If they read The New York Times or caught any of its parroting on friendly news shows, they might even think the president had "Stunned" the Pentagon officials who had only offered the kill option "To make other options seem reasonable." The problem presented here is none of these three scenarios is accurate.
Further, the Pentagon does not present a president with military options that's ramifications have not been considered, nor does the chairman of the Joint Chiefs ever present the president a fake option.
What about the more committed consumers? Maybe those who have family serving in the military and want to know what's going on? These readers and viewers might have been treated to The New York Times' reporting that "Top military officials" were "Flabbergasted" and "Immediately alarmed about the prospect of Iranian retaliatory strikes on American troops in the region" after the president's decision to kill Gen. Qassem Soleimani.
"Pentagon officials have often offered improbable options to presidents to make other possibilities appear more palatable," the story reads.
The amazing thing here is it's almost certainly factually true while also deeply misleading: The four reporters on the byline found at least two "Top military officials" who said they were "Flabbergasted" by the president's call.
It's not "According to Pentagon officials involved in the decision process," "Pentagon officials involved in the drafting of options," or even Pentagon officials "With first-hand knowledge of the presentation." It's what we call "Voice of God"- it is simply said, and so it is.
Further, is the outlined scenario at all plausible? Keep in mind this is a president the Times has repeatedly and breathlessly warned is crazy, impulsive, callous, vicious, and constantly feared by patriotic government employees doing their best to restrain him.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/07/media-coverage-of-iraq-is-a-case-study-of-ignorance-and-manipulation/
Further, the Pentagon does not present a president with military options that's ramifications have not been considered, nor does the chairman of the Joint Chiefs ever present the president a fake option.
What about the more committed consumers? Maybe those who have family serving in the military and want to know what's going on? These readers and viewers might have been treated to The New York Times' reporting that "Top military officials" were "Flabbergasted" and "Immediately alarmed about the prospect of Iranian retaliatory strikes on American troops in the region" after the president's decision to kill Gen. Qassem Soleimani.
"Pentagon officials have often offered improbable options to presidents to make other possibilities appear more palatable," the story reads.
The amazing thing here is it's almost certainly factually true while also deeply misleading: The four reporters on the byline found at least two "Top military officials" who said they were "Flabbergasted" by the president's call.
It's not "According to Pentagon officials involved in the decision process," "Pentagon officials involved in the drafting of options," or even Pentagon officials "With first-hand knowledge of the presentation." It's what we call "Voice of God"- it is simply said, and so it is.
Further, is the outlined scenario at all plausible? Keep in mind this is a president the Times has repeatedly and breathlessly warned is crazy, impulsive, callous, vicious, and constantly feared by patriotic government employees doing their best to restrain him.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/07/media-coverage-of-iraq-is-a-case-study-of-ignorance-and-manipulation/
No comments:
Post a Comment