Article

2007-02-02 Iraq

CNN interview with Iraq war "expert" (insurgent-loving reporter) Michael Ware

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by cajunbelle 2007-02-02 00:00|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Ware's an idiot, with a peculiar admiration for a vile and unimpressive enemy. I once over-heard him breathlessly describing how "insurgents" or some such were so strong in some area of Anbar that Marine units were "cut off" and down to short rations/supplies, etc., due to the jihadis' military prowess.

This all reminds me of the even more astounding (yes, more) comment by a younger newsmagazine type (not sure which mag) who remarked at an embassy social event how the enemy "made an effort to hit military targets". I'm not kidding. This was at the height of the mass barbarian terror campaign of huge car bombs against markets and bus-stations, etc., in Baghdad.

Two problems with many (not all, but many) journalists - they're not very bright, and besides they inhabit utterly bizarre inverted moral universes.

As for Cooper, while he's not a bad guy, note what a weak and uninformed counter he offers about "no progress" - ahemm, how about the huge increases in quality and quantity of Iraqi security forces, and the fact that they have responsibility for large areas of the country and very often take the lead in joint operations? And his comment about not political or economic progress is ridiculous as well.

Sadly this is the average level of ignorant, tendentious crap that passes for "analysis" in most of the MSM, most of the time.

Posted by Verlaine 2007-02-02 03:34|| 2007-02-02 03:34|| Front Page Top

#2 Ware and Kevin Sites both crave so much recognition they can't possibly cover a story without making themselves out to be the center of each report. I wouldn't let either one of them near my people.

re: our men and women serving in the WOT all over the world.

Here they have the greatest story of all to convey/report yet they've both already proven thats not good enough. Nope that won't fly if you're a Guru Star, you'd have to credit someone besides yourself.

Rapporteurs, Attention whores of the lowest order.

Posted by RD 2007-02-02 05:39|| 2007-02-02 05:39|| Front Page Top

#3 Amazingly off the mark, yet delivered in tones more profound than would be used by anyone here, ie those who actually have an idea of what's really going on. I hope your mother feels better after your little talk, cajunbelle.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-02-02 05:56|| 2007-02-02 05:56|| Front Page Top

#4 As per the script . . . "this war is unwinnable".

Talk about no imagination. . .

Posted by no mo uro 2007-02-02 06:19|| 2007-02-02 06:19|| Front Page Top

#5 Hey! C'mon now, let's be fair. Ware said this:

There's one of the most progressive constitutions in the Arab world in place in Iraq.

On the other hand, Ware said -

Now, what we're seeing is the old becoming new again. I mean, in many ways, this is again staying the course. There's no radical shift in strategy.

O.K., so he's an idiot.

Posted by Bobby 2007-02-02 06:27|| 2007-02-02 06:27|| Front Page Top

#6 Meh. Sounds like the same crap that Al-Jizz and BBC vomits outta my TV. The world's media have merged into one giant echo chamber for enemy propganda. Reinforcing Verlaine's point that the Bush admin's greatest failing has been clueless, total, abject failure to engage the infowar.

Thus, we've reached the point where those with first-hand knowledge to the contrary are routinely dismissed as toothless hicks, paid ideologues, or otherwise having illegitimate motivations. What I find most depressing is how so many of our own families have been torn apart by moonbats who trust the idiot box in the living room more than close relatives who have actually spent time in the sandbox.

Propganda is meant to dehumanize, and it's working.

Posted by exJAG 2007-02-02 07:22|| 2007-02-02 07:22|| Front Page Top

#7 My question is:

Does the press directly receive cash from the Democrats and our enemies, do they do this out of their own convictions, or are they just attention whores?

Posted by Rob Crawford">Rob Crawford 2007-02-02 08:20|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2007-02-02 08:20|| Front Page Top

#8 This guy is only doom and gloom.

Posted by Gloque Elmang4914 2007-02-02 08:47|| 2007-02-02 08:47|| Front Page Top

#9 I mean, there's a lot of activity, but there's no progress, either politically, economically or militarily.

Apply describes 1864 very well for Mr. Lincoln's War.

The American war in Iraq made Zarqawi.

So did Mr. Lincoln's make Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, etc.

Oh, and he had to suffer people like you too. How many of those are looked upon with admiration today?

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-02-02 08:50|| 2007-02-02 08:50|| Front Page Top

#10 If I read or watch the MSM, it is only to see what the enemy (the MSM) is doing in the way of propaganda. Verlaine stated it well: "Two problems with many (not all, but many) journalists - they're not very bright, and besides they inhabit utterly bizarre inverted moral universes. Some are amoral in their approach to reporting [if that is what you can even call it]. The fact that Ware almost got executed by AQ seems to have little effect on his fawning over the terrorists. Reinforces the not very bright stupid thesis.

Posted by JohnQC 2007-02-02 09:00|| 2007-02-02 09:00|| Front Page Top

#11 Hugh Hewitt interviewed Ware several months back and reached the conclusion that he has been co-opted. The deal, he gets the inside track from the terrorists "prospective" and pedals it in the MSM.

In short, Ware is a whore who has been found scared shitless. No wonder Time Mag and now CNN hold him in such high esteem.

Posted by Captain America 2007-02-02 10:42|| 2007-02-02 10:42|| Front Page Top

#12 Ask yourself: Is Ware any different than Dan Rather et al fawning over Saddam in order to get the inside track?

He's just the latest piss ant

Posted by Captain America 2007-02-02 10:46|| 2007-02-02 10:46|| Front Page Top

#13 Marines cut off by being surrounded with short rations/supplies simply means that they have a target rich environment and multiple avenues of attack.

You attack through an ambush, jackass.

When Sherman left Atlanta behind, where were his supply lines? He marched all the way to the Atlantic coast without supply lines and left total destruction in his wake without them.

When the US Army units in Bastogne (101st Airborne) were cut off and surrounded by Nazi forces they ordered the commanding officer to surrender. The response was historic and classic. The US Army held out in Bastogne from the day of the surrender demand (Dec 21st) for 5 more days (the lead elements of the relief force entered the city on Dec 26th).

BTW, I have some serious disagreements with the Wikipedia article regarding the Battle of the Bulge, particularly the statement "In its entirety, the Battle of the Bulge was the most bloody of the comparatively few European battles American forces experienced in WWII,"

At Khe Sanh, Vietnam, the US Marines were surrounded and cut off by North Vietnamese regular forces (about 2-3 division-sized forces) from Jan 21 through April 8. Resupplied only by difficult and dangerous air missions, the III Marine Amphibious Force held and held and held until releived during Operation Pegasus.

Again, I have some issues with the Wikipedia source, particularly the statement "The battle itself was as a tactical victory for the Marines, but the strategic implications of the battle remain unclear."

Also from Wikipedia regarding Fallujah, "an abortive US operation to recapture control of the city in Operation Vigilant Resolve, and a successful recapture of the city in November 2004 called Operation Phantom Fury which resulted in the reputed death of over 5,000 insurgent fighters and the loss of over 95 American Marines KIA and over 1,000 wounded. According to local sources, hundreds of civilians were among those killed. One Marine, Sgt. Peralta killed during the battle has been nominated for the Medal of Honor after being killed protecting fellow Marines by covering a grenade with his body just before it exploded.

In November, 2004, the U.S military launched a major operation, Operation Phantom Fury, in the city in an attempt to wrest control of the city back from the combination of insurgents and radical Sunni clerics, into whose hands the city had fallen. Estimates by one Iraqi N.G.O put the number of deaths in the operation at 4000-6000, but the very generality of such an estimate might be said to undermine its claim to veracity. There is also a clear distinction to be drawn between combatant and civilian deaths. In addition, it should be noted that all civilians were instructed by the Iraqi government to leave the city before the operation took place. There were reports that cluster bombs and white phosphorus, a controversial incendiary weapon, were used on the city. Initially the Pentagon denied the use of the latter weapon but later, after testimony by U.S soldiers, admitted using it.[5] A State Department official had called earlier reports of cluster bomb use "totally false," but there was no official statement on the events of November, which had been reported in several sources (for details, see US occupation of Fallujah)."

Again from Wikipedia regarding Najaf, "In August 2004, fighting broke out again between American troops of the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit, the 1st Cavalry Division's 1st Battalion, 5th US Cavalry Regiment and 2nd Battalion, 7th US Cavalry Regiment, 15th Forward Support Battalion and as-Sadr's Mahdi Army. The battle, which was mostly centered around Wādī' as-Salām Cemetery and the southwestern portion of the city, lasted three weeks and ended when senior Iraqi cleric Ayatollah Alī as-Sīstānī negotiated an end to the fighting. Thousands of Mahdi Army guerrillas were killed and considerable damage was inflicted on the old town and cemetery. The main shrines again suffered only superficial damage."

Ware clearly does not understand how the US military operates, has no comprehension of its history or history in general, and can see nothing except disaster when American troops go in harm's way. He's a jackass of the most supreme order - one with a microphone and a TV camera and one who's apparently incapable of using his computer for anything more than bashing the military. I found these references and could probably find a thousand more in the time it took to type this comment. Of course, Ware cannot bother himself with the facts.

Shameful, really.

Posted by FOTSGreg">FOTSGreg 2007-02-02 10:53|| www.fire-on-the-suns.com]">[www.fire-on-the-suns.com] 2007-02-02 10:53|| Front Page Top

#14 The hopeless nature of Wares conclusions may prove to be myopic. However, it seems unreasonable to suggest that he is a less then sincere in his analysis. Regardless of the liberals Un-winnable War mantra, the fact that he treats the surge, withdrawal, and division options with equal skepticism seems to contradict the accusation that he is a propagandist for the left. Furthermore, his actual reportage, for the most part, has been superior to the average Stringer hounding scuttlebutt over Daiquiris in the Green Zone Lounge. For those that disagree with his speculations - by all means call him on it but it seems premature to question his integrity.

Posted by DepotGuy 2007-02-02 12:05|| 2007-02-02 12:05|| Front Page Top

#15 #3 trailing wife

Much thanks for that. Mom is getting there through constant "re-education". Fortunately, the remaining members of my family reside in Louisiana where almost no one watches CNN.

#14 DepotGuy

I'm sure Ware is sincerely in awe of his terrorist buddies. But he's not bright enough nor does he know enough about military strategy to be providing analyses.

Posted by cajunbelle 2007-02-02 14:09|| 2007-02-02 14:09|| Front Page Top

#16 "I'm sure Ware is sincerely in awe of his terrorist buddies."

Terrorist buddies? cajunbelle, Are you suggesting that Ware is somehow in collusion with terrorists? If so, perhaps you could provide some empirical evidence to support your charge.

Posted by DepotGuy 2007-02-02 15:04|| 2007-02-02 15:04|| Front Page Top

#17 He spends more time with terrorist/insurgents than Coalition soldiers, and if he spent half as much time glorifying Coalition efforts as he does the head-choppers, we might get some decent press back home.

Posted by cajunbelle 2007-02-02 19:52|| 2007-02-02 19:52|| Front Page Top

#18 There is no doubt in my mind that Ware is collaborating with the terrorists. You follow his reporting journal and you will see he gets more insider scoups (witness his sniper sniff video in recent weeks) than any other fawning accomplice.

Posted by Captain America 2007-02-02 20:26|| 2007-02-02 20:26|| Front Page Top

23:55 RWV
23:55 JosephMendiola
23:49 JosephMendiola
23:47 Old Patriot
23:42 JosephMendiola
23:35 JosephMendiola
23:28 JosephMendiola
23:23 Silentbrick
23:22 Old Patriot
23:20 JosephMendiola
23:11 Alaska Paul
23:11 JosephMendiola
23:08 JosephMendiola
23:01 steven
22:55 steven
22:45 Phineter Thraviger
22:33 Alaska Paul
22:24 Alaska Paul
22:15 Remoteman
22:03 Alaska Paul
21:46 Jackal
21:38 macofromoc
21:11 Classical_Liberal
21:08 JosephMendiola