Are the media intentionally downplaying or ignoring reports that indicate a growing al Qaeda involvement in Iraq?
Late Thursday evening, CNN.com reported (h/t LGF, emphasis added):
American soldiers discovered a girls school being built north of Baghdad had become an explosives-rigged "death trap," the U.S. military said Thursday.”
This was a compilation of a report that CNN’s Wolf Blitzer did earlier in the day on “The Situation Room.”
However, Stars and Stripes actually reported Tuesday that military officials shared this information on Monday (emphasis added):
U.S. soldiers in Baghdad have found and defused “numerous” improvised explosives planted in a school for girls that was set to reopen later this month, military officials said Monday.
So, four days have passed, and with the exception of one CNN report and one short UPI article Thursday, no other American media outlet has covered this story. Is it possible that this final sentence in the Stars and Stripes article is the reason:
U.S. officials attributed the planted explosives to members of al-Qaida in Iraq.
In fact, the UPI report conveniently omitted this little detail.
For its part, CNN did include it at its website, and handled it thusly on “The Situation Room”:
MAJ. GEN. WILLIAM CALDWELL, MULTI-NATIONAL FORCE, IRAQ: And, Wolf, as we've gone through and removed these artillery shells from the school, we -- as I said, they were in the ceilings, which would have caused, you know, the explosion down and caused the other floors to cave in. They were found in the floors. They were at the doors to the classrooms, where the children -- the girls -- would have been in. I mean it was truly just an incredibly ugly, dirty kind of vicious killing that would have gone on here by al Qaeda.
WOLF BLITZER, HOST: Oh, you suspect al Qaeda was responsible for this plot?
CALDWELL: Well, we do. We do, because of the nature in which this thing had been put together, the sophistication in which it would have been pulled and laid out.
Any ideas why the media would ignore this?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The reason they didn't repo
May 4, 2007 - 09:14 ET by MightyMouthThe reason they didn't report it was because it didn't go off. That's is a good thing and shows our troops are actually succeeding. Now on the other hand, had it expoleded and killed dozens of little girls, that would have been reported, front page. Because that is a bad thing and proves we are losing the war. We are not likely to hear ANY good news from the MSM about Iraq.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Yesterday an Adm told a sen
May 4, 2007 - 09:45 ET by JDWYesterday an Adm told a senate committee our forces have been more successful in preventing al-Qaeda from entering Iraq. Again, nothing which warrants the need to praise the effect our efforts are having. So how about a new story on the constructive role Iran plays in Iraq?
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
Excellent reply, MM. I might
May 4, 2007 - 10:14 ET by ThisnThatExcellent reply, MM. I might add that the MSM is deathly afraid of providing one iota of good news that Pres Bush can used to explain to America what we are facing, and why our efforts are necessary.
Which brings me to say, once again -- those that are suppressing this type of news are among our worst enemies, and I clearly do not understand how they can do this. The MSM and Dims do not have a moral compass, apparently, with a total lack of decency and good-will for our country.
"MSM is deathly afraid
May 4, 2007 - 10:37 ET by MightyMouth"MSM is deathly afraid of providing one iota of good news that Pres Bush"
Good point TT. I'ts not just the war. I might also add that GWB hasn't done a very good job of defending himself when attacked by the MSM. Also, this habit of admitting "mistakes were made" (even if accurate) has been a card the administration has played way too early in the game.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Btw, has anyone seen today'
May 4, 2007 - 14:28 ET by MrShyBtw, has anyone seen today's CNN.com headline? I hope NB posts a new blog about this. After a good week of calm in Iraq -- with the awful news of this Iraq school, but GREAT news that the plot was uncovered -- CNN and their ilk haven't lifted a finger to feature any positive news, which I'm sure there's plenty to find daily.....
Sooo..... what's today's headline, you are eager for me to get to? Well, it's more like a heart-strings piece about a poor deathrow inmate who's about to be executed, and it includes the statistics on lethal injection vs. other methods. This isn't some side-story, some op-ed column thing.... THIS IS THEIR HEADLINE in the absense of any horrific bomb going off in Iraq !!! (sick!)
"expoleded and killed
May 5, 2007 - 00:57 ET by MilesD"expoleded and killed dozens of little girls, that would have been reported..."
To my deep regret Sir I am sorry to report to you of two occasions that I am personally aware of, your statement not being true
This is the most difficult of news items for me to see
I don't think there is a reas
May 4, 2007 - 09:23 ET by Subsailor599I don't think there is a reasonable explaination for why the MSM did not pick up this story. I can guess at a couple of reasons why though.
One would be that they don't want Al Qaeda to look like they are murdering terrorists, after all they are suppose to be peace loving parents with childern just like us.
Another would be it would give us a real reason for our troops to stay in Iraq to stop this kind of stuff.
Okay, so where is the NOW gan
May 4, 2007 - 09:23 ET by Dave ROkay, so where is the NOW gang? Why aren't we hearing from the spokes-weasels claiming to represent the rights of oppressed women (and children) everywhere? Where is Diane Sawyer? Where is the Hildewench?
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.- Neal Boortz.
Hillary's too busy going to R
May 4, 2007 - 10:26 ET by HypocriteHaterHillary's too busy going to Rutgers where the REAL oppressed women of the world are!
I have a feeling that some
May 4, 2007 - 09:28 ET by MightyMouthI have a feeling that some Iraqi contractor is in BIG trouble over this incident. At least I hope someone can connect the dots.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
They are animals and our medi
May 4, 2007 - 09:40 ET byThey are animals and our media likes the business. As long as animals blow up children, the main stream media has news. Exposing such before the school is blown up, doesn't make as good of news as after it is blown up.
It is all about the love of money.
Debra...
The reason is simple (simplistic?)
May 4, 2007 - 10:15 ET by c5thenThe MSM will NOT report any good news about anything in Iraq. They will report any bad thing that happens and continue to report that bad thing until another bad thing happens. That's it.
If this had not been discovered, and a horrible tragedy resulted (as the terrorists intended), the MSM would have been all over it and beenwondering why it was "allowed" to happen by the Bush administration.
No double standard here. Just simply a lack of any standards at all.
As far as I'm concerned, the MSM are political lobbiests that happen to have unfettered access to the airwaves and control many periodicals.
WOLF BLITZER, HOST: Oh, you s
May 4, 2007 - 11:04 ET by bigtimerWOLF BLITZER, HOST: Oh, you suspect al Qaeda was responsible for this plot?
What a simpleton...purposely or not, Wolfie is just a leftist simpleton.
Of course the media can't be bothered by this important news, it's not sexy and it doesn't fit in to their almighty agenda....nothing new here.
What a horrendous plan...thank God for our fine military...I do every single day.
By the way...if this plan had succeeded, the media would be all over it, and can't you just hear the screams from the left....I am worried this or something like this will happen.
I detest the msm.
Threat of terror
May 4, 2007 - 11:33 ET by belagHehe, two newsbusters posts in two days I can agree with (a bit)! I think the threat of terror in Iraq is pretty extreme. There's no doubt that Al Qaeda is using Iraq as a fertile recruiting ground.
However, my view is not that the media have a "liberal" agenda. If you want me to elaborate, say so.
I also wish to say something about this latest report. We only have the word of US government officials about the Al Qaeda involvement in the bomb. Nobody is right all the time, certainly not the US government.
There's no doubt that Al Qaed
May 4, 2007 - 12:11 ET by dscottThere's no doubt that Al Qaeda is using Iraq as a fertile recruiting ground.
Yes it is a fertile ground to bring the foreigners into Iraq, most al Qaeda fighters are not Iraqi. The upshot being as reported on another thread is that terrorism world wide has dropped. Most of it is happening in Iraq. All those who are inclined to be a terrorist are throwing themselves like cannon fodder before the US and Iraqi troops, which works quite nicely in the overall GWOT. While you may see the violence in Iraq as extreme, the rest of us recognize that all the extremists are focusing upon one place which makes it easier for us to kill them off. Sooner or later, the leaders of Iran, al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah are going to run out of cannon fodder and then they will talk about reconcilation.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Cannon fodder?
May 4, 2007 - 13:29 ET by belagI will dispute the statements about Al-Qaeda threat elsewhere.
I wish to focus on the human aspect of this "cannon fodder".
I don't really care who's right or wrong about this war.
The "terrorists" who are "cannon fodder". Are they human beings? Do they have families? Children? Or, are they themselves children?
Well, ask yourselves how much you've seen or thought about anybody (civilians or "terrorists") in Iraq. Do you hear the "MSM" talking about it?
We can condemn the "terrorists". But they are also human beings, to be thought of as human beings. Not some inanimate object which blows up in a marketplace.
Why isn't a terrorist an en
May 4, 2007 - 14:12 ET by JDWWhy isn't a terrorist an enemy?
We are in a war with terrorists. How are wars won?
When we fought other countries in previous wars what difference did it make as to who they were other than the enemy?
What's your point?
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
Good luck
May 4, 2007 - 14:30 ET by Mr. BishopIn the dozens of posts from "belag" I have read in the past few days, JDW, I have noticed him to be nothing more then a terrorist sympathizer. I know that is a strong set of words to use, but who else wants to "understand" the reason behind what terrorists do? Who else wants to blame Americans in Saudi Arabia at the invitation of the Saudi government, for the insane acts of terrorists, over their own desires? Who else could possibly sit back and say we should blame us for the actions of Al Qaeda on 9-11, instead of them?
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
I normally do not respond t
May 4, 2007 - 15:35 ET by JDWI normally do not respond to WT posts but his insults our military.
The family crap is nothing more than terrorists having more children to brainwash and send into wherever with bombs strapped to them because they themselves are afraid to die. And as you indicated, we never went to Iran... and flew planes into their buildings.
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
Terrorist sympathizer?
May 4, 2007 - 15:47 ET by belagWell, you can, if you wish, call me a terrorist sympathizer. That's your view.
I'll give you my view. Personally, I don't find much use for labels like "conservative", "anti-Semitic", "tree-hugger" and so on. They create some image in your mind. Like the "terrorist sympathizer" label created an image in your mind. Do I say or support any of the statements you list? Well, make up your own mind.
Let's look at what I'm saying, instead of your image of what I'm saying.
I am not criticizing Bush. I'm not criticizing Democrats.
I'm saying, "terrorists" are human beings. Moreover, the people they're killing are human beings. Our so-called "enemies" are human beings. Holding different political, religious or cultural values don't make them less human.
What does the "humanity" of the Iraqi people imply? Well, the basic human rights and desires. You can decide for yourselves if the Iraqis think they have them.
A last comment, you mention two "human" qualities: mercy and the rule of law. Well, you can decide for yourselves if people in Iraq believe you're merciful and follow the law.
No I didn't
May 4, 2007 - 15:57 ET by Mr. BishopI never once mentioned mercy, or the rule of law. The only person that has ever mentioned that has been you. You think the terrorists live according to the rule of law, and you blame the US for every action of the terrorists, as if they have no free will to decide their own future(s). Second, I did not mention the Iraqis, you must be responding to someone else, and bundling it in your response to me, addressing it to me. Third, don't put quotation marks around terrorist. They are not alleged to be terrorists, they are terrorists. Terrorist is defined as one who advocates the use of terrorism. Terrorism is defined as the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. There is no doubt they are terrorists, so don't pretend they're not by placing quotes around the word. Fourth, don't assume that because someone is a human being, that means we should try to "understand their reasonings" for anything. If they (the terrorists) had an ounce of respect for life, they would not execute themselves, in an effort to kill civilians. They have no respect for life, and they deserve little respect from me and anyone else who fights against them.
In closing a terrorist sympathizer is a person who wants to understand the feelings of a terrorist, or expresses compassion for a terrorist. Look up the words sympathize and terrorist. You'll get there too. You have shown those tendencies throughout your posting, in making excuses for Al Qaeda. If you don't like the "label", then stop acting like one.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
Terrorism and terrorists
May 4, 2007 - 17:43 ET by belagFirst, I apologize for running together in my post, your points and some other poster's points. I should've split my posts.
Regarding "terrorist sympathizers". Well, your logic is quite insurmountable. I was focussing on what image this brought into your mind. Do I blame the victims of 9/11 for the bombings? You can decide.
Your post has helped me to understand what my position is on these things. Let me elaborate. This will also cover why I use quotation marks. I wasn't right to use them in some places.
I accept your definition of a terrorist.
Again, I ask that this definition be employed across the board.
Ok, some terrorist (notice, no quotes) blows himself up in a market. No ambiguity, he's a terrorist. As I've already said multiple times, a contemptible crime.
Terrorism is the use of violence to achieve political ends.
Can you think of other situations where this definition could be applied? To the US government, for example?
So, let's say the CIA or whoever, plants a bomb somewhere to target a suspected terrorist (well, I can debate whether to use quotation marks here). Bomb blows up, maybe kills the terrorist, maybe not. Ends up killing some civilians. Would you call that terrorism?
The point of my post is not to blame someone. It's just making the point that it's we who are accusing others of terrorism. Others can accuse us back. Are they wrong? Well, you can have your view.
My view is, we should be aware of what we're doing regarding innocent civilians/bystanders in our fight against terrorism. If you are aware and still think it's necessary, morally right, fine.
We do care about the innocent
May 7, 2007 - 08:23 ET by kathleenirishWe do care about the innocent bystander. It's the terrorists who use innocent bystanders against US and the poor innocents. That's their way of 'fighting'. You are in dire need of glasses and a hearing aid. Your logic is so warped, it's beyond pathetic.
" 'Fred's Slacks' is a winner!!"
"Terrorism is the use
May 7, 2007 - 09:13 ET by MightyMouth"Terrorism is the use of violence to achieve political ends"
Your definition of terrorism is too broad, try this:
Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts
committed (or threatened) against civilians.
In other words, the complete dis-regard for civilian lives. Even the CIA and the Mossad take into account civilian cassualties during operations. Our own Military (almost to a fault) avoid taking of innocent civilian lives whenever possible.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Oh Lord have mercy! Cry me a
May 4, 2007 - 14:24 ET by Ruths husband BenOh Lord have mercy! Cry me a river....they choose to blow up women, children and innocent men. You know most of the victims of terrorist attacks are Muslim. They choose to kill our soldiers. And we have to think of them as human beings instead of as inanimate objects (piles of human excrement, for example)? When they start displaying some sense of humanity (mercy, the rule of law, etc.) maybe I will think of them as humans, but until then they should be shot on sight like the rabid dogs they are.
When one acts like an inhuman
May 4, 2007 - 15:39 ET by dscottWhen one acts like an inhuman beast indescriminately bombing innocent people (women and children especially) in the market place just to cause terror, they have forfeited the right the call themselves human. Only a monster murders for the pleasure of causing fear. You act like a demon, you become a demon. Animals kill to eat, a monster kills for the pleasure of it. The fact that a suicide bomber knowingly murders the innocent to make a point and to enter their "version of paradise (72 virgins)" speaks to the pleasure they take in what they do and desire to achieve. No Belag, we aren't dealing with normal people.
Yes, the fact that the leaders of these people are throwing away their lives (terrorist) to achieve an end is precisely the definition of cannon fodder, just like in the old days of men lining up in a field and shooting each other.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
belag
May 7, 2007 - 08:48 ET by misterbillReading your input, I sense you are quite like Ms Pelosi and the others. You go off on flights of fancy about others who would do the world harm. We have many people in America who feel as you do. Thank God, most of them are in therapy.
Mr or Ms Feelgood--wake up and smell the blood--the blood of innocent Iraqis, the blood of American men and women who are fighting to provide liberty for the Iraqis. Any person who can sit and mourn for those with no conscience about killing innocent men, women and children is in dire need of some serious mental health assistance. You may continue to think of them as human beings. I think of them(and you) as monsters. They should be duly put to death so others can live in peace.
Where’s the coward that would not dare to fight for such a land? Sir Walter Scott
And the parent that wouldn't be honored by the sacrifice? Noel Sheppard
The reason the MSM won't re
May 4, 2007 - 12:05 ET by FlashmanThe reason the MSM won't report to the true evil of the enemy we face is that they know it would give America the will to fight a win a war that they (the MSM) don't want fought.