
What did the Soldier mean whe
February 14, 2007 - 00:02 ET by Donovan16What did the Soldier mean when he said he didn't want to badmouth the President at all? I thought the focus was on treasonous Dems.
Donovan16, I don't have a clue what he means.
February 14, 2007 - 00:22 ET by acaiguanaDonovan16, I don't have a clue what he means.
One could think he meant that Congress is bad mouthing the President and he didn't want to buy into that.
One could think he meant that he was just asked to bad mouth the President and he didn't want to buy into that.
One could think he meant that bad mouthing the president by Congress was like treason to him.
Or one could think he was talking on the spur of the moment and he really meant he didn't want to bad mouth the President.
Or he could mean he didn't want to bad mouth the President.
I dunno.
What do you think he meant?
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
My best Guess would be he tho
February 14, 2007 - 01:05 ET by Donovan16My best Guess would be he thought maybe that the resolution had something to do with the executive branch or maybe he thought he was representing ..Forget it!
BTW Aca, Check your PMs please.
One could think he meant that
February 14, 2007 - 01:12 ET by Chicago RepublicanOne could think he meant that bad mouthing the president by Congress was like treason to him.
Donovan, this is most likely what he meant.
As a retired soldier listenin
February 14, 2007 - 09:25 ET by Sua SponteAs a retired soldier listening/reading his comment. I understood him to say that to bad mouth the President is like treason to him.
And the clip I saw yesterday
February 14, 2007 - 09:37 ET by ucAnd the clip I saw yesterday seemed to be clipped/have convenient tech difficulties to have him appear to be afraid to speak freely on the subject as not wanting to be tried for treason.
It didn't seem to fit. Glad this thread got going. Sua Sponte I agree with your take.
Time for one of my silly ones.
February 14, 2007 - 01:38 ET by misterbillTime for one of my silly ones. I support the ceiling joists , but not the building.
For God's sake, you misbegotten toadying, a$$ki$$ing anti-Bush freaks who are in office, stop with the lying garbage. What you want to say is, "I am opposed to the war and the troops. I don't give a rap about anything except making the President of the USA look bad. I am a good American."
Read my tagline.
An ugly American is one who does not support his country.
Specialist Johnson says troop
February 14, 2007 - 10:10 ET by truth_missileSpecialist Johnson says troops are sweating over there?! Sounds like this whole Iraq thing is caused by Global Warming.
Will Arkin respond?
February 14, 2007 - 10:12 ET by blackrain4xmasThe treason line-accurate as it is for a soldier-is just BEGGING for an Arkin oped
Dems do NOT support troops
February 14, 2007 - 12:26 ET by kw"Tapper concluded his story: “It is a very simple resolution, Charlie. It basically just says that the Congress supports the troops but opposes the President's plan. It is not binding, it does not cut off any funding for the troops." =================== in other words, don't listen to these silly soldiers who think the democrats are treasonous and don't support the troops. They are simply against Bush and anything he does. The democrats love the troops and support the troops. What a joke!