Why is Rupert Murdoch Endangering U.S. Soldiers?
Why is Rupert Murdoch Endangering U.S. Soldiers?
Thanks, Rupe…
The United States military expressed anger and dismay today over the unauthorized release of photographs of a jailed Saddam Hussein in his underwear and performing menial activity. …
“These photos were taken in clear violation of Department of Defense directives and possibly Geneva Convention guidelines for the humane treatment of detained individuals,” the military statement, issued in Iraq, said, promising an investigation. …
The pictures were published today on the cover and inside pages of two tabloids controlled by the media magnate [and Fox News owner] Rupert Murdoch, The Sun, a British daily, and The New York Post. [NYT, 5/20/05]
UPDATE: And here’s an ironic note. After the administration harped on for a week about how Newsweek journalists were directly responsible for the riots in Afghanistan, etc., President Bush now suddenly can’t see much of a connection between media coverage and insurgent activities:
President Bush, when asked if he thought the pictures would stoke more anti-Americanism in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East, voiced some doubt. “I think the Iraq insurgency is inspired by their desire to stop the march of freedom,” he said. …
“You know, I don’t think a photo inspires murderers,” Mr. Bush said, at an appearance with Prime Minister Anders Rasmussen of Denmark. “I think they’re inspired by an ideology that is so barbaric and backwards that it’s hard for many in the Western world to comprehend how they think.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Murdoch isn’t threatening soldiers. Neither was Newsweek. Granted, I think this has a little less journalistic validity, but it is definitely better sourced.
Also interesting, soldiers in Iraq are willing to violate the Geneva Convention for as little as $1000. That’s not a good sign. Maybe we need to increase troop pay and drop contractor pay.
May 20th, 2005 at 3:35 pmHe certainly isn’t threatening him, you’re right. But is he endangering them? US military seems to be concerned that he is. And for what, a photo of Saddam in his underwear. At least in Newsweek’s case, they were EXPOSING violations of the laws of war. In this case, Murdoch is reveling in them.
May 20th, 2005 at 3:49 pmIs it just me … or do I suspect where the photos in question might actually be outright fakes for the sake of “winning of hearts and minds” over to what amounts to a losing cause?
May 20th, 2005 at 4:03 pmBy the way, hi Matt! :)
May 20th, 2005 at 4:06 pmWhy does Rupert Murdoch hate America?
May 20th, 2005 at 4:09 pmIt will be interesting to see the sales numbers for these two issues. When Coulter and Malkin can sell so well, and O’Reilly and Hannity get a million or so listeners every day, Saddam in his tidy whiteys will get all sorts of people buying the issues to cut out the pics and use them for all sorts of derogatory activities. Bush is right about one thing. The mass of US citizens have no idea what anyone else in the world is thinking.
May 20th, 2005 at 4:20 pmBush said that this wouldn’t anger the Insurgents to increase attacks.
Uh what if it was him? People would become murderous.
May 20th, 2005 at 4:28 pmWhen you really think about it, it is hilarious. The World Weekly’s headlines state that the world is going to crack in half this summer. There is much to look forward to these days, but Saddam in his underwear is downright funny. Saddam is secular, I doubt that the insurgents are too excited if he is in his underwear or not. If it were a Sunni Muslim woman in her underwear, watch out.
May 20th, 2005 at 5:03 pmWhy is murdoch endangering u.s. soliders? So he can sell some newspapers and make a few nickles and dimes. That’s what it’s all about. The u.s. solders are not of his economic class. He’ll do exploit any situation in the name of profit.
May 20th, 2005 at 5:10 pmI thought Saddam was jailed in an undisclosed location…How in the world would Murdoch or anyone else for that matter have the opportunity to shoot photos of the Dicktator?..
May 20th, 2005 at 6:53 pmMurdoch is desperate for attention and that’s all there is to it.
There is a bonus to this though, we get to hear Bushie make another stupid statement.
Here’s why…
Read about Rupert Murdoch to see that he is a supporter of George W. Bush and the Republican party. Then look at the other news that would be putting the Bush administration in the media spotlight if Murdoch didn’t publish this today. The other news would put Bush in the spotlight as a hypocrit and supporter of terrorism. A story that could hurt Bush, overcome by a story started by a Bush supporter on the SAME DAY. I am not much of a conspiracy theorist, but that strikes me.
May 20th, 2005 at 7:24 pmI agree that this probably does not endanger US soldiers. To start, Saddam was not a very respected figure. Likewise, this seems more comic relief.
I do find, as many other commentators, a double standard at work.
First, Bush promises a full investigation right away: even though this is a minor, comedic incident. So much for Bagram, GITMO, etc.
Second, also as many other commentators have pointed out, Murdoch simultaneously supports a radical right political agenda while selling pop- sleaze: From who’s your daddy to Paris Hilton’s The Intern to the Sun (lots of T-n-A) tabloid. Yet Murdoch never catches fire from the wingnut right, who for mysterious reasons seem to hate people like Katie Couric.
Finally, Glass wonders at the timing of all this: “A story that could hurt Bush, overcome by a story started by a Bush supporter on the SAME DAY.”
Dude (or dudette), for what it’s worth, I was kinda wondering about that myself. This–the Saddam photo–is more the fraternity prank.
The past week of revelations–numerous sources validating the gist of Newsweek’s claim though not the exact details, and more on what happened in Bagram, Afghanistan. Serious business. But now: an opportunity instead for the MSM and wingnut blogosphere to focus on something truly trivial and silly. But call it a “violation of the Geneva Conventions.”
You do have to wonder.
May 20th, 2005 at 8:56 pmIts one thing when over the course of a few weeks the wingnuts forget that they were saying how bad it is to make a Hitler reference, as they rally around pricks like Santorum, completely oblivious to their double standard. But come on, the Newsweek flames are still in the news. What do you expect from the same clowns that still believe we found WMDs. Open your eyes, suckers.
May 20th, 2005 at 10:52 pmThe military gave the Sun the pictures. So the military doesn’t care about the soldiers.
May 21st, 2005 at 1:39 amThe sad part is that so many of the GOP base rank and file, even at universities, already views this as a “holy war of sorts – conflagrations like this only further excite them.
May 21st, 2005 at 3:08 amthis is the worst kind of irony, that THIS could be considered a violation of his rights under the Geneva Convention, but torturing prisoners is a subject we want to break away from the Geneva Convention over.
May 21st, 2005 at 3:28 pmWho took these pictures and why? Who has custody of Saddam? What purpose were these photos supposed to serve other than some sophomoric jokes or homophobic desires?
May 21st, 2005 at 6:27 pmOf course Murdoch will skate by with nothing happening to him. He’s Bush’s biggest fan. And if you want consistancy from Bush, you got the wrong moron .
May 21st, 2005 at 10:08 pmit was some soldier who got paid $50,000 for some pictures, nothing more
May 21st, 2005 at 11:47 pmJames,
You nailed it. Someone realised a good payday, and took advantage. If he was smart enough to cover his tracks, take cash, and keep his mouth shut, he made a good payday.
It has no more relevance to the big picture than whether Angelina Broke up Brad & Jen.
May 21st, 2005 at 11:55 pm“I think they’re inspired by an ideology that is so barbaric and backwards that it’s hard for many in the Western world to comprehend how they think.�
I think George W. Bush is inspired by an ideology that is so shallow, insipid and monotoneness that it’s hard for many in the Western world to comprehend how he thinks.
May 22nd, 2005 at 2:31 pmNice to see a blog with comments from intelligent American people who don’t think that the sun shines from Bush’s arse.
Of course as a Brit I’m very well familiar with the tactics and agenda of a so-called newspaper like the Sun. In terms of credibility it’s equal with the American scumrag the National Enquirer.
But I must comment about Bush’s administrational lapdogs harping on about the Geneva convention vis a vis the Saddam pics. It reeks of hypocrisy BIGTIME.
Oh so Mr Bush you admit all your soldiers in Guantanamo Bay are following the Geneva Convetion to the letter? Yeah right Pinocchio!
May 22nd, 2005 at 5:10 pmYour own website is running a cartoon that implies the US Army is akin to Nazi officers.
Maybe this is why no one trusts the left on national security.
May 22nd, 2005 at 5:27 pmCan someone point me to some other American blogs which AREN’T anti-European, would love to chat with some of you. My e-mail is englishmanat40@yahoo.co.uk
May 22nd, 2005 at 5:46 pmREALLY GOOD POINT GLASS!
May 23rd, 2005 at 1:50 pmThe war crime committed here was done by the Pentagon for releasing such photos. Rupert Murdoch was just showing the world exactly what the USA thinks about the Geneva Convention.
May 30th, 2005 at 1:32 amQUOTE: “”Is it just me … or do I suspect where the photos in question might actually be outright fakes for the sake of “winning of hearts and mindsâ€? over to what amounts to a losing cause….”" END QUOTE
I’m pretty sure those photos are not fake.
I’m in one of the “part-time” segments of the Army (Guard/Reserves). Army CID agents payed a nice visit last week and searched EVERY computer in the building and downloaded certain portions of the hard drive of each computer.
One of the agents commented on the side that they are 90% certain that the pics came from a MP (or similar) unit attached to the unit I’m working with while they were in Iraq.
The smaller attached unit came from another part of the country than the unit I’m now working with… while in Iraq the over all unit was at the Base where they are holding Saddam and were charged with some of the security.
Pics were alledgedly frame-grabs (or similar) from security camera tapes/recordings.
Pentagon did not release these photos – individual soldiers did.
Do they know exactly who?
Not of last week but its narrowed down to a damn small number (<25).
Is it a war crime? Not really….
June 1st, 2005 at 1:19 amIs it stupid and counter-productive?
Damn skippy… I hope they do time for it.
[...] But I question also–following some commentators at ThinkProgress.org’s Why is Rupert Murdoch Endangering U.S. Soldiers?– the timing of this non-story, of these pictures. [...]
July 8th, 2005 at 1:57 amprozac…
Bentleys skirmish predominantly norms.marvelled horrendous ramrod birth control pills http://birth-control-pills.metasart.com/ …
January 15th, 2006 at 8:17 pmThats a great info ….thx for it :) http://www.hhost.info cheap webhosting
February 9th, 2006 at 2:27 amWowow Great info !! Thanks :) http://www.ddiamonds.info
February 20th, 2006 at 3:29 pmContractor Website Hosting…
Thanks for short yet informative article. It covers most of things I wanted to know on this topic…
September 6th, 2006 at 8:21 am