i knew i was asking for trouble the moment i typed mike yon "comes off like a hawk," so i thought a moment before i chose to go with it.
i got a bit of flak, but i stand by the impression i got and wrote. i don't pretend this blog contains no opinions.
mike yon is a courageous photojournalist, a strong advocate for the troops, and an informed critic of some aspects of the way the afghan and iraqi wars get run. i agree with much of what he says.
sometimes he sounds like a hawk. sometimes it's ambiguous. he never sounds like a dove.
i can't entirely fault him for it. he wants to go back to iraq and afghanistan. the pentagon keeps denying permission. maybe ambiguity will look like objectivity to them. who knows? i wish him luck.
i can't retract "works for" either. c-span identified yon as "weekly standard contributing writer." maybe that doesn't mean "employe," but the neocon rag got him accredited with DoD, and the only published work he mentioned was 3 pieces for them and 3 earlier for national review.
i still think buying up the afghan poppy crop directly from farmers would suppress illegal opium traffic more effectively than any other means, but it won't end our horrific policy of bombing civilian targets and killing dozens to get one or two al qaeda suspects.
if we keep doing that long enough, this war-unlike-any-other really will go on forever, and all the misfiring paranoid neurons in dick cheney's humpty dumpty brain won't protect us one iota from righteous avengers.
12 hours ago
Every major news outlet offered to "creditial' Mike the second time he wanted to get back into Iraq...he chose the Weekly Standard not because it represents his political views...but because they were the ONLY news outlet willing NOT to edit his work in any way.
ReplyDeleteHe wrote ONE piece for them prior to allowing them publish "Censoring Iraq".
CSPAN was wrong in their description of Mike as "contributing writer" . The implication is that he writes for them often. He DOESNT. He writes for his own website. The reason Mike chose to publish "Censoring Iraq" in the Standard is because the magazine is a HUGE supporter of the Military, the President, and the war in Iraq. For them to want to publish "Censoring Iraq" means that this was not a "politically motivated " decision. It means the piece is not politically motivated, which is indicative of all of Mike's work.
He tells the truth- good bad and ugly. If a right wing magazine chooses to publish a piece that is rather incendiary towards something they have passionately supported, it lends far more veracity and strength to the point of the piece.
Obviously you can't seem to get past your own bias to understand that obvious concept.
FYI- Mike has only written two pieces for The Weekly Standard. One piece appeared on his website simultaneously. The other was "Censoring Iraq".
You're misguided assumption that "sometimes he sounds like a hawk. sometimes it's ambiguous. he never sounds like a dove" again speaks to your ignorance about Mike ( you've not read his entire body of dispatches) and speaks to your biased agenda. Mike's writing leans neither LEFT NOR RIGHT.
But only someone with an agenda which clealy leans LEFT is incapable of seeing that truth.
"i can't entirely fault him for it. he wants to go back to iraq and afghanistan." "the pentagon keeps denying permission. maybe ambiguity will look like objectivity to them. who knows? i wish him luck."
The DOD, CPIC, and the PAO know beyond a doubt that Mike leans neither left nor right in any of his dispatches from the warfront. They also know he is anything BUT ambiguous as is clear to those who have read his entire body of dispatches from Iraq and since his return.
As for going back to Iraq...Mike has already been asked back by several top generals. When he gets promises in writing from the DOD that THEY will NOT censor his work..that they will NOT prevent from writing the truth - good bad and ugly - and when they promise not to steal his intellectual property then threaten to deny him an embed if he takes legal action against them ( which he did, when he won, and which they subsequently made good on their threat) then and only then will he go back.
If Mike had a right wing agenda - he'd NEVER have written the ugly truth in his dispatches. It was never the troops that had a problem with the WHOLE truth being published -it was always CPIC! You do not sue the Military if your agenda is that of a neocon or a hawk! Do you think you can grasp that simple concept?
'
And if you read his book Danger Close you also KNOW that Mike loves the troops - the soldier - the Marine - but he dislikes intensely the "Military Organization". Try to wrap your biased left wing 'dove' like mind around that truth.
Mike's autobiography "Danger Close" was published ( contrary to your comment that he has only been published in two magazine) and not by a NEOCON magazine and continues to sell.
Mike has also had several articles - on other subjects - published in various other magazines.
A quick review of his website CLEARLY identifies that "American Aghori" was published in "Vice" Magazine last month. You can find that link on the front page of his website.
In 2003-2004 various publications included long interviews with Mike about this subject. Mike was writing a book on the American Aghori but put it aside when he chose to go to Iraq to find out what was really going on. Most of the material for the articles came from Mike's written work.
Mike has written hundreds of dispatches - all of which have all been published on his website. His readership far exceeds that of The Weekly Standard. He neither leans right nor left in his dispatches which is why he attracts both "hawks" and "doves" as you would call them - but I prefer the correct terminalogy - those that lean right politically and those that lean left politically.
I can support law enforcement in my neighborhood and still be a "dove". I can support our troops, understand that our enemy wants to kill YOU, and choose to support the use of force to prevent that from happening. That doesn't make me a "hawk" .
I wrote a piece that appeared in The Boston Globe. Hardly makes me a "contributing writer" or a liberal with a left wing agenda.
Mike's political choices have long been that of the 'independant' ...not of dem or republican. He made that quite clear on the CSPAN interview. So are you calling Mike a liar? Or are you simply so steeped in your biased hatred for the right, that you view anyone who supports our war against an enemy who wants to KILL YOU as being 'hawkish"?
I can be fiscally conservative, believe in the importance of a relationship with God, support a womens right to choose, and support gay marriage, while not supporting stem cell research as outlined by the democrats, sI can upport the war against terrorism, and yet donate my time and energy to organizations that work to change the social consciousness through non military options. So am I "right", "left", "hawk' or 'dove'?
You pass erroneous judgement on Mike, claiming it to be fact, based on a strategic decision to have this important piece published in The Weekly Standard rather than one of many liberal left wing publications that wanted the piece but would only have served to water down its impact and message!
Mike was in Chicago recently where he attended the Military Reporters and Editors Annual Event. He appeared on several panels discussing embedding, and military/media relations. He also attended the awards dinner where he received an:
Honorable Mention:Michael Yon, Northwest Guardian - "Injured Commander Keeping Tabs on Unit."
So your "fact based" pronouncements about where Mikes work has been published have so far been completely wrong..
This is why nothing you put forth about AFG or anything else of that matter can be considered with any seriousness. You twist or deny facts to suit YOUR agenda.
FYI - He has had three photojournals published in various magazines - most recently in "The Counterterrorism Journal" - oh but wait - since his photos appeared in that magazine - he must be a "hawk".
Every major news outlet offered to "creditial' Mike the second time he wanted to get back into Iraq...he chose the Weekly Standard not because it represents his political views...but because they were the ONLY news outlet willing NOT to edit his work in any way.
ReplyDeleteHe wrote ONE piece for them prior to allowing them publish "Censoring Iraq".
CSPAN was wrong in their description of Mike as "contributing writer" . The implication is that he writes for them often. He DOESNT. He writes for his own website. The reason Mike chose to publish "Censoring Iraq" in the Standard is because the magazine is a HUGE supporter of the Military, the President, and the war in Iraq. For them to want to publish "Censoring Iraq" means that this was not a "politically motivated " decision. It means the piece is not politically motivated, which is indicative of all of Mike's work.
He tells the truth- good bad and ugly. If a right wing magazine chooses to publish a piece that is rather incendiary towards something they have passionately supported, it lends far more veracity and strength to the point of the piece.
Obviously you can't seem to get past your own bias to understand that obvious concept.
FYI- Mike has only written two pieces for The Weekly Standard. One piece appeared on his website simultaneously. The other was "Censoring Iraq".
You're misguided assumption that "sometimes he sounds like a hawk. sometimes it's ambiguous. he never sounds like a dove" again speaks to your ignorance about Mike ( you've not read his entire body of dispatches) and speaks to your biased agenda. Mike's writing leans neither LEFT NOR RIGHT.
But only someone with an agenda which clealy leans LEFT is incapable of seeing that truth.
"i can't entirely fault him for it. he wants to go back to iraq and afghanistan." "the pentagon keeps denying permission. maybe ambiguity will look like objectivity to them. who knows? i wish him luck."
The DOD, CPIC, and the PAO know beyond a doubt that Mike leans neither left nor right in any of his dispatches from the warfront. They also know he is anything BUT ambiguous as is clear to those who have read his entire body of dispatches from Iraq and since his return.
As for going back to Iraq...Mike has already been asked back by several top generals. When he gets promises in writing from the DOD that THEY will NOT censor his work..that they will NOT prevent from writing the truth - good bad and ugly - and when they promise not to steal his intellectual property then threaten to deny him an embed if he takes legal action against them ( which he did, when he won, and which they subsequently made good on their threat) then and only then will he go back.
If Mike had a right wing agenda - he'd NEVER have written the ugly truth in his dispatches. It was never the troops that had a problem with the WHOLE truth being published -it was always CPIC! You do not sue the Military if your agenda is that of a neocon or a hawk! Do you think you can grasp that simple concept?
'
And if you read his book Danger Close you also KNOW that Mike loves the troops - the soldier - the Marine - but he dislikes intensely the "Military Organization". Try to wrap your biased left wing 'dove' like mind around that truth.
Mike's autobiography "Danger Close" was published ( contrary to your comment that he has only been published in two magazine) and not by a NEOCON magazine and continues to sell.
Mike has also had several articles - on other subjects - published in various other magazines.
A quick review of his website CLEARLY identifies that "American Aghori" was published in "Vice" Magazine last month. You can find that link on the front page of his website.
In 2003-2004 various publications included long interviews with Mike about this subject. Mike was writing a book on the American Aghori but put it aside when he chose to go to Iraq to find out what was really going on. Most of the material for the articles came from Mike's written work.
Mike has written hundreds of dispatches - all of which have all been published on his website. His readership far exceeds that of The Weekly Standard. He neither leans right nor left in his dispatches which is why he attracts both "hawks" and "doves" as you would call them - but I prefer the correct terminalogy - those that lean right politically and those that lean left politically.
I can support law enforcement in my neighborhood and still be a "dove". I can support our troops, understand that our enemy wants to kill YOU, and choose to support the use of force to prevent that from happening. That doesn't make me a "hawk" .
I wrote a piece that appeared in The Boston Globe. Hardly makes me a "contributing writer" or a liberal with a left wing agenda.
Mike's political choices have long been that of the 'independant' ...not of dem or republican. He made that quite clear on the CSPAN interview. So are you calling Mike a liar? Or are you simply so steeped in your biased hatred for the right, that you view anyone who supports our war against an enemy who wants to KILL YOU as being 'hawkish"?
I can be fiscally conservative, believe in the importance of a relationship with God, support a womens right to choose, and support gay marriage, while not supporting stem cell research as outlined by the democrats, sI can upport the war against terrorism, and yet donate my time and energy to organizations that work to change the social consciousness through non military options. So am I "right", "left", "hawk' or 'dove'?
You pass erroneous judgement on Mike, claiming it to be fact, based on a strategic decision to have this important piece published in The Weekly Standard rather than one of many liberal left wing publications that wanted the piece but would only have served to water down its impact and message!
Mike was in Chicago recently where he attended the Military Reporters and Editors Annual Event. He appeared on several panels discussing embedding, and military/media relations. He also attended the awards dinner where he received an:
Honorable Mention:Michael Yon, Northwest Guardian - "Injured Commander Keeping Tabs on Unit."
So your "fact based" pronouncements about where Mikes work has been published have so far been completely wrong..
This is why nothing you put forth about AFG or anything else of that matter can be considered with any seriousness. You twist or deny facts to suit YOUR agenda.
FYI - He has had three photojournals published in various magazines - most recently in "The Counterterrorism Journal" - oh but wait - since his photos appeared in that magazine - he must be a "hawk".
wow!
ReplyDeleteshe posted it TWICE!
looks like somebody could use a good f@#*....
here's my response to this one.
ReplyDelete