I liked the article, alot of this stuff is common knowledge if you get your info on Iraq from people who are actually in Iraq (not counting journalists hiding in the Hilton). Unfortunately, you'll never hear this on CNN or in the newspapers.

I've said this before and I think it bears repeating: Try getting in touch with some people who are actually in Iraq and see if the info they give you goes along with what you hear in the US media. In my experience it does not. The DOD website provides numerous ways to contact soldiers; shoot one and email and ask what it is like. If the DOD makes you squirm, there are lots of NGO's and all kinds of other groups who have people you can contact. Give it a try, it might change your outlook.

feel the burn..........

Just got back from Iraq last week and though things as the gentleman sees it are looking up they weren't in my corner. There are a lot of "displaced persons" in Iraq. A refugee is someone who crosses a border, a displaced person is someone who stays in the country but has left their place of residence. In Iraq today by conservative estimates, there are over 100,000 displaced persons. These are mainly people who have left there home usualy under duress because they are of the wrong religous persuasion. Many of these folks have moved in with families, but many others are in "displaced civilian rest areas" set up by NGO's or the government of Iraq. This situation is not crucial yet, but it is getting there. I want to close this by saying how wrong it is to compare the way this conflict is going, with our conflict in Vietnam. In my opinion (and please remember what opinions are like) Iraq is worse. A soldier in Saigon could leave his base and go out on the town and have a beer. Ask any soldier in Baghdad if they wouild be willing to leave their FOB and go to downtown Baghdad for a cup of chai, without the benefit of a convoy, body armor etc..
God bless those who continue to serve, and bring them home safely, and God Bless America.

That photo brings back painful memories.

Excellent article! My son has spent two tours in Iraq and he would tend to agree with SethBD, that Iraq is worse. I did the Vietnam tour and a half, but never have been to Iraq, so I'll bow to greater expertise.

One similarity though--the over-abundance of liberal "newsies" who think the "people's right to know" is more important than the lives of our soldiers, Marines and airmen. I lost a few friends to their interference--I hope nobody loses another. God bless those of you who continue to defend the hope of the Free World. Come home safe! DE OPPRESSO LIBER!

Iraq is has about 1/12 the population of the United States. To gain insight on the impact of the on-going deaths multiple the number reported by 12. The would yield some idea of how it might impact America.

For example, in late August 2005 there was a religous procession crossing a bridge approaching a holy mosque. Someone in the procession cried out there was a suicide bomber in the crowd. The crowd paniced and almost 1000 people fell over the bridge and where killed. 1000 people is alot, but it would have been almost 12,000 in this country. This was briefly reported here, was soon eclipsed by hurricane Katrina, and now is virtually forgotten in this country. But, the impact in Iraq must have been huge and is surely still being felt.

So was this part of the new and improved Iraq? Could an Iraqi rationalize that if America had not caused the insurgery, this would not have happened?
----
In the early days of the insurgency, SecDef Rumsfeld stated he expected the insurgency, then estimated to be several 1000s, to die down to 300 to 500 insurgents. (I think he referred to them as dead-enders) Can a country, any country, survive with 300 to 500 armed rebels weaking havac across the land. Americans go bonkers when they hear of a single person shooting cars in DC. As long as there is an active insurgency, it would be difficult to see how a country can exist while there are still 1000s of rebels trying to defeat the government.
---
Finally, where are the refences in the article?

The author defines himself as an authority because he has spent "considerable time" in Iraq. I've spent considerable time in the United States,(most of my life) but I suspect few people would consider me an authority of this country.

Any number of statements can be disected for accuracy. For example: "Clearly there are those in the media and the think tanks who wish the Iraq enterprise to end in tragedy, as a just comeuppance for George W. Bush"

Please, name them and where they have stated that is their goal? Where are the references?

Rather than stating if a country is doing well or not, I believe the best information is statistics: Life Expectancy, Perinatal deaths within 28 days of birth, incidence of infectious disease, number of people with potatable water, etc.

The article presented is an opinion. I cannot hold it up as convincing because there is no source material.

i enjoyed the article, regardless of whatever biases were in place (there are always some). it's refreshing to here that at least some good things are coming out of the time and lives spent in iraq. i'm in college currently and have given serious consideration to joining the marine corps. it's a difficult decision for me, not knowing what may be ahead of me in the scientific community. it seems that more and more i feel like i need to go into the service, though i don't know what is driving me to that conclusion. reports of "road-side bombs" killing servicemen and women every other day seem to draw me closer to the service, not repel me in a way that only common sense could. in a time when serving my country and promoting what i believe to be true, just, and right can be skewed in so many ways, it's difficult to know what to do.

I will defer to the experience of those who have been and are there now. And I wont speak on the point of how things are in Iraq. And not being an American is it really my place to judge as to whether the US should have gone to or be in Iraq.

But I have a question; How many more displaced persons would there be if US forces left Iraq this year as opposed to a later date when say, Iraq's own establishment is capable of supporting itself?

Yes its unfortunate that American's and their Allies have to put their lives on the line in support of an operation in a country they may not have any attachment to or worse even care about in the least!

Although I've buried two friends in the past 3 months who were serving in a country they didn't really care about, on a tour that I should have been on, patrolling in a vehicle I should have been in! I'm not really bothered by my decision to stay behind but what would have bothered me is if this little country I'm from would have been unable to take over the mission from the US troops over there. Not because those US troops weren't doing a good job but because it was at a point in that country for someone to come in with a different "work ethic" so to speak.

If my country would have opted to say "nah we've got better things to do, XBOX 360 is being released soon! And we've got to go camp out at the game shop entrance." That would have meant that that little country where my buddies are putting their lives on the line would been in one of two boats: The US would have abandoned it to less effective poorly trained allies, and it would be a pile of rubble as we speak... Or those good American troops would be spread so thin that loses in both that little country and in Iraq would be of a magnitude the likes of which the American civil war couldn't even compare too.

I'm no historian, I'm no policy maker, I'm not even all that bright, but I know a good thing when I see it. And those troops over there whether they be an American in Iraq fighting some significant battles or a Canadian in Afghanistan fighting insurgents (along side good Americans). They are doing some damned good things. For some damned good reasons. And even if a less noble profiteering agenda led them there in the first place. At least those agendas have more potential to be beneficial to the locals then heroine growing, ethnicly cleansing warlords ever would have or would be.

It could be worse, the cold war could have turned into an actual war and all that would be left of the world would be the poor little neglected Middle East, and don't forget Africa! Why waste nukes on those places? Nobody cares about those places!

"If anyone actually reads the crap I just wrote I will be surprised. Sorry people I'm long winded in writing!"

Just curious, if anyone knows, what do those red CF shirts the trainers/helpers are wearing say?

Just a short comment on the piece by Mr. Taheri:

It's very good to hear about some of the positive things happening in Iraq, and especially heartening to hear of the growing democratic trends among the population. One can only hope that these trends will continue and will, with the help of U.S., British, and other troops, overcome the violence that opposes them.

I do take issue with the provocative title and premise of the article -- that somehow the car bombs, IEDs and sectarian assasinations are not "real". Is the experience of the soldier who feels the fear of being blown to pieces by a roadside bomb on a patrol somehow "unreal"? Are the images and stories of deaths, explosions and fear sent out by the press -- for whom the author clearly feels little but contempt -- not, in fact, "real"? Are they fabrications?

It seems to me that the author would have made his point -- that things aren't as bad as they seem in Iraq and that the cause of freedom is a noble one -- had he not fallen prey to what his ideological rivals have made their primary rhetorical device: creating a straw man for an opposition, just so he can be knocked down (fortunately, he steered clear of the other favorite: demonization of the opposition).

Clearly this piece is an opinion, but unfortunately it is like many opinions about Iraq, the U.S. presence there, and just about any other controverial topic: informed not by ALL the facts but rather informed by only the facts that fit a pre-defined ideological position.

No rest for me - time to make up Sunday and Yesterday's WODs. Gonna hurt like heck, but can't FIGMO it!

re: Comment #5 "abundance of liberal "newsies" who think the "people's right to know" is more important than the lives of our soldiers"

Freedom of the press is more important the the lives of the soldiers. Soldiers are asked to defend that freedom. If they don't want to do it, don't enlist. We have a volunteer military. No reporter should keep his mouth shut for the "safety of the troops."

I was refreshingly surprised when I read into the article that it was not of the usual slant we are growing so accustomed to hearing everyday. I enjoyed the article and it's perspective of what is happening behind the scenes that most of us do not hear about ona regular basis. I will readily admit I have questions about our current and extended role/duties in Iraq, but I can only hope for the best for our soldiers and the Iraqi people in so much as being bettered by our presence in their country. On a daily basis, my thoughts go out to the soldiers laying it on the line for a country of sometimes seemingly minor consequence and for the underlying reasons they are there. I wish them the best and hope for a positive long term resolution to the Iraqi conflict. To our soldiers and allies; Stay sharp, stay safe, keep the faith, and come home soon.

I wish his take was as he paints it.
The article is a depressing illustration that even a source as informed and entrenched as this one can and will spin the facts as he does.
My sources are rarely US generated...but internationally derived and usually straight from the Bahgdad press bureau... And the sad truth is the situation is far from the one spun here.
When my father and uncles for example,as proud as veterans come, can have the balls as Americans to tell it like it is (and that's exactly what it takes) in Iraq...(it's called being accountable).....it amazes me to see these desperate attempts to embellish (a generous term here) the reality over there.

#12: Ernest Taylor Pyle phone home.

One last little blurb, forgive me for this!

"Articulate men say articulate things. And most of us would be unwise to name ourselves as such. But to be frank, when the #$*F hits the fan, EVERYBODY TALKS GUN!" - Pierre Auge

#12 i wouldnt go as far as to say this
"No reporter should keep his mouth shut for the "safety of the troops.""
there is a fine line between operational security and informing the public.

Interesting opinion piece. It is good to be reminded that some good might come from this ill-conceived and disastrously prosecuted war. I did support Bush Sr's gulf war primarily for one reason: Saddam pre-emptively invaded another country and started a war against a country that was no threat. It is constantly disgusting to me that our country has now done exactly the same thing in Iraq. If good does eventually come from it I'll be glad, but that outcome will never make the pre-emptive invasion right. I still believe that the main reason we invaded Iraq was that Karl Rove believed that making W a war-president would get him re-elected. As with so many other events, Rove correctly understood the mindset of a majority of the American public.
All the brave people serving our country have my deepest respect and best wishes. I strongly support the troops, but NOT this president. It simply cannot be possible that every war is good and right simply because we started it.

No rest for the "wicked my mother use to say so I must be real "bad" because I'm going to do mondays workout today.I so love you "cross fit".

I am in Iraq right now. I make no claim to special insight due to that fact. There are plenty of Americans here with me that obviously don't have a clue. There are also those here that are very bright, and are struggling with the problem on levels, and with abilities, far above my own. Being here, or having been here is not a "silver bullet" in our collective struggle to understand the problem. It certainly adds dimension to your perspective, though not always value.

Pierre #8 almost apoligizes for his opinion because he is not American, and then goes on to write a very insightful and moving addition to our understanding. The fact that he has buried two friends isn't what "buys" him credibility. He had it already, his opinion was already valuable because he offered it in the spirit of the positive, of trying to help. We are touched and we share his loss, and hopefully we listen, even if we don't agree.

Timm #14: I don't believe that your international sources and the Baghdad press corp are wholly without a biased agenda, but you are right about the articles "spin". Both sides spin, the trick is to see the truth in there. A truth that won't reveal itself fully until historical perspective makes things more clear. And then we'll argue some more.

I can tell you that this place is a mess. We are trying, we are struggling, to find the right way to make it better. It is absolutley in everyone best interest to keep exchanging ideas (like this forum). Your opinions are always value added if they are from a motivation to help rather than by simple Bush-bashing or saber-rattling.

The article may be right but its logic is badly flawed. Indexing refugees? The value of the Dinar? Do you know how bad it has to get before people flee their homeland, baby in hand, basket on head???? And then you need somewhere to flee to. Many more than you think will stick it out to the bitter end (Katrina!). The value of the dinar may be more a result of things being good for urban merchants and war profittering than an true indicator of quality of life.

I don't have many answers. Security first, food, public health, commerce, and representative government. In that order, with a free press and free speech, throughout as a watchdog. And they have to do it themselves (with our help) but they have to know we are leaving, and soon. It is that simple. As Clausewitz said; "In war, the important things are very simple, and the simple thing are very hard."

P.S. TommyT #7: There are some doors you have to walk through all alone. (Joe vs. the Volcano)

adapted from Coach Martin's 'Clean Fran' comes....

'Clean Viking Helen'

3 rounds for time of;

500m row
x21 dbell hang squat clean
x12 pull ups

time - 16.58 using 18 kg dbells (40lbs)

ouchy.....it's a keeper.

Sgt Feather - I wish you the best. Please come home safe. Thanks for serving!

My experience in Iraq taught me that the popular position is not always the right position to take. The people are definitely divided as to whether or not we are wanted there. I have heard from some of the locals that I worked with that many want us to stay and continue. They are afraid that if we leave, civil war will break out. I agree with SGT Feather: security first. I think anytime a citizen feels forced to carry a gun at all times, the situation needs a remedy. Our Iraqi workers carried AK's and a pistol. The unfortunate fact is that they had to use them on several occasions. To me that speaks volumes: we need to finish what we started and get Iraq to a self supporting state so that we can pull back. I'd like to see more countries participate in the solution. Lots of critics, but how much are other countries willing to participate?

#19--sgt feather:

God bless you and your troops--come home safe!

#12 Jason said:
No reporter should keep his mouth shut for the "safety of the troops."

This statement is a perfect illustration of the leftist notion that truth is relative, that all perspectives are equally valid, therefore we should not try to judge between good and evil, nor ever take sides in any struggle.

Hitler would have loved you Jason.

Thanks to all those who serve. Be safe and most importantly, trust your gut!!!

Semper Fi!!!

B2B tabata squats are the devil!

(Just like foosball!)
-From the movie the Waterboy

Dan MacD (comment #24)--

Can you explain what you think is the connection between Jason's statement and all the statements you attribute to leftists? I don't completely agree with his statement, but I have no idea what that has to do with all those other things.

Took a 6 mi run after yesterday's WOD...(nice mellow 10 min splits)...got a slow, even burn cooking up in the legs. Gonna get out on the trail today and hike some Eastern "mountains," (out West you'd call them "hills"). In my eyes the beauty of crossfit is that it complements any other regimen, program, avocation, or occupation you happen to have going: from hiking the A/T to serving in the military, crossfit's the right fit!

Check out http://iraqbodycount.org. Was it worth it?

#9 Jacob

They said "CrossFit"

and below that "Bring it on"

Those BTB squats were lots of fun.

#30: Damn, that's close to a perfect Haiku!

Re-phrasing very slightly to get the 5-7-5 syllables:

The shirts said "CrossFit"
And below that "Bring it on"
BTB squats were fun.

#12 Jason:
It is hard to know where wo begin with the incredibly insensitive and narrow comment you made with regard to the safety of our troops. Although I do agree that it is the Volunteer Soldier, Sailor, and Marine's job to protect the right to free speech, nowhere is it written that in doing so your own countrymen (the free press) would directly endanger our lives in the process. As a bomb tech and someone who has been there and who has friends there, it is incredibly disheartening that someone like you would be so cavalier with the lives of the people who have given you the right to say stupid stuff on this or any other site. My prayer is that people like you, terrorists, and other idiots would one day value human life, especially those that serve you, above the rights granted to you by the sacrifice of those same individuals.

David, rights are not granted to anyone by the armed forces, the government, or the Constitution.

Jason (#12)
In my experience, people who say things like "if they don't like it they didn't have to enlist," never served. I swore an oath to defend the Constitution including the Right to a free press, which is not the same as a right to know. I just wish the average "mature" journalist had the sound judgement and situational awareness of your average 19 year old Seaman or Private. It must be cool to be able to denigrate men and women who are sworn to protect your life, of course, if you had the guts to do it face to face, you would have used your real e-mail address. SLEEP SOUNDLY IN YOUR BEDS KNOWING THAT ROUGH MEN STAND READY TO DO VIOLENCE ON YOUR BEHALF V/R Bob Taylor

#12: He who fights with monsters must take care lest he thereby become a monster.

Transparency in government is absolutely essential for the proper function of anything resembling a democracy. Please don't confuse transparency with getting the story out early to avoid getting scooped by another reporter, though. One must question the value of trading status as a journalist for people's lives.

Comment #12 Jason

There's something called respect and operational need to know. When the press releases operational information to the public it is viewed by all to include our enemies and operations are jeopardized and soldiers die. The press should never feel the need to cover up or clam up about anything illegal but they should at a minimum know what can and should be released and when to release such information. Mission information should remain private until completed.

100 double unders
Didn't time it.

Sluggish today...couldn't string together more than 6 or 7.

#12: Obviously a comment by one who never served and would never condescend to serve.

I still haven't had time to read the article yet, but I keep wanting to jump in here. I am a journalist, and I agree with most of the comments people have posted. But I have to say, I have never known another journalist who would disagree. When in this conflict has a reporter published "mission information" that led to American or coalition lives being lost? How has the the press "directly endangered" the lives of our soldiers? I defy anyone to show me an American reporter who would trade their "status as a journalist for people's lives."

There are many journalists, American and otherwise, who have also placed themselves in harm's way because of what they believe in, who are also willing to risk their lives because they want to make the world a better place.

And to rpo (comment #1): Your comments regarding journalists "hiding in a Hilton" struck me as particularly insensitive, as it reminds me of a journalist I met a few years ago named Jose Couso. He was a Spanish cameraman who was later killed when a US tank shell fired on his hotel. Is that what you mean by hiding?

#12: insensitive at best. Would you sacrifice your life so the public's right to know operational details is preserved?

Others, great comments and incredibly insightful. The author of this article is no more of an authority on the situation in Iraq than any other who spends time trying to get a handle on a large and complex situation. Witness the wide disparity in views on this message board from those who have been there. Iraq is a large and complex country. I suspect that most Americans wouldn't even know about the devastation of Katrina if not for the media.

Any society with the historical baggage of Iraq (religious, tribal) is going to suffer in transition. This suffering is evident in the daily drumbeat of reports in the popular press of death and dismemberment, and the risk of anarchy and civil war seems to me to be quite high.

Quite obviously to most, there are just as many positive developments occurring on a daily basis that are more difficult, but not impossible, to discover. These victories, small and large, are under-reported and under-appreciated, and almost entirely attributable to the brave servicemen (and women) and equally brave Iraqis who refuse to be cowed by the bloodthirsty insurgents.

Lets hope for victory and a safe and stable Iraq. Sincerest thanks to those who have sacrificed their time and even their lives to make than happen.

Jason (#12)

So during a time of draft your reason for saying, "No reporter should keep his mouth shut for the "safety of the troops." would not apply.

So therefore during a draft the opposite is true. A reporter SHOULD keep his mouth shut if it protects troops because they AREN'T volunteers?

That doesn't make any sense. Jason, since your REASONING appears to be nonsense so is your conclusion.

BTW, Today's WOD as RX'd. LOL.

I just started but am so far out of shape I'm not posting my mod to the WODs yet. They are just embarrasing.

#12 I couldn't disagree more about the silence of reporters.

If freedom of the press is more important than the lives of the soldiers, that says one of two things: Either freedom of the press is more important than life itself, or the lives of soldiers are worth less than the lives of reporters and other civilians. Which do you believe?

I can't imagine, personally, upholding the public's "right to know" when it meant jeopardizing lives. Eventually the truth must be told, but the full facts don't need to be disclosed ahead of time if it will increase the death toll.

I do not lie. I tell the truth when it costs me a great deal personally to do so. And I would look you straight in the eye and tell you a bald-faced lie with a heart of integrity if that would save someone's life.

There is nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing anyone the Right to Know. Journalists spin their stories to sell papers. The government spins its information to present itself favorably and achieve objectives. The enemy does as well. Who really KNOWS anything who hasn't experienced it?

#39 bcf: "I defy anyone to show me an American reporter who would trade their "status as a journalist for people's lives."

Easily "defied". Simply being present "defies" you.

Reporters aren't trained soldiers. The fact the reporters are putting themselves in situations where troops are forced to protect them (despite the reporter's possibly dangerous (read stupid) actions.)

When ever a reporter forces a deviation due to their presence in the field "reporter trading human lives for their status". When extra suppression fire has to be laid down to buy the reporter extra time to "get safe" and the soldiers ARE FORCED TO stay at risk that much longer. the "reporter trading human lives for their status" and "directly endangered" the lives of soldiers because it's the reporter’s EGO that put them be there in the first place.

Journalist aren't outside of the world looking in; they are in the world and as such their presense and actions have an affect. BFC, you're naive to believe that isn't true.

BCF,

It seems to me that the notion that reporters should be neutral observers and should not take sides or make value judgments originates in the leftist doctrine of multiculturalism, which deems all cultures equally valid, and is itself an offshoot of leftist doctrine that there is no objective truth, only differing, equally valid perceptions of truth.

Therefore, for example, in the conflict between the Nazi Germany and the USA, a true multiculturalist would not be able to take sides. Nor are they be able to articulate any reason to resist Islamic fundamentalism, because, after all, the terrorists are as much entitled to their point of view as we are.

Thus, in Iraq and elsewhere we have the terrorists staging attacks for the benefit of reporters and cameramen, who are willing, for the sake of the news footage, to be complicit in the attack by keeping silent about their foreknowledge of it. And it never occurs to them that they are helping the "bad guys", or are useful idiots, because in their view there are no "bad guys". Of course, in the case of some reporters who would do such a thing, it may be that they are just sleazeballs.

I think most of you are reading #12 incorrectly.

It is plainly obvious that the freedom of the press, along with freedom of speech, association, religion, etc., are far more important than the lives of soldiers (and citizens, for that matter). Our founding fathers were willing to give their lives so as to establish a form of government that would not infringe upon these fundamental rights, and to free themselves from a tyranny that did.

You all have misinterpreted his post as a call for reporters to compromise operation security and put troops at risk for any reason. Hardly. Freedom of the press comes with an attendent responsibility, but also with the potential for harm. However, without that possibility of screwing up, intentionally or otherwise, there is no possibility of freedom.

I don't think any American reporter wants to put American troops in harms way, but when a story is important and it has the potential to harm operation security, there must be the freedom of choice for the reporter, not the military, to decide on disclosure. Otherwise, we are no better than a two-bit militaristic dictatorship.

It is so sad that so many are so willing to trade liberty for security, or are unable to see the difference.

Andrew N, "It is plainly obvious that the freedom of the press, along with freedom of speech, association, religion, etc., are far more important than the lives of soldiers (and citizens, for that matter)."

Yes, for some it is plainly obvious; for others it apparently isn't.

We aren't miss reading post #12. It's quite clear even ignoring tone. He clearly states his positon in absolutes. Where do you see him mentioning "compromise"?

Any type of "compromise" interperation of #12's post is clearly giving him to much credit.

took a couple days off last week, my friend came into town for the weekend and had to show her a good time. got off of schedule. did three wods yesterday. tried to do a little work today and was just beat. the sdhp substitutions broke me yesterday.

does anyone know a good place to find used concept2 rowers- other than ebay?

penty, I didn't particularly care for his tone either, but I think it is simply tautological to suggest that someone who volunteers for potentially deadly service in the defense of the Constitution is placing the values of said document (including "freedom of the press") above the value of their own lives. I fail to see how this is at all controversial.

Hi all,
{Skip 1440'; Push-upx25 (feet elevated 18"); and Pull-upx15}x4.
Duration 16:39.
Lats are sore because of heavy DL's yesterday.
Rest...

I enjoyed the article. It gave me a feeling of pride.

"Thanks!" (again) to the men and women in our armed forces. My wife, daughter and I sleep soundly with you on the wall.

Cheers.

#48 Thomas

I've heard that craigslist is a good place to find C2's

#31
Actually that's 5-7-6 :p

all in good fun

CrossFit Webmasters:

Could we please get scroll bars placed on the WOD pictures so that we can see the whole pic? Ie. on Firefox, the picture opens up bigger than my screen--I can't see the far right of the picture, and I wanted to see the look on my face during those B2B's!

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated...

#46, agreed. Isn't that part of why the troops are out there? To protect the freedoms WE have in THIS country to write anything we please?

This isn't to say that reporters have the right to put soldiers in harms way by risking operational security on the field or by releasing sensitive information (which they should never be given in the first place), but that I would defend the right of reporters to write condescending and inaccurate articles even if they would hurt morale because they are given that right in the Constitution.

SethBD, Peejay2, Pierre, Sgt. Feather, Taylor, and everyone else--thank you for your service. For those of you still out there--come home safely. We're praying for you.

Penty (comment #44)—

You say that by “simply being present”, a journalist is trading people’s lives for his or her own status. I don’t see how that’s true. Status? You think that's why they're there? Your subsequent points are hypothetical...“It’s the reporter’s EGO that put them…there in the the first place.” How do you claim to know such a thing?

Here’s a quote from Bryan Whitman: "I have not met a journalist that has willingly wanted to compromise a mission. Furthermore, I find it inconceivable that a journalist wanted to compromise a mission that he or she was part of.”

I am not claiming that journalists are “outside the world looking in.” Did you read my whole post? Clearly I’m aware that journalists are very much in the world they’re trying to report on. Of course their presence and actions have an effect; that’s the whole point.

Dan (comment #45)—

Thanks for your answer. I see where you’re coming from now, but I don’t agree. First off, can we stop with the overly simplistic “leftist=multiculturalism=there is no right or wrong” stuff? Do you really think that simply because a person is, say, a democrat, that they can’t take sides between America and Hitler? Or Bin Laden? Really, I know this gets a lot of currency among right-wingers, but I don’t know why.

As a matter of fact, the pro-military, anti-free-press Hitler would almost certainly not have liked Jason's comment (#12).

More to the point, though, just because a reporter can be a “neutral observer” and report facts without bias does not mean that they are not making value judgements. Couldn’t a person report on a murder, stating the facts objectively, and still condemn the crime as immoral?

#42: "I can't imagine, personally, upholding the public's "right to know" when it meant jeopardizing lives. Eventually the truth must be told, but the full facts don't need to be disclosed ahead of time if it will increase the death toll."

How did you feel when the pictures from Abu Ghraib were made public? Those pictures gave our enemies a lot of ammunition in the propaganda war, and few would argue that those pictures had no influence on the death toll. Still, it disgusted me to hear "patriots" telling the press to STFU about them. If we've maintained any sort of moral high ground it is because we've had an aggressive, adversarial press as a check against our government and military.

Operational security is a red herring. I want to know when my government does things I can't sanction, even in a war zone.

Andrew(#49): “but I think it is simply tautological to suggest that someone who volunteers for potentially deadly service in the defense of the Constitution is placing the values of said document (including "freedom of the press") above the value of their own lives.”

Then it goes back to previous my question, “So therefore during a draft the opposite is true. A reporter SHOULD keep his mouth shut if it protects troops because they AREN'T volunteers?” You want to pin your whole reasoning behind a “volunteer” force then address this issue. Is your position that a non-volunteer force doesn’t willing support the constitution and therefore can ignore aspects of it? Give me an answer to that.

The proper phrase is “Congress shall make no law respecting …abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...” In NO way does a delay in the release of operational information met the defintion of “abridging”.

It is possible to have the Consitution valued over soldiers lives and still have operational security.

For those who think that journalists do their jobs just to sell newspapers, or because they have an ideological (leftist) axe to grind, please see the stats below, courtesy of the Committee to Protect Journalists (www.cpj.org/Briefings/Iraq/Iraq_danger.html). That kind of simplistic thinking is analogous to those who think soldiers volunteer for combat duty for the high pay and glamourous work, or to act out latent fascist tencencies. Neither view much represents reality, much less an informed opinion.

Jounalists who cover wars, like most soldiers who volunteer to fight in them, are generally courageous, motivated people with a strong sense of duty. But journalists differ from soldiers in that typically they don't get to carry firearms into action, can only act defensively, and rarely benefit from operational intel before the fact, which could possibly give them a better chance of getting out/staying out of harm's way (Note that of 69 journalists killed in Iraq since 2003, only 4 were embedded, which would suggest that they benefitted from the greater safety and operational intel that embedded status provides, balanced against the negative of being shown and allowed to report only what their handlers want them to see and report). Embedded journalists, when provided with sensitive opintel, are typically quarentined with their handling unit until the action is over, and thus typically don't report until after the fact. How this helps the enemy operationally is hard to fathom.

Independent journalists who come across operational intel before the fact (how rare can we suspect this to be?) should not be held accountable for reporting it, since they have not applied for and received a top-secret clearance, nor, often, are they even citizens of coalition countries. Protecting secrets is not their job. That is instead the responsibility of the individual in the chain of command who leaked it (sorry, Scooter). Yes,unfortunatly, sometimes soliders are put in danger by their superiors who detail them to provide security for an embedded journalist. That is the chain of command's call, and thus the soldier's duty when she or he draws that short straw. But I share BCF's (#39) call to be provided with some real hard factual evidence where a journalist leaked opintel that got military personnel killed.

Do insurgents read papers and watch TV? Sure. Do they take comfort from negative reporting. Maybe. Does this help them tactically? Who knows? Does reading negative accounts in the papers make average Iraqis hostile to the Coalition forces and the occupation? Probably some yes, some no. Probably the same for most Americans.

But how journalists and publishers help the citizens of a democracy (a.k.a. "We the People") make decisions about the right or wrongness of the decisions and actions of their governmental servants (a.k.a. "the Administration") was self evident to the Founding Fathers, who felt compelled to enshrine in the Bill of Rights the right of all citizens, including members of the "Fifth Estate", to observe and report on the good and bad of the government free of censorship. Of the many reasons provided by the Bush Administration for going to war in Iraq (several of which were subsequently exposed by the press as being absolute B.S.) was the need to provide democracy to the Iraqis. Presumably this also includes the need for freedom for the Iraqi press to report the truth to the Iraqi people. Please note that of 69 journalists killed in Iraq since March of 2003, 50 were Iraqis.

The Greek poet Aescylus observed, "In War, Truth is the first casualty". William T. Sherman once said that "All war is Hell". Sugar-coat it all you want. It is a brutal, nasty, killing business. God bless those whose duty is to serve to fight it, those whose duty is to report it, and those of us who feel duty bound to stay informed and to vote our conscience.

JOURNALISTS KILLED ON DUTY IN IRAQ: 69*

Here is a statistical analysis of journalists killed in Iraq since hostilities began in March 2003, as compiled by the Committee to Protect Journalists. CPJ considers a journalist to be killed on duty if the person died as a result of a hostile action—such as reprisal for his or her work, or crossfire while carrying out a dangerous assignment. CPJ does not include journalists killed in accidents, such as car or plane crashes, unless the crash was caused by aggressive human action (for example, if a plane were shot down or a car crashed trying to avoid gunfire). Nor does CPJ include journalists who died of health ailments. Capsule reports detailing each death are available by following the links below.

* In addition, CPJ keeps a separate tally of media support workers who have been killed. That number stands at 26.

By Year:• 2006: 9• 2005: 22• 2004: 24• 2003: 14

By Nationality:• Iraqi: 50• European: 9• Other Arab countries: 3• United States: 2• All other countries: 5

By Gender:• Men: 63• Women: 6

By Circumstance:• Murder: 35• Crossfire or other acts of war: 34

Responsibility:• Insurgent action: 43 (Includes crossfire, suicide bombings, and murders.)• U.S. fire: 14 (CPJ has not found evidence to conclude that U.S. troops targeted journalists in these cases. While the cases are classified as crossfire, CPJ continues to investigate.)• Iraqi armed forces, during U.S. invasion: 3 (All are crossfire or acts of war.)• Iraqi armed forces, post-U.S. invasion: 1 (Crossfire)• Source unconfirmed: 8

By embedded status:• Embedded: 4• Non-Embedded or “unilateral”: 65

Type of news organization:• Working for international news organization: 35• Working for Iraqi news organization: 34

Highest death tolls among news organization:
• Iraq Media Network (includes Al-Iraqiya, its affiliates, and Sabah newspaper): 9• Al-Arabiya: 6
• Reuters: 4• Kurdistan TV 4

HISTORICAL:

Journalists killed in conflicts:• Algeria (1993-96): 58• Colombia (1986-present): 52• Balkans (1991-95): 36• Philippines (1983-87): 36• Turkey (1984-99): 22• Tajikistan (1992-96): 16• Sierra Leone (1997-2000): 15• Afghanistan (2001-04): 9• Somalia (1993-95): 9• Kosovo (1999-2001): 7• First Iraq war (1991): 4 (All were killed after the official end of the war but died in the conflict in the immediate aftermath.)

• Central American conflicts: Freedom Forum, a nonpartisan foundation dedicated to free press, lists 89 journalists killed for the years 1979-89.• Argentina: Freedom Forum lists 98 for the years 1976-1983.• Vietnam: Freedom Forum lists 66 journalists killed covering the conflict in Vietnam from 1955-1975. The Foreign Correspondents Club of Japan, which surveyed the years 1962-75, lists 71 journalists killed.• Korean War: Freedom Forum lists 17 journalists killed.• World War II: Freedom Forum lists 68.• World War I: Freedom Forum lists 2.

penty, you may be right, from a moral perspective, that draftees are entitled to greater consideration, but this is still consideration by the reporter, not a military authority. However, a draft is consistent with the Constitution and so draftees are just as reponsible for defending the Constitution as a volunteer (or they can go to prison, I suppose).

If a reporter is travelling independently and comes across a story where reporting may put troops at risk, I don't see how the troops have any authority to prevent such actions (assuming all involved are American -- there are many interesting considerations if one or another party is not protected by the Constitution). If a reporter is embedded, he or she typically agrees to certain rules of correspondence that prevent the release of operational details at that time. Violation of such an agreement would certainly subject the reporter to whatever penalties were also agreed upon.

Dan MacD: "Therefore, for example, in the conflict between the Nazi Germany and the USA, a true multiculturalist would not be able to take sides. Nor are they be able to articulate any reason to resist Islamic fundamentalism, because, after all, the terrorists are as much entitled to their point of view as we are."

Comparing Nazi Germany and Iraq is ridiculous in so many ways. Iraq was not the instigator of a world war. It was not a threat to us. A bad dictator, yes, but there are plenty of those in the world...

The point which you keep trying to pin on "leftist doctrine" about moral relativism, multiculturalism, or equality of cultures, etc. also applies to nothing that applies here. It's not about trying to say the other side is right, but that our side is not always right, and that our actions are not always just. Those who believe that are drinking too much kool aid. The demagogues are trying to make the questioning the actions of our government equate to treason? I thought that was democracy. I guess it good to export but harder to deal with at home.

It's about truth. What were the causes of the war? Was it just? Would you want to live in a country with the conditions which are present in Iraq presently (post war consequences)? Instead of trying to win the war of propoganda, why not question whether this is a war we should risk our soldiers, national prestige, and treasure.

Garrett, #54,
I usually end up saving the pics on my desktop so I can open them with PictureViewer. I just have to remember to erase them so my girlfriend doesn't ask why I have a bunch of pictures of Eva on my desktop. Reply -"Because I thought your pictures of Chuck Liddell might like some company." (Okay, I wouldn't let her keep pictures of Chuck on my computer; drool is bad for the circuitry.)

Speaking of Eva, I sometimes take my female pit bull over to my buddy's house so she can play with his male black Lab. She likes to run circles around him and then knock him down. Occassionally she let's him "win" to be fair. The other day I found myself thinking, "Huh, I'll bet that's what it's like dating Eva, Nicole, Annie, etc."

Day behind. "Michael"
31:45
3rd set just a demon.

(#56)

I can’t see your confusion except as a way for you to ignore the truth. Your statement was “I defy anyone to show me an American reporter who would trade their "status as a journalist for people's lives." I gave you such an example but apparently it was too concrete. Their status is a journalist, a noncombatant, in a combat arena. They choose this role (ego), and force others, whether they want to or not, to make up for their presence. Therefore their status as a LIVING reporter is traded for by soldier’s lives.

Further about jouranlistic ego you said in #39 “reporters, who have also placed themselves in harm's way because of what they believe in, who are also willing to risk their lives because they want to make the world a better place.” Read that, “THEY WANT”, that is ego, and it’s their wants and need they are considering, no? A soldier SERVES almost namelessly, a journalist gets a byline, how is that not ego.

As for quoting Bryan Whitman, I’m sorry but a civilian pentagon spokesperson not actively risking his life bears little weight with such a quote. Has he been on patrol in Iraq or anywhere else? Has he even served at all?

“Of course their presence and actions have an effect; that’s the whole point.” It’s nice how you only look at the positive effects of journalism and none of the negative. So you’re saying your job as a journalist is to put soldier in additional danger, that must help you sleep at night? You’re so busy writing and recording so “YOU can make the world a better place” you miss the solider who has to watch out for your absentminded ass and takes shrapnel as a result.

I guess this is a case of you get it or you don’t.

Nice to be able to sit there and pontifcate. Tell you what, send your first born son over there, have him come home maimed or worse, in a body bag, and then tell us all how necessary it was.

Garrett Smith (comment# 54)

If you right click on the photo, you can select "view image" which will fit the zoom to the window. Then you can click on the image to zoom in on a different area.

You can also right click on the "enlarge image" link and open it in a new tab or window to have scroll bars.

Article was interesting. I wish it had some references to the data he uses. I get nervous without backup.

The media 'spin' that many journalists are forced into is a direct result of Capitalism. They have to eat, and the publishers have to make money. 'Amped up' headlines and stories have become the norm, it is the only way to stay in buisness for many groups.

'Tweaked' media is the price we pay for the product. Hopefully we will all learn to read in-between the lines, and do our own research.

rowed 10k, didn't look at the time. Nutrition and workouts have been inconsistent, and I'm really trying to get back on track. I just don't want to end up in pitiful shape like before. Only thing at a high level right now is stress!!

“penty, you may be right, from a moral perspective, that draftees are entitled to greater consideration”
I am not saying that. My example was to point out the absurdity of your reasoning. I find the whole reasoning behind your argument ridiculous, what is embarrassing is you don’t see the issue even after I’ve pointed it out twice.
“However, a draft is consistent with the Constitution and so draftees are just as reponsible for defending the Constitution as a volunteer”
This is getting stupid. I didn’t say anything about being anti-draft. I was asking how you justify a “No reporter should keep his mouth shut for the "safety of the troops." When the troops are volunteers, but a “reporter should be more careful” when the troops are draftees. THE WHOLE ARGUMENT ON YOUR PART BASED ON POST #12s REASONING WAS THAT THE SOLDIERS ARE VOLUNTEEES AND SO SHOULD “SUCK IT UP.” I f you can’t apply the logic and the absurdity of the reason on your own I can’t help anymore than I already have.
“If a reporter is travelling independently and comes across a story where reporting may put troops at risk, I don't see how the troops have any authority to prevent such actions…”
They don’t if this is the case, but the troops shouldn’t have to be responsible for that person’s safety either, but they are. It’d be up to the reporter to display a certain level of ethnics, which of late they’ve shown very little. The discussion up to this point, as I understand it, has be where the govt has willing given information to reporters then having the reporters broadcast it early thereby creating a danger.
“If a reporter is embedded, he or she typically agrees to certain rules of correspondence that prevent the release of operational details at that time.”
A reporter doesn’t have to be embedded to know operational details or have details the enemy would like to know. There are typically pre-briefings to the press before certain large engagements. Premature release of these details would also put troops at risk would they not?

(#65)Schmid993

I support our troops 100%.

We're there now, we can't change the past. But even IF it was a mistake that is no reason to punish the troops by behaving recklessly.

I constantly here from the "left" about a lack of exit strategy from the right. Where is the Left's exit stategy and is it actually feasible?

Penty (comment #64)--

How is what you wrote "a concrete example"? And seriously, saying that the two words "they want" in my quote means it's all about ego is absurd. A volunteer soldier wants to serve his country; it would be ridiculous to claim that because it's his want that it's his ego being served.

Most people working in the media do not get a byline. Cameramen, crew, and many reporters do not. I really find it hard to believe that you think most journalists are covering the war for their own ego.

And a quote from a top Pentagon official "bears little weight" with you? Bryan Whitman, Assistant Secretary for the Department of Defense, is not enough of an expert for you. He did serve as a soldier, by the way.

The rest of your post just seems like a personal attack. Come on, man, I'm not saying that all of journalism is 100% positive, and I certainly am not saying my job as a journalist "is to put soldier in additional danger", etc.

5x5 front squat
135, 135, 135, 165, 185

5x5 OHS
bar, 85, 95, 115, 135

Row 2K
didn't keep time. Just a slow one to stretch out.

Thanks for the help with the scroll bar issue, everyone.

Today's rest day:
Z-Health full body joint mobility, 3 reps each
10' of flow yoga

Very sore from yesterday.

BCF (comment #70)--
“How is what you wrote "a concrete example"?”

This a concrete example (from post #44): “When extra suppression fire has to be laid down to buy the reporter extra time to "get safe" and the soldiers ARE FORCED TO stay at risk that much longer.” HOw you don't see that as a concrete example is beyond me.

“And seriously, saying that the two words "they want" in my quote means it's all about ego is absurd. A volunteer soldier wants to serve his country; it would be ridiculous to claim that because it's his want that it's his ego being served.”

Ego is about self is it not? And note I added the following, “A soldier SERVES almost namelessly, a journalist gets a byline, how is that not ego.”

“I really find it hard to believe that you think most journalists are covering the war for their own ego.”

Okay, I’ll bite. If it’s not ego what is it? They are putting themselves is a combat situation where they are more a hindrance than help, rely on others to protect them at the risk of the soldiers' lives. Overall useful purpose for being in that specific place, zero. When a person puts himself or herself in a position where others have to risk their lives for them for nothing in return that is ego.

“And a quote from a top Pentagon official "bears little weight" with you? Bryan Whitman, Assistant Secretary for the Department of Defense, is not enough of an expert for you. He did serve as a soldier, by the way.”

Yeah, so did my dad, but that doesn’t mean he ever saw combat. Has Bryan Whitman? I couldn’t find a bio easily so if you have one feel free to let me know. You want to say I'm attacking your character, how about you don't argue from authority, huh?

“The rest of your post just seems like a personal attack.”

It’s not a personal attack. People “see” the world in different ways. It could be the way you “see” the world prevents you from seeing mine.

"Come on, man, I'm not saying that all of journalism is 100% positive, and I certainly am not saying my job as a journalist "is to put soldier in additional danger", etc."

No, you’re saying it either you DON’T but a soldier into danger or it doesn’t matter. Neither of which is true.

my posts are getting to long, I'm done.

Dr. G #54,

I use Firefox myself (I'm too much of an open-source enthusiast to do otherwise).

The solution to your problem is to right-click on the link and select either "Open link in new window" or "Open link in new tab" (my preferred option since I love that tabbed browsing stuff), rather than just clicking on the link as usual.

This will give you a full-size picture that you can scroll up, down, right, and left.

Hope this helps.

my .02

Regarding journalists; my battalion had multiple embedded reporters during two deployments to Al Anbar, Iraq. Any unit would love to be able to stick strictly to their mission and not have to deal with VIP visits, inspections, reporters and whatever other dog and pony shows happen to come through. On the list of outside distractions however, the embedded reporters really weren't that bad. Of course there were some knuckleheads, and they were a pain in the @$$. Some of the guys though, were professionals. They stayed out of the way but still got their job done and as a rule, they got at least the grudging respect of the servicemen because hey, there's no way I'd ever leave the wire carrying nothing but a camera and notepad. Regardless of anything else, that takes guts.

d

Question about missing WODs. I'm getting ready to head down to the gym to make up Sunday's WOD. Didn't see an article on this in the FAQ, but I'm assuming these workouts aren't thrown out randomly. In other words, there's a method behind the particular exercises chosen for a specific day/week. If I miss a WOD, am I better off just following the rest of the WODs for that week and actually sticking to the rest day, or should I try and make it up at some point? Hopefully my question makes sense...

bcf #56,
I don't think all Democrats are left wing. I started by commenting on #12 who said that reporters have no obligation to keep their mouths shut to protect the troops. And my comment reflected my opinion that the source of such irremediable idiocy is in the doctrine of multiculturalism and the notion that there are no objective truths. If labeling these as leftist doctrine gives you a problem, I'm sorry, but they are ideas that emanate from and are current in radical leftist ideology, which, I'm happy to say, does not mean Democrat. And yes, I agree totally that a reporter can report the facts of a murder objectively and condemn it at the same time, and the condemnation is a value judgment that #12 would not have made.

dachoste, #61. I did not compare Nazi Germany to Iraq. I was making the point that multiculturalism cannot pick between the most notorious example of good v. evil in the 20th century. Your logic circuit needs repair.

AndrewN. "rights are not granted by anyone in the armed forces..."

A statement in the Bill of Rights or our beloved Constitution regarding 'Rights' is just words on paper without the willingness of patriots to sacrafice their lives. They are rights purchased with the blood of patriots.

Freedom of Speech was never absolute. A great deal of information to which you are referring is time sensitive. A little discretion on the part of journalists would preserve the lives of the sons and daughters of our nation. The 'story' could be told at a slightly later time and accomplish most of the objectives to which you refer. I fear that frequently the competition to be the first to market a story real or contrived places the members of our armed forces in jeopardy for no greater reason than to accomplish marketing objectives.

I believe that almost every journalist in Iraq has exercised quite reasonable caution in reporting operational issues, especially the embedded reporters.

Can you supply some examples of operations compromised by reporting? Besides Geraldo, of course.

Dan MacD, you absolutely trolled your little heart out with a Nazi reference. It's childish and uncalled for.

I did those B2B tabata squats at CF Philly :)

Great fun :)

--zach--

#76 Raja:

I stay the course. There is definitely seems to be a ryhme or reason to the sequence. After 30 WOD's I'm usually 5-6 behind due to my outdoor pursuits, swimming, running or fatigue.

Once I'm about a month behind ( & my scheduled WOD is similar to the live WOD) I'll TiVo ahead to join the gang real time.

My $.02.

mountain biked 10 miles to work in just under an hour
it is a beautiful day here in michigan finally

Executed the 060523 Michael WoD today @ ~ 00:38.
Executed the 060519 OHS WoD also: 45 x5, 65 x5, 85 x5, 85 x5, 95 x5.
3 rounds x10 each of assisted HSPUs.

#81 Craig,

Thanks for the info. I think that's my plan from here on out. If I miss one, I miss it - stick with the rest of the program since my missed days tend to have some sort of athletic activity built in.

I made up the 05/22 WOD today. By far the most difficult one I've done since I started CrossFit on 05/17.

Dan MacD #77:

What is this multiculturalism that you keep talking about? This irresistable force that denies people the ability to choose between good and evil...

I. Must. Not. Judge. Hitler. Goes. Against. Multi. Cultur. Al. Ism. ????

Live in the real world, get out from Faux News every once in a while.

Group Moffett

Ran a 5K in 38:00:47. Cannot wait to see what tomorrow's WOD will be like.

Dan McD (comment #45) To my knowledge, the concept of reoprters as neutral (or unbiased) observers predates multiculturalism by a few years.

As rx'd - 8:23:15.

BW 190

Well short of my PR of 14:11:48 but today was a work day and I couldn't stay in bed all day.

This is what I love about Crossfit: no matter how weak I am, there is at least one out of every four WODs that I excel at. These Rest WODs are definitely playing to my strengths: horizontal endurance.

I'm using a top of the line Simmons Beautyrest, pillow top for this Rest WOD and I find it really helps with the isolation (from the person on the other side of the machine). Anyone out there have different equipment preferences? I have had to settle for a Sealy Posturepedic when on the road but nothing beats your own home equipment.

I must admit that I occasionally have to break the single rest WOD set in two (embarassingly: even three on rare occasion) due to concerns over my prudent limit of bladder endurance (PLBE). Any crossfitters out there have any tips or progressions that I could do to extend PLBE? I have already tried both dynamic and static stretching exercises in conjunction with 8 and 18oz beer curls but that hasn't seemed to improve PLBE (in fact, in the short term PLBE seems to decrease in non-linear and inversely correlated manner to the number of ale curls that I do).

Lastly, I am a bit worried about my form in the rest position but I couldn't find any videos in the Exercise section that demonstrated proper form. Is anyone aware of any good Rest WOD videos out there? I would be particularly interested in ones that feature the elite Crossfitters like Nicole, Eva T, Kelly, or Annie.

;-)

Sincerely,
Sam

2 hour nap

#88 LOL, too funny! I am in love with my super-firm back support bed. It's a step up from the mattress on the floor, which was a step up from the futon on the floor. Good equipment really helps, and I've found that being off the ground really improves both my form and duration! I was planning on going to the Chinese masters to help me with those, er, problem days.

http://www.chineitsang.com/products/sleeping/index.html

I didn't make it to the gym yesterday for Michael -- but made it up this morning.

As rx'd: 32:59

WOD: Sit on my ass

As Rx'd
24 hrs flat

pretty impressive this time around... cant wait to take on this workout again!

This thread made me think of Ike. I was recently convinced to watch the documentary 'Why We Fight', which returns to Ike's farewell address throughout.

I have to say that I found "Why We Fight" an overall pretty fair, and in some ways brilliant, summation of the economic players behind war in the latter half of the 20th century. While the conclusions that various people interviewed come to are NOT those I would necessarily agree with, and while the editing ranges from brilliant to ham-fisted, I found their homage to Ike's far-sightedness utterly compelling and genuine.

Why did Ike pop into my head on reading this thread?

Because whenever I look at a true 'Great American' like Ike, or Washington or Jefferson or Thomas Payne or Lincoln or even (with the damning exception of his poor judgement in the case of Russia) FDR, I feel that somehow, they would be disheartened by the ridiculous nature of modern 'debate' on military issues.

It's impossible to have a productive, honest debate on anything that affects the military any more, at least a public one.

Ike warned that the ONLY defense against the runaway influence of the military-industrial complex is a citizenry well-informed about the nature and actions of that complex.

Jefferson said, in a quote often mangled or paraphrased: "And if it were left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."

And in a letter written near the end of his life, he said "The only security of all is a free press."

Why?

For the same reason that the advent of the internet wreaked havoc on term life insurance rates, coffin prices, and (to a smaller but growing extent) the real estate industry. It's because control of knowledge really is power, abuse of that control can be immensely profitable, and accurate knowledge for the masses is the antidote.

The exposure of troop locations in real-time is one thing; take measures to prevent that, fine. But extreme caution is a must, because some people want to go farther.

'The press shouldn't have reported on Abu Gahraib.'
'The press shouldn't report news about the war that happens to be bad news, because that could dishearten soldiers, or the public, and we have a job to do in Iraq.'
'The press shouldn't have reported on the NSA wiretapping program.'

I have to wonder what Jefferson would say about that kind of thinking. And that kind of thinking is too profitable not to be popular with those in power.

Alex my man you and I are on the same page - I hit that same time- there are times I really like the WOD: SOMA - big smile

185# trap bar deadlifts, reps in 20 minutes:
18x5=90
Muscleups and kettlebells to warm up.

#93 - you are absolutely right, as long as the press *reports* and does not have an agenda. There was a time when news was pretty much factual and neutral. That time is long gone. I wonder what Jefferson would say about that?

LMAO @ #88

BW = 168 lbs

May 19, 2006
Friday 060519

Overhead squat 5-5-5-5-5 reps

55 - 85 lbs

While I have been frequently labeled an ardent conservative - most of adult life in the USMC will do that - I think bcf has the right of it. What's with all the press-bashing?
By the by, for the complainer about these alleged media types serving their own egos, who embedded those reporters again? DoD approved, my friends. So, take your complaints up your chain to SecDef if you're unhappy with it.

And you think that the military doesn't use the press? C'mon, kids. The press AND the military get something out of that relationship. So quit whining about this "strawman" newspaper reporter that is single-handedly ruining all military ops.
I agree that Jason (#12) went over the top with his last line, but the press (particularly those with the troops) has typically done a very good job keeping tactical/operational info quiet until it's over. No editor wants to get lambasted for exposing the troops needlessly (except Geraldo, who's an a**hole and he got thoroughly shellacked by his peers).

I'm happy to lay my life on the line and always was for NY Times v. Sullivan because THAT is exactly why we're different (or supposed to be). Finally, laying claim to the moral high ground simply because you've "been there" doesn't make your argument any more sound.

We don't get to go back and forth at each other like this simply because the military is out there conducting ops -- we get to because we formed a nation on a belief, which those who came before were willing to fight and die for, that free speech and a free press was worth that sacrifice. No one's going to argue that the press should be allowed to expose tactical or operational information, but without the press, think about how far Nixon's excesses might have gone or how little we would be informed as a citizenry. For those people who frequently come here claiming to be libertarians, we seem awful quick to downplay one Amendment (the First) and go nuts when we think "liberals" are taking away another (the Second and our guns). I happen to be for all of them.

I'm really surprised this thread (as it evolved) didn't address the CIA leaks; it seems to have gotten bogged down rather in a point that everyone probably agrees upon. I'll leave that to Coach for another time.

#96 'There was a time when news was pretty much factual and neutral. That time is long gone. I wonder what Jefferson would say about that?'

Pamphleteers and the press have been way more incendiary and biased than they are now; hell, they convinced the nation that the SPANIARDS where a grave threat. Newspapers used to be more inflammatory, and the ownership of news outlets had even more visible political affiliations (although I'm not sure that this is so in the case of some of CNN's correspondents, and pretty much the entire Fox Network).

So the idea that the press today is less factual and neutral than in the past is a weak one.

But more to the point, about what Jefferson would say about it ...

The founding fathers weren't dumb enough to trust anyone's better nature in designing their government, and they knew perfectly well that journalism would be biased. In their day, journalism was largely editorial, and often fairly inaccurate. But it served its purpose: providing information, and discussion, that the populace could use to inform themselves.

Given Jefferson's views on the use of the press to act as a safeguard of freedom and a watchdog of the government, I think that the existence of a critical tone in news reports about government matters, military or not, wouldn't bother him one bit.

On the other hand, the development of the symbiotic 'working relationship' that has evolved between a major news provider and the White House, the use of phone records to track who journalists are calling in order to prevent the already miniscule flow of unfiltered insider information, the use of embedded reporters which puts soldiers at risk in order to "manage" reporting of an American war ...

He'd have some strong words, I'm sure. Because THOSE things have the possibility of undercutting what he saw as the only real safeguard of our liberty, while a critical tone, at most, engenders more public discussion.

Andrew N (#79) "Can you supply some examples of operations compromised by reporting? Besides Geraldo, of course."

The fact you can think of one so easily proves the point rather than your own.

low back was sore from getting torqued while climbing on Sunday, and then even the modified version of yesterday's workout left me so sore today that I can't stand straight. Gonna go ake friends with Ibuprofen so maybe I can get back on track for Thursday's workout.

Dan Salan, "No one's going to argue that the press should be allowed to expose tactical or operational information,"

Despite you calling me complainer, I agree with everything you said.

Except the quote I used above. You said no one is saying that, well, it was said in post #12 an that was the exact thing I said I was against. Oh well.

penty, now you're being obtuse. The Geraldo incident was quite famous because it was a seemingly ONE TIME, unique event, albeit one full of irony -- a Fox reporter showing troop movements during wartime. It seems that all reporters were immediately more mindful of the risk of such behavior and I have not heard of a reporter revealing operational information since then.

If there has only been one or even a few such incidents, I think we can conclude that the press had been fairly responsible in exercising judgement, given the many thousands of hours of battlefield reporting over the last 5 years.

But hey, if you want to cruicfy Geraldo for being a traitorous, crpyto-leftist 5th columnist, go right ahead.

no rest here at crossfit denver
we did a helen derivative that smoked us!

3 rounds
800m run
25 push-ups
20 kettlebell swings (20kilo)
15 pull-ups

Andrew N.(#104)

Yes, I point out an example. There is an expression, “What happens in the light, happens in the dark.” Meaning if you seen someone doing something when you ARE watching odds are they’ll do it when they aren’t watched. What are the odds we happened to catch the ONE and only time it happened? Be realistic, about zero. For every offense that was “caught” how many weren’t? a few? Many?, before it was reigned in? Are you saying a few soldiers’ lives or even one don’t matter? That’s very casual of you.

“But hey, if you want to cruicfy Geraldo for being a traitorous, crpyto-leftist 5th columnist, go right ahead.” Where did I say anything like this? You want to make stuff up go ahead, but it’s a dumb thing to do. You want to label someone’s opinions do it right for heavens sake. Geraldo has poor judgment and a huge ego and that’s it. I would have told you if you asked, you could have saved yourself ridiculous hyperbole.

I urge you to go back to the source, post #12. That post was about a total disregard for soldiers’ safety in reporting/journalism, yet somehow you have missed this CRUCIAL point. The face is there are journalists that have this attitude and, I feeling, perhaps some checks should be in place.

It is classic in both conservative and libertarian ideology to tout the abilities of the private sector when it comes to innovation, hard work, ambition, ingenuity, and the capacity to self-correct.

I'd say that nowhere is this more true than in the case of the newsmedia. Sure, there are knuckleheaded and egotistical members of the press, but overall it is an extremely competitive business in which only the smart, the brave and the hard working survive. We should be appluading the competitive spirit of those who are willing to risk their lives to collect information in a war zone.

I spoke recently to a professor at the Naval War College. He was in charge of investigating biological weapons during the first Gulf War. Do you know where he and his colleagues in the Navy first learned that Saddam had BW? Answer: The New York Times. The Navy reads the press and learns from it just like everyone else.

The LA Times recently reported on flash drives and computers containing sensitive military information ... They were stolen from the US military bases in Afghanistan and being sold in the market nearby. Thanks to the independent reporting, the military was able to put a stop to it.

The military gets a lot of its information from the private press because private enterprise is more efficient, more motivated and sometimes more capable than any government bureacracy, even that of the US military.

I believe reporters more often go out and get information that saves lives than endanger it.

Cross Fit should stay with what you do best and not jeopardize your credability by becoming involved in a propaganda campaign. Lies launched the invasion of Iraq and lies have kept us there. The country has been destroyed and contaminated forever by depleted uranium, unexploded cluster bombs and the toxins that accompany every war. Our stature around the world has been tarnished beyond redemption by Abu Ghraib, the killing of civilians and corrupt war profiteers like Halliburton. Our government no longer responds to the will of the people. By an overwhelming majority, Americans want the military out of Iraq. Support the troops. Bring them home.

Just because you can report something, even if it is true, does not mean you are not a $%*#$ for doing so. If the military is policing thier own, then during war, the press should use a little discression. Since Soldiers are just dumb rednecks to most of the media I do not hold out that their rush to publish for the sake of their fellow countryman's lives will ever be a factor. They would have to look at us with the same compassion as they do the enemy. they refuse to publish offensive matterial that might offend the enemy's sensabilities or agrivate them, but internal military affairs are fair game...after all freedom of the press and speech are more important soldier's lives. I wonder if the press had to face the same retribution from us as the enemy for negative content if they would think twice or would they be so "BRAVE". Must be nice to have bodyguards you can bitch slap.

If only reporters paid with their lives or prison time when when they made mistakes like we do, they might see the word different. Basically, they may not be the enemy, but they sure as hell are not your friend. If they don't like the cause, they will misrepresent you every time to sell a rag, make a buck, and get invited to a cocktail party.

It must be nice to have bodyguards you can bitch slap.

I disagree with you #108...Most Americans don't want the military out of Iraq...at least how you express it...Many are unhappy with how we have hamstrung ourselves with ROEs that give way to much of a chance to the enemy for political correct reasons. Many are upset with current administration for not doing more and FORCING more change. Funny that the other side bitches that we did not use enough force one day then we used to much the next. Or Saddam was a threat when the last President was in office, but not know.

Don't misrepresent the American people...their is a lot of unhappiness with the progression of this operation, but not even half of it calls to pull out now.

I wonder how you will support the troops when they are pulled out...will you be at the parade or at Starbuck's? Will you call for the military to have bake sales so schools don't have too with a bumpersticker? Will you lobby congress to cut the military budget so when we are needed again we will be under equiped, funded, and trained for the next fight like after Vietnam? Will you turn a blind eye to the world's bad actors and bullies, like N. Korea, China, Iran, etc. as they grow stronger militaries and only become more emboldened to run roughshod over the U.N. and the international community? Will you scream out about how bad America is for having terrorists in Cuba, while other nations inprison, torture, and kill citizens who question their government? Will you call for an information seperation again between our spooks and cops?

Crossfit's credibility has only risen in my eyes since I started reading these articles...They actually do support the troops. From what I see, posts like yours only lower the credibility of this site. I think Coach has a great thing going. Support the troops with a free workout site, post some articles on rest days that may offer a different point of view than most of the media. Nice to know he isn't just out for money...thanks for YOUR service Coach.

If you Goggle on Taheri you find he is associated with Benador Associates. A recent post:

Will Elena Benador Start World War III?
By Bob Fertik
Created 2006-05-23 12:16

Joseph Cannon [1] rightly calls our attention to Elena Benador, the woman who played a crucial role in brainwashing millions of Americans into supporting the invasion of Iraq - and is trying to do the same in Iran. Here's what the Jim Lobe [2] wrote about her in 2003:

When historians look back on the United States war in Iraq, they will almost certainly be struck by how a small group of mainly neo-conservative analysts and activists outside the administration were able to shape the US media debate in ways that made the drive to war so much easier than it might have been… But historians would be negligent if they ignored the day-to-day work of one person who, as much as anyone outside the administration, made their media ubiquity possible.
Meet Eleana Benador, the Peruvian-born publicist for [Richard] Perle, [James] Woolsey, Michael Ledeen, Frank Gaffney and a dozen other prominent neo-conservatives whose hawkish opinions proved very hard to avoid for anyone who watched news talk shows or read the op-ed pages of major newspapers over the past 20 months.

Now Benador's clients [3] are working just as hard to get the U.S. to invade Iran. One of her clients is Amir Taheri [4], who is a "commentator for CNN." (CNN does not publish a list of commentators [5], which is extremely suspicious. What are they hiding?) Taheri became infamous this week for writing a bogus story [6] claiming Iran just passed a law requiring Jews to wear yellow stripes.

Jews would be marked out with a yellow strip of cloth sewn in front of their clothes while Christians will be assigned the colour red.
Zoroastrians end up with Persian blue as the colour of their zonnar.

There was absolutely no basis for this claim - Taheri pulled it straight out of his ass - and it was denied immediately by Maurice Motamed [7], the representative of the Iranian Jewish community in Iran's parliament. But because it served the neocon propaganda purpose of demonizing Iran, Taheri's Big Lie instantly circulated throughout the global neocon conspiracy, including Rush Limbaugh [8], the Jerusalem Post [9] and NewsMax [10].

Joe did "Lynne"- 13/14, 8/13, 9/12, 7/10, 8/11 all pull-ups were dead-hang and did weighted push ups with 85# in the backpack.

Dave did "Lynne"- 11/10 (3+7 jumping pulls), 14/9(2+7 jumping pulls), 12/8 (2+6 jumping pulls), 10/9, 8/10 with weighted push ups-50# in pack.

Vanessa did 5/22/06 WOD- 13:39, 12:57, 10:13 for each round respectively and did 35# SDHP and 55# thrusters.

Sarah did "Michael"-33:28