The first casualty of war

[original_aj]

Truth, of course.

Hmmm.

Watching BBC News 24 last night, I noticed that before each report from their correspondents in Iraqi held territory (Baghdad, mostly) they were pointing out that what the reporter said was being monitored by Iraqi officials. Are they trying to imply that the western military authorities are not influencing the reports from the territory they hold?

And the Americans seem to be making claims which do not reflect the reality on the ground. I thought that the lesson had been thoughly learnt that it was better to be honest and not claim successes until they had been achieved, for fear of anything you say being disbelieved. The Iraqi leadership being a case in point - the chap with a chromed kalashnikov (and apparently the magazines in his waistcoat pockets were for a different gun!) claiming that there had only been minor incursions which were being repelled had no credibility. I suppose they've got nothing to lose - if it doesn't come true they're out of a job anyway. But you'd have thought that the American officials would want to retain some credibility.

I think I'll go & hug my kids.

Comments

[karmicnull.livejournal.com]

Following the gradual revelation after the first Gulf War of how loosely the information fed back to us tallied with reality, I find myself unable to grant any credibility to any of the reports we are fed, other than those that outline events in the lowest resolution terms ("there have been explosions in Baghdad", "The US troops have had casualites", etc).

Apparently the threat of terrorism has triggered, for the first time, a net export out of London for people moving home.