. I met Rick Leatherwood last week. He is the real deal. Here’s his take on what passes for reporting in Iraq.
Iraq: The Media is Misleading the World
By Rick LeatherwoodAs the director of a development agency rebuilding schools in Iraq for the last year, I have found the situation there both intriguing and revealing. During this time, my wife and I have often visited with Iraqi friends, who have told us the hooded terrorists that CNN, the BBC, and Al Jazeera were interviewing and passing off to the world as representing the sentiments of the Iraqi people, were not from Iraq at all, but from Yemen, Egypt, Saudi, or somewhere else outside the country, but were definitely not from Iraq. How do they know? They know the same way we know if someone is from Boston or Texas. Accents: Yet CNN and the BBC make these international terrorists appear to represent the will of the Iraqi people. Nothing could be further from the truth. As we saw it from having lived in Iraq for over a year, the truth is the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are very grateful to the United States for liberating them.
Incredibly, we find very few people here in the U.S. who have heard about the various kinds of town hall meetings and village meetings that have taken place across Iraq preparing the Iraqi people to take over their own country. These meetings have been carried out by the U.S. military and civilians of the CPA, the Coalition Provisional Authority, under Paul Bremer. I have watched these dedicated Americans from the Military and State Department work tirelessly teaching the Iraqis about democracy, how to select a candidate, what to look for in a candidate, how to have an election, etc. As a result elections are about to take place in Iraq! Why has this work gone un-reported.
This war in Iraq might have been over 10 months ago if those trying to bring freedom to Iraq had not had to overcome the efforts of the media as well as the terrorists. As it is, the media has encouraged the insurgents and has undermined the Coalition at every turn. You may recall how quickly the media called the Coalition forces “occupiers” instead of “liberators” which could only embolden the terrorists. And you may remember when President Bush went to Iraq last Thanksgiving. Everyone in Iraq was excited. Did the media share this excitement? Hardly. They derided the President as “grandstanding.” Why didn’t they tell the truth? As one who was there I can tell you, not only was the U.S. Military encouraged, but also the Iraqi people were thrilled that President Bush had come to their country. And yet the media mocked.
How about the capture of Saddam Hussein? Did the media rejoice? Just the opposite. They were completely frustrated. This did not fit into their plans of prolonging the war. Nor did eliminating Saddam’s two sons whom everyone we have met in Iraq hated. The media has done nothing to encourage the Iraqi people. Nothing to try to help them to take ownership and responsibility for their country, but have done everything they could to extend the war. As a result thousands of Iraqi and American troops and civilians have died who did not have to die. Obviously the United States has been doing everything it could to bring the violence in Iraq to an end, but sadly the media it seems has done everything it could to keep it going. Here lies a tragedy of which the world should know.
A year ago a British scientist who was at the center of the controversy about Iraq being able to deliver WMD in 45 minutes committed suicide, causing a huge investigation into his death known as the Lord Hutton Inquiry. For the three weeks leading up to the verdict, CNN and the BBC built the story up on air and on their websites that this would be the most difficult week in the life of Tony Blair. But when Lord Hutton and his committee gave their report, their findings were just the opposite of what the media was expecting as the committee totally exonerated the British government of any wrong doing and found the BBC guilty of having misled the nation. Two hours later, with no explanation given, the story was not on BBC’s or CNN’s web-sites. It was no longer news.
Recently I met with a reporter at Applebee’s restaurant. As we started the interview I decided that rather than tell her what I was doing, I would just show her, so I stood up as I had done many other times in the last month and asked for the diner’s attention. When the people heard that I had been in Iraq the restaurant grew quiet, but a minute later broke into applause at the truth about Iraq I had brought them. As you can imagine the ensuing interview was quite animated and for the next hour diners dropped by with words of appreciation for what I had said.
In the course of our conversation something happened that should give us all hope, and a little more insight into what is the truth about the situation in Iraq. I told the reporter, “The most interesting thing that I have found is that everywhere I go and speak, people come up and say their cousin in Iraq (or whoever they might know in Iraq) is telling them the same thing that I am telling them.” Two minutes later a woman came over to our table and said, “You know my cousin in Iraq . . .” The interview appeared on the front page of the paper the next day. Take heart. The truth will set you free.
Rick Leatherwood is the director of Kairos Relief and Development Inc. He can be contacted at Leatherwood AT pmbx DOT net
This is yet more evidence of the distortions created by the old media regarding Iraq. Yes, of course there are problems (of whatever magnitude) but nothing like the situation being reported.
Its my firm firm belief that al-BBC etc are not merely biased in their reporting but a bunch of outright fifth columnists. If they had got up to such things in WW2 they’d have been locked up. I take no notice anymore of what they say re. Iraq and instead look to the Belmont Club or Iraq the Model et al.
They media know they scored a win for anti democratic forces in Vietnam by hammering, smashing and moulding public opinion to their ends and I fear its happening again.
The media, unlike all other institutions, has no one to hold them to account. That’s why the “bloggers” are so despised and hated by the Old Media.
It is my belief that the media has now created a whole new industry in Hostage Taking. By showing sanitised and edited footage of beheadings, it does the terrorists dirty work.
The media, because it has no sense of responsibility, delegates blame onto everyone except itself.
The BBC, and much of the old media, advance a PC agenda which is alien to most of the population.
Just griped through the Six o’Clock News on BBC1. Note how C Hawley, Esq., got the door slammed in her puckered pruney face following the butchering of poor Bigley — a whole day failing to reach the FO and “the Americans” for comment. Both have plenty to say, just not to her. She had nada.
Maybe now, finally, she’s on the shit list where she belongs, along w/ Orla the Orca? Here’s hoping.
No link on the front page of BabbleC online to the (Don’t) Have Your Say thread on Bigley’s vicious slaughter:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/3726732.stm
All commments chosen for publication are relatively subdued. Does anybody really believe this represents “the balance of comments” received on this issue?
C’mon!
Pete_London, Zevilyn, agreed. The BabbleC and its ilk have blood on their hands. If they didn’t continually work to whitewash and justify the actions of their beloved “freedom fighters,” the kidnappings and beheadings would stop.
As I always say, the BBC is the Axis Sally of the War on Terror.
Check out this vomit-worthy piece of dreck that made it past the (Don’t) Have Your Say censors:
“Desperately sorry for the Bigley family. All credit to the Muslim Council folks amongst many others for trying their best to help. We don’t see enough of this side of Islam in the media.
Tone, London”
But I’m sure anyone pointing out that that 1200 “British” Muslims are in Iraq right now fighting against their own “countrymen”, it would be tossed in the round file so fast it would make your head spin!
I hope there’s a special place in hell reserved for the (Don’t) Have Your Say team.
I read that there are Brits in the gang who killed Bigley.
And this story was hushed by the UK media pretty quickly I recall:
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog_180.php
Treason is the word which springs to mind (though not in the case of “human rights” lawyers and multi-culturalists).
Lest we forget this predates 9-11 and Dubya; the Salman Rushdie incident was nothing less than an attack on British democracy and free-speech.
God, what a load of crap you people talk. I’m not really sure where to begin, as I know space is limited, but: Zevilyn – where has the BBC shown this “sanitised and edited footage of beheadings”: Wally -“puckered pruney face”, “shit list”, v constructive: Susan – Nice selective editing with your “vomit worthy piece of dreck”, what about the rest of it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3726732.stm
..and back to the original posting: “Two hours later, with no explanation given, the story was not on BBC’s or CNN’s web-sites. It was no longer news.” What a complete load of garbage. Hutton was one of the biggest news stories of the year – as if it would have been taken off the BBC website within 2 hours of the report coming out. And what’s this “committee” Leatherwood talks about? Hutton sat all alone. Unfortunately.
Someone Who Knows:
D’ya suppose that the first thing that popped into most British peoples’ minds when they heard about the brutal slaughter of a 62-year-old man was “Gee, I must be sure to express my gratitude to the British Muslim Council for all their help”? Notice how (Don’t) Have Your Say managed to squeeze in 3, count ’em three, comments praising the Muslim
Council. Where are all the comments urging that the perpetrators be tracked down and brought to justice? Where are all the comments expressing skepticism that Islam may not really be the “religion of peace” that the BBC assures it is nearly 24/7? Instead, we get the Teletubby version — subdued sadness for Bigley’s and his family tempered by hopes for “peace” and expressions of “tolerance.”
I used to write propaganda for a living; I know what the BBC is doing.
(continued)
Auntie thinks that a great many Brits might 1.) immediately go out and beat up some passing Muslim on the street or 2.) urge their military to kick the crap out of the perpetrators. Neither of which Auntie wants to see happen; henceforth a “preemptive strike” of sugary propaganda. Fits in perfectly with their world view. But it’s so condescending, nannyish and precious, yes, it does make me want to vomit. Ick!
I have listened to Talksport’s and LBC’s phone-ins, and many of the callers take a very, very dim view of Islam (and indeed religion as a whole).
There are many angry young men in white communities; there is no effort to “understand” them. Angry young Muslim men apparently get a free pass.
Tangent: I still vividly recall a laughable BBC documentary on the videogame industry which dismissed Nintendo as a “toy company” and was so pro-Sony I wondered how much money had changed hands. Nintendo got a mere 10 seconds mention in a 30 minute documentary.
Only an ignorant and stupid journo would dismiss Nintendo.
Don’t Have Your Say shut out critical comments on that programme also.
As someone who is normally infuriated by the BBC’s institutional political correctness I must compliment Radio 4 & Radio 5 on using the words ‘murdered’ and ‘terrorists’ for the mealy mouthed ‘executed’ and ‘insurgents’ over the past two or three days.
Heaven only knows what has caused this change in editorial policy!
Heard a trailer for a R5 Live documentary to be aired Sat 9 Oct night. Seemed to be about US atrocities in Afghanistan. Trailer included such phrases as “can the Afghans stop these US killings?”
re above
Sorry I really ought to do more research before posting. I can’t find reference to above programme in BBC Radio listings. Delusions?
Heh. Auntie will NOT be pleased. John Howard re-elected handily:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3729184.stm
I noticed that on BBC News 24 initial reports of Bigley’s murder indicated he had been “killed”. Later reports refered to his murder. I’m sure that a great deal is going on behind the scenes – E mails flying around, senior managers clipping juniors around the ear metaphorically speaking. But it seems to me that sites like these are beginning to have a positive effect in defence of the meaning of words and the sanity of our thought.
David
Even Orla was using the T word in connection with the Egyptian hotel bomb. She didn’t seem to be using it as quotes from Isaeli sources.
You can’t get your view on BBC’s “Have your Say”, but its easy to get them to take the bait of subversive efforts such as –
“I can’t believe the intolerance of people here. If this is the attitude of people in rural areas, it’s no wonder black people are cowering in fear from you. The government should raise council tax in areas which aren’t sufficiently diversified – that would change your attitudes pretty quickly!
Andrew, London”
Non-trivial Solutions blog has the knack
http://nontrivialsolutions.blogspot.com/
R4 “Today” 0751 9/10/04
Humphrys interviews Sir Christopher Meyer, notionally about US Presidential contest, but Humphrys soon brings it round to Blair’s “false prospectus”.
Meyer puts down Humphrys’ constant moving of the goal posts over Iraq with a masterful, diplomatic phrase, “the fog of controversy has concealed some of the realities of the history”.
I don’t suppose that will phase Humphrys, who included another of his hobby horses, by throwing in as an interuption that “other nations (Israel unsaid) were in breach of UN resolutions”. Unfortunately Meyer didn’t divert from his argument to chop him down.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/
Oh dear! The Australians are not following the Spanish script! How could any sane nation vote back in a pro-war Government? Just how will the Beeb explain why the Aussies have firmly put the boot up Mark (stop the war)Latham and easily voted back John (Bush-Hitler) Howard? Even now Humphreys, Naughtie and co will be in closed session to develop a strategy to minimise damage. My prediction – the result will be largely ignored (unlike the massive attention if Latham had won). By the way, no sane country would vote in Latham.
Sue says –
“Auntie thinks that a great many Brits might 1.) immediately go out and beat up some passing Muslim on the street or 2.) urge their military to kick the crap out of the perpetrators. Neither of which Auntie wants to see happen;”
From her chastening tone it sounds like that’s what Sue wants to happen. So, now we now. Biased BBC is simply a home for violent racists and Islamaphobes.
No, Scumhater, that’s not what I want to see (at least not #1). But I expect that that’s what the Beeb thinks deep down of a lot of its countrymen. A bit insulting to you Brits, what?
Oh, and please can the tired old accusations of “violent Islamophobe.” It’s s-o-o-o predictable, and doesn’t really add anything to the conversation. And the name’s not “Sue.”
PS — I do get so tired of those who pull out the “r” word whenever they can’t field a credible response. It really shows the lack of thinking and logical abilities that has overtaken so much of the left these days.
Now then, Scumsucker, you forgot to call her a ‘bigot’. Saving that for later, maybe?
O.T. Bush vs. Kerry debates #1 and #2…
In debate #1, Kerry was suspected of having a cheat sheet:
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/10/04/20041004_114602_dnc57.htm
I can’t find any report of this on BBC Online and since it turned out to be a pen (a debate rule transgression, but not worth getting too excited about) that was probably correct.
However, in debate #2 we have suspicion about Bush…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3730364.stm
Not surprisingly, this makes it onto BBC Online without delay, despite no evidence to suggest it was anything other than a jacket wrinkle.
I am incorrect – both incidents occurred in debate #1.
BBC outline the effect on foreign policy of a win by either presidential candidate.
For the UK, it includes this –
“If Mr Kerry wins, Mr Blair will no doubt make his peace with the Democrats but the relationship is likely to be less close.”
For what has Blair to make peace with Kerry? Blair has studiously avoided any demonstration of partisanship (as any UK PM would).
Would Kerry need to explain to Blair why he thinks the UK part of the coalition of the bribed & coerced?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3716504.stm#uk
I’m disgusted by Kerry’s remarks about our allies. Why does he think the French and Germans rate more highly than the UK, Australia, Italy and Poland? We fought the Germans twice and the French have been hostile to us since the 50s. We owe nothing to them and they have free-loaded off of our (and the UK’s) military capabilities for years. Yet Kerry seems to think they are essential. The German military “peacekeepers” ran away and hid in a church when the nastiness started up in Kosovo again recently. One Brit or Ozzie soldier is probably worth 10 French or German ones. Phfeh!
Anyone noticed the BBC “have your say” filters in operation in the comments on Howard’s reelection posted by susan?
Not one pro Howard poster mentions Howard’s stance on the war against Islamofascism, (sorry terrorism).
Yet in today’s Australian, there are several references to exactly this.
The BBC is remoulding the victory into a victory of economic success and welbeing to avoid the truth that so many australians have seen through the suicidal policies of the left and the obsessive anti government stance of left wing media such as the SMH and the ABC.
Someone once said “we sleep soundly in our beds because rough men risk their lives to protect us”.
The day we stop throwing stones at these men will be the day we come to our senses.
Just a slight correction, Susan. The French have been hostile to the US since 1797. They are our oldest enemy.
Their aggression during the Presidency of John Adams led to the building of the US Navy and the US Marines. While war was never declared, battles were fought.
Look up the “XYZ affair”. They haven’t changed in the intervening years except when they needed help.
Just a slight correction, Susan. The French have been hostile to the US since 1797. They are our oldest enemy.
ROTFL.
I’m sceptical about the Leatherwood article. His complete fiction about things I know about (Hutton’s aftermath, whether or not the media mentions the pan-Arabist nature of terrorists in Iraq) makes me at best doubtful over his other statements.
Incidentally, for those of you who (wisely) read Iraqis’ blogs to find out what’s going on out there, I’d recommend adding Riverbend to your list.
John b,
You mean the same Riverbend who was exposed as a liar by Omar at Iraq the Model?
“exposed”. Heh. I imagine you’ve got accurate stats on Iraqi electricity useage and pricing that allow you to judge whose factual claims are correct?
john b–
Say what you about Leatherwood. He’s been to Iraq. He’s seen and heard from Iraqis firsthand and unfiltered. As one who is doing something rather than just talking, his credibility beats most reporters (who often get their stories at the hotel watering hole) hands down.
john b,
no I don’t — but then neither do you. It’s Omar’s word against Riverbend’s so why present Riverbend as some kind of all-knowing authority to the people on this blog?
You may be interested to know that Salam Pax is in Britain right now urging the coaltion troops not to leave Iraq until after free, stable elections. And he’s hardly pro-American.
Susan: and I agree with him. The fact that Iraq would get even worse if we left doesn’t mean invading was a good idea, though (and I mentioned Riverbend as a counter to Pete’s mention of the more upbeat ITM and Belmont blogs – if people read Riverbend they should read ITM and vice versa).
Kerry: I’m sure Mr Leatherwood is well-intentioned. He does appear to be in Kurdistan, which is known for being pro-US/UK (for obvious and sensible reasons), and he does seem to know less than he thinks about happenings in the UK. This makes me sceptical of his knowledge of what’s happening in the Sunni triangle and even the south.
Fair enough, john b. The BBC’s coverage of Iraq is very similar to
what people used to say about the crime rate in pre-Giuliani New York City–that it was a fearful place to live. Yes, it was bad in places, but not in every place. Yes, there are ‘no-go areas’ but this does not hold true country-wide. Can you find this reported by the BBC? With difficulty.