berman@ihuxm.UUCP (Andy Berman) (11/02/83)
One of the many disturbing actions about the Reagan administration's
invasion of Grenada is the huge quantity of lies, really lies,
(encased perhaps in exagerations and wishful thinking), that have
come out of the Administration, and very often picked up and relayed
by the press. (..not to mention on the net...).
Fortunately Reagan's own deputy press attache has resigned over the blantant
misleading of the media.
The rabid and rapidly changing stories about the airport, the students, the role
of the Cubans, the weapons found, etc. are difficult to keep up with
by anyone seriously trying to follow the events.
One of the better attempts to deal with the thunderous and rolling
lies is in the Chicago Sun-Times on Nov. 1, by columnist Mike Royko.
On a point by point basis, here are some excerpts:
1) The lie about the students being in danger:
"When the shooting began all around them [after the US
invasion] most didn't know what was going on. All they
knew was that bullets and bombs were flying. When
American troops appeared and told them they were being
taken home, they reacted like a normal, terrified person
would----they were terribly relieved that they weren't going to
be harmed. But as some of the more thoughtful ones
have admitted---they apparently were in no danger until
we invaded and the shooting began"
2) The lie about the "weapons arsenal:"
"I heard the president talk about that huge arsenal
and I saw photos of the awesome array of weapons. But
in case you missed it, reporters have since had a chance to
look over this frightening cache of weapons. They've
found that the weapons in one of the warehouses turned out
to be sacks of rice and cans of sardines. Another had
trunk parts. A third was filled with canteens and clothing.
As for the three warehouses that did have weapons---they
weren't stacked to the ceiling as the president said. They
were about one-fourth full. Many of the rifles were made
in 1870---old breech loading saddle guns. Others were WWII vintage.
Lots of Saturday Night Special pistols. But very little modern
weaponry. It was an arsenal all right, but you'll find
a bigger bang for your buck in any American gun shop."
3) The lie about "restoring democracy:"
"We can start with El Salvador, which is run by far more
murderous and brutal thugs than there are on any tiny island.
Don't you remember the American churchwomen who were raped and
murdered there? And then there is the Philippines which is also run
by a muderous thug. And Chile, where they don't take a backseat
to anyone when it comes to murderous behavior. But Reagan hasn't
sent troops to those countries. Just the opposite--we send in
money and military aid. We even help put them in power."jj@rabbit.UUCP (11/02/83)
What do you expect from Mike Rokyo, anyhow? Truth? Thunderous and rolling lies? WHOSE thunderous and rolling lies? As to stories changing in the midst of an invasion, I'm not surprised. Any enemy is rarely going to give you reports of what has happened to them. <Regardless of their persuasion.> I haven't seen anything personally in Grenada, and neither have you. I did see pictures of cases full of AK-47's on the news last night. You can't get that sort of firepower in any gun shop, so I know that there's at least one discrepency in your source's information. How about... Thunderous and vituperitive lies? Political lies, being made in our own country, strictly for the purpose of buying votes? How about the emotional congressional attacks that we heard before there was even any report of facts to congress? Yes, there are all sorts of lies, slanted information, and partisan (as well as ideological) sniping going on, and all of it is reported as truth. One deputy press secretary resigning is pretty good, actually. (Consider the past.) According to the AP story I read last night, he resigned because of a conflict with his boss over whether or not it was reasonable to not permit the press to announce in advance a surprise attack. Frankly, I can't believe that ANY person thinks that any military action should be announced in advance, which is what the criticism surrounting the press issue is, this time. Still waiting for the "real" truth. Frankly, I'm amazed at Andy's willingness to make strident, vicious, and completely biased attacks from low ground, near high water. Andy, why don't you mail me, and we can argue about this in private. -- o O from the pyrolagnic keyboard of ~ rabbit!jj -v-v- \^_^/
swatt@ittvax.UUCP (Alan S. Watt) (11/03/83)
I must confess that I am generally disgusted with the quality of newspaper reporting in this country, and completely disgusted with the quality of TV reporting and hence don't bother with them much any more, so perhaps I'm not as "well informed" as some of you out there, but it seems to me that there is a lot of flaming on this net about Granada over very little hard information. The flaming seems about evenly divided between those who believe that whatever the U.S. does with military forces anywhere in the world *must* be wrong on some absolute moral principle or another, and those that seem to feel that we should go kick hell out of some small country every once in a while just to prove we're not wimps. Personally, I feel the only thing worse than running a military operation by a committee in Congress is running a military operation by a mob of yammer-headed news people agitating popular opinion (If you think that means I'm in favor of wars, check out all the wars in history that have been started by news campaigns orchestrated by people with an axe to grind). I think Reagan owes us a full accounting of why this invasion was ordered. I think any time political leaders put members of the armed forces at risk of their lives, not to mention the risk to the lives and property of Granadans, such an accounting is owed. If you don't accept this accounting, then use the political process to get him voted out in the next election. In the meantime, without some more facts than I have at present, I can't decide whether the invasion was justified or not. Perhaps it's pointless, but I can't help wanting to remind some people on this net that: 1) Ronald Reagan is *not* an idiot. 2) The Joint Chiefs of Staff are *not* idiots; they are probably smarter and better educated than most of the people on this net. It has gotten fashionable in recent years in liberal circles to portray military officers as stupid, or always spoiling for a fight. You cannot understand the worst blunders of military history if you take this view. 3) Sometimes you have to pick from a set of only bad choices. Life is not like a multiple-choice test where there is always just one correct answer. In spite of these reminders, it may very well be that the invasion was unjustified, unnecessary, and counter-productive. Even smart people with good intentions make blunders. Replacing Reagan with someone who thinks the "right" way won't necessarily change this. Liberals revere FDR, but he made some serious mistakes during the war that we're still paying for today. At the time, the only thing that mattered was that he made fewer and less costly mistakes than Hitler did. - Alan S. Watt
dje@5941ux.UUCP (D.Ellis) (11/03/83)
There's been a very lively debate on Grenada lately. Many of the informed debaters, regardless of whether they're pro or con, have been saying that they're lacking information on the invasion. Myself, I'm still not sure whether the invasion was warranted by the political and military situation there. What I *AM* sure of is that we've all been kept in the dark in a manner unprecedented in this age of modern communication. I understand and appreciate the need to black out information so that a military operation won't be jeopardized by some advance leak. But reporters were still being denied access by the Reagan administration, preventing them from getting the facts they needed to do their job, long after the Grenada invasion had proceeded beyond that sensitive point. I can't think of another case where reporters have been blocked from getting to where the news is happening. On the military front, they get their stories often at the peril of their lives. They've been there, from the Pacific Islands in World War II to Korea, Vietnam, the Sinai, Lebanon, Afghanistan and wherever else the action is. That is, until now, in Grenada. What in blazes is happening there that calls for our government interfering with the news? Either something is damned fishy, or else Reagan is pulling the plug on the freedom of information. From my point of view, the invasion may very well have been justified, but something very rotten is going on. David Ellis / AT&T Bell Labs, Piscataway NJ / ihnp4!5941ux!dje
holt@parsec.UUCP (11/09/83)
#R:ihuxm:-67200:parsec:40500010:000:914
parsec!holt Nov 4 13:36:00 1983
to Tim Sevener,
While not disagreeing with your contention that reporters should have
been able to report from Grenada the following 2 days after the invasion,
I do find fault with your comparison of "D Day" and this event. The
communication facilities available on D Day are not nearly as instantaneous
as those available today. Thus, while reporters accompanied the soldiers
on D Day, they did not have any means to report "live" to the home viewing
audiance and unwittingly to the "enemy". Today reporters do have this
capability or very close to it, and it was this that should have prompted
the DOD to keep reporters from covering the initial invasion.
IT IS a serious problem that reporters were kept from the scene after
the advantage of "suprise" was gone. It makes one wonder...........
After all, 1984 is only 2 months away..........
Dave Holt
{allegra,ihnp4,uiucdcs}!parsec!holt