A great interview which once again exposes the left.
Let me tell you what I thought was the most telling parts in the interview after listening to the interview twice.
Hugh asks "I'm not looking for minute counts here, but I am trying to get a sense of how often you'll cross over to the other side and spend time with them."
and Michael responds "I suppose it's a matter of how you look at crossing over, too."
This is telling because Mark doesn't know what side he is on. Hugh continues his probe and like a good interviewer lets Michael hang him self.
HH: All right. So we've got a good grounding here. Now this brings me to the interesting issue that we talked about on CNN, and that is the morality of doing that. Why do you do that?
MW: Well, there's a number of reasons. I mean, you can look at it very, very cynically. One is know thy enemy. Now I cannot begin to tell you how much the American people, not to mention the Brits and the Aussies back home, have been significantly misled about the nature of the enemy. I mean, I've been at press conferences under the CPA. I've been at press conferences under the interim Iraqi government. I've been to press conferences under the current regime. I've listened to all manifestation of U.S. military spokesmen, of diplomats, of ambassadors, discuss and describe the enemy. And so often, it has been wrong. And it's either because these people don't understand what they're up against, or more likely, it's that these people are not telling the public the truth about them, about the fact that they're not just one homogenous group, that there are many different motivations. And that was a very, very valuable thing to come to understand, because it's led to the point now, that we see, where we have this Bush administration opening dialogue and negotiations with the more nationalist, or Baathist elements of the insurgency. So learning that this was not one homogenous, scary boogeyman was vital to not just my and the public's understanding, but also to military intelligence and this administration's. Look what it's led to.
You can see that Michael point of view is to not trust anything the military, administration or anyone that would have anything good to say about the war. Like a good liberal he must see the truth in the other side. He must question authority.
Hugh follows up by asking -
HH: Michael Yon, as you recall on CNN, paid you great compliment for the way you've covered the war, in a way that he is frankly admiring of, as I am. But I would prefer that you not report on the insurgents, and I'm troubled by your insistance on many occasions that the coalition forces, the military, are lying to people. I'd like you to expand on that.
MW: Well, as I said, I've sat in briefings where...and I will describe for example, events that...this is the thing. What's the title of Phillip Knightley's book, that great time of journalism, the first casualty...and how the first casualty of war is always truth. I mean, for a start, even with the best of intentions, not everything on a battlefield is clear. A lot of things are very fuzzy, particularly at the end of it. Don't forget also that this is an information war. This is a propaganda war. This war, as, you know, insurgents said way back in 2003, isn't going to be won on the battlefield. It's going to be won on the air waves. It turns out it's going to be won or lost on the internet. So these things become critically important.
Like a good liberal he completely ignores the question and has some vague reference to "and how the first casualty of war is always truth."
As an observer of this war I have an insight I haven't seen anywhere else and Michael alludes to it when he says "However, as the result of which, we've let a horrific genie out of the bottle, where 50 or 60 people are showing up dead every morning from an undeclared civil war that even the American ambassador now acknowledges is killing more people than the insurgency."
I don't think this is part of the civil war I think that this is reprisal from Sadams time in power. It's custom that if a Muslim is killed the family must take revenge for that death. If Ware is so close to the insurgents I think he might have explored this avenue.
Hugh continues to expose Michael ignorance with the next question
HH: Now this raises a question of whether or not American journalists generally, and perhaps you specifically, Michael, have an investment in describing this as a genie out of the bottle, have an investment in ignorning, say, the benefits the Marsh Arabs have achieved, the benefits the stability, relative stability in Mosul...they just had an attack in Mosul, so it's relative stability, not great stability. What is it? 13 out of the provinces are generally sedate. It is Baghdad, Anbar, the Syrian desert there, that are the terrible places of great conflict. And while 50 to 60 bodies a day is a horrible toll, Mark Steyn argues that on a net, there are 100,000 Iraqis more alive every year that Saddam is gone, than every year this insurgency goes on. Does that not make a difference in your understanding of the conflict?
Michael shows he doesn't understand the conflict and shows he is the only one inside a bottle when he answers
MW: Well, I mean, like I said, it's very hard to compare. If 100,000 more people are alive, then clearly, that's a blessing. How we come to those numbers I wouldn't have a clue.
Excuse me!! Sadam killed 100,000 per year.
Recent Comments