On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 Dave DeBarger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>David Strike wrote:
>> Then there's the report that the advance towards Baghdad had been
>> halted for "4 - 6 days" because of the need to re-supply and
>> because the 'point' had run ahead of the necessary supply lines?
>> (Mind you!  That could have been a piece of mis-information
>> deliberately put out in an attempt to encourage the Iraqi defenders
>> of Baghdad to do a 'Harold of Hastings" and attack and enemy
>> who were deliberately trying to lure them out of their stronghold
>> in order to engage them in combat! ) :-)
>
>And therein lies one of the problems of ANY news reporting during
>wartime.  "The first casualty of any war is Truth."  I forget who
>said it, and I'm too tired to look it up tonight!

I saw that quote in The Bulletin (with Newsweek) April 1st issue.
Under the heading - Line of Fire.
The first casualty of the war has been truth: military disinformation,
wild rumour-mongering and no-go areas have already blocked our access
to the real story, Phillip Knightley writes.

One paragraph in his article really caught my eye.
The major change in this war is the presence of the PSYOPS (deception and
psychological operations) units. The way PSYOPS works is that those
military spokesmen whose job it has traditionally been to talk to the
media, and divulge truthfully what they are able to about what is happening
on the battlefield, now work hand-in-glove with those whose job it is to
support battlefield operations with disinformation.  In short, the media
now risks becoming an unknowing pawn in military strategy. END quote.

Even if only a teeny-weenie bit true we've had a few examples of that
already.
The assassination attempt - was Saddam dead or not.
The announcement by a military spokesman about the supposed SCUD missile
attack on Kuwait.
The supposed surrender negotiations between CIA officials and commanders of
the Republican Guard.

>But I don't believe most of what is reported as 'fact' by any
>government entity, and only part of what is reported as 'fact' by
>journalists -- and that depends upon WHICH journalist!

It is just not the war correspondents who have to question what they are
hearing or seeing is genuine and that, sad to say, is from BOTH sides.
Phillip Knightley made mention of Peter Arnett, reviled as a traitor in

In the previous issue of The Bulletin (with Newsweek) was a very
interesting article, though very long, written by an American.

http://www.bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/

In the search field type - arrogant empire - then click on the GO button.
It's the 3rd article down titled America: The arrogant empire.

Even when John Howard was preparing to announce to the masses that our
troops were officially at war the polls were showing more voters were
opposed to the war in Iraq than for it.
When the dreaded day came quite a few places across OZ lowered the Aussie
flag as an anti-war protest.
I've lost count of the number of protest marches across the country.
On the 2nd day of war it was Harmony Day in OZ. The majority of my office
(13 floors) joined in that protest march.
Just like the 1st Amendment all of the above does not mean that those who
are anti-war are unpatriotic though.

>Dave safe,

Ya mean Dive safe doan ya Dave :-)
Viv