Rep. Kim Song-ho of the yet-to-be -given-an English name new reform party (Korean: T’onghapshindang) ripped into a recently compiled report on the Iraq situation, calling for an investigation and punishment of those responsible for what he considers to be a distorted depiction of the situation on the ground. Kim said:
In order to keep the the investigation of the situation in Iraq objective, it was necessary to listen to the opinions of not only the American headquarters, but also those of Iraqi citizens groups and the UN liaison office. But the research group only listened to the American side.
Kim went on to say:
Even pro-American bodies such as the Coalition Provisional Authority (led by Paul Bremer) and the Iraq Governing Council have said that they oppose the dispatch of Korean combat troops and that only humanitarian assistance in possible. But for the government’s investigative body to preposterously conclude that Korean combat troops are needed is to completely distort the wishes of the Iraqi citizens.
Now, I can’t imagine that either the CPA or the IGC would have told the South Koreans that their combat troops were not needed. I looked at the original statement by Rep. Kim (included below the article), and here’s what it says:
During the course of our investigative committee’s interviews with the CPA and the IGC, those bodies revealed their position that “if the Korean military helps us with humanitarian aid like restoring schools and hospitals and helping to provide jobs, terrorism will vanish.”
The CPA and the IGC are American-created institutions that were formed after the fall of Saddam Hussein. But even though pro-American institution have revealed their attitude that they “oppose the dispatch of Korean combat troops, and only humanitarian assistance is possible,” our government’s investigative body preposterously concluded that the dispatch of Korean combat troops in necessary.
Perhaps I’m missing something here, because it sure as hell doesn’t look like the CPA of IGC turned down the Koreans offer of combat troops. Anyway, the English language edition of the Joongang Ilbo also ran a piece on people upset about the report. Just a snippet:
General Kang briefed President Roh Moo-hyun on Sunday, telling him the Iraqi public has a generally favorable view of the Korean military presence and Mosul is considered to be safe.
At yesterday’s press briefing the general said: “Terror threats in Mosul, where Korean troops may be dispatched, are decreasing. The number of attacks against U.S. soldiers dropped and public safety is being maintained there.”
But Park Kun-young, professor of international relations at Catholic University and one of the members of the delegation, disputed that view at the briefing. “What General Kang said was from the analysis of the materials U.S. and its allies in Iraq prepared. As we have only partial research results, I think it is necessary for Korea to send another delegation to Iraq,” he said.
Mr. Park continued, “The only independent investigation we did was surveying Mosul for 20 minutes from an airplane provided by the U.S. Army and for another 20 minutes from a vehicle, and talking to only one area resident for five minutes.”
Mr. Park emphasized that he learned from a U.S. officer that attacks on U.S. troops are constant.
This is going to be a long, ugly debate.
PS: A report on the fact-finding mission to Iraq can be found here, courtesy the Joongang Ilbo.
3 Comments
to “the Marmot???”…”Actually it is not related to this issue. But I’d like to discuss your comment left in Holloblog. Sorry about that….
Well, at a first glance, I also thought whether the “eggs-first-or-chickens-first” irony that you left in Holloblog. Regarding Fox viewers’ seriously distorted memory on the US’s Iraq invasion, neither you nor me can claim which one comes first unless we study this issue in an experimentally controlled study. Maybe, we need an aditional content analysis for the coverage of US’s Iraq invasion. However, based on my monitoring of the invasion and the media coverage during that period, I’d like to blame the media rather than viewers for Fox viewers’ skewed incorrect memories.
Of course, there is a tendecy that conservatives enjoy watching biased media such as Fox news or Rush Limbaugh. It is very similar that Chosun Ilbo’s bulletinboard (100??????? is filled with the right’s or sometimes extremely fascist’s flaming against Rho’s democratic government and its supporters. They love those biased media in that they can feel some catharsis from listening to “Rush” or reading “Jo, GapJe(?징째?째???흹).” Of course, I enjoy listening to Rush and reading Jo, which may surprise you, (in fact, I really hate them).
Anyway, everybody knows that the conservatives enjoys Fox news. Then, a question is that whether conservatives are stupid enough to show their false memory for two key Iraq-related issues. The answer is “No.” I don’t think conservatives are not so stupid as they show their stupid memoires for the key facts that even I (=a stupid person) know the correct answer.
Two things need to be considered.
What is my source of information? I rely on newspapers to get news or information. However, most Americans rely on television to catch news or natioanl agendas. Many researchers has demonstrated that there is a knowledge gap of public affairs between NP users and TV viewers. This is the first reason that I attribute their false memory to the Fox or FoxNEWS rather than the conservative bias. My hypothesis is that viewers of TV news are more likely to remember the facts of Iraq invasion incorrectly.
Second, even though you stated a very serious (^^) remarks that “Fox’s viewers selected the Fox NEWS because of its patriotic perspective,” even a conservative media critic admits that “the War coverage is filled with patriotism.” In other words, it was not just Fox that sent the biased American imperialistic view during the Iraq invasion. Alsmost all US media did. Thus, assume that there is no difference in US media coverage in dealing with Iraq invasion. Then, what makes these differences of false memories depending on viewers’ favorable television news sources. I’d like to blame the conservative Fox’s detailed but quite biased “commentaries” on several issues of the Iraq invasion. Not only did the FOX NEWS deliver a biased view to the audience, but also it may have diluted the fact emphasizing “suspicous (but quite old and worn-out) stuffs” for the proof of weapons of destruction. (??╈????쨔???? ?짧???짼? ?쨈짚?????째…..?짯? ?쨔? ?쨍째??? ??? ?째??????짼? ??쑣??샕??흹??쨈??흹 ??쨈?짼흸 ?흸??????쨈?????쨈?쨍째??쩌 ?짠흸??쑣??짚??????흹????째???짚?쨀? ?쨀쨍??짚???????….???????째? ?쨌쨍 ??? ?짠???? ????????™??짚???????^^).
Thanks for the comment - and many more thanks for the trackback and link. I’m going to respond to your comment once I go through all the relevant data on the survey over at the Program on International Policy Attitudes. I must warn you, however - I’m not an expert on American TV media, which I hardly watch anymore (with the exception of CNN, which is hardly a bastion of right-wing conservatism).
this article - actually excerpts from a new book titled The Other Lies of George Bush - shows how Bush has mislead the fact about the invasion of Iraq.
http://www.thenation.com/doc.m.....amp;s=corn
PING:
TITLE: Impression Formation under Cognitive Busyness
BLOG NAME: GatorLog: A blogger’s monologue
??쨈??짚 ?????쩌??쨈??? ?????흸, ??쨔????????짹쨈 (event)??? ?흸???흹 ??쨍?????? ?????짹??흹??짚?????짼???????째??? ??쨋??? ?째???? ?쨍째?쨀쨍?????쨍 ??쩌??쨈??짚. ??쨈 ??쨍??? ?????짹??? ?짚??????짢??? ??쩌?째흸?쨍째 ?째??흸흸??흹 Heider?????흸???쨍?쨈??쨀??????흹 ?째흹?????? ??? ?????????쨈??쨍?째??…
PING:
TITLE: Korea Briefing: 2003-10-14
BLOG NAME: Winds of Change.NET
OCT 14/03 TOPICS INCL: Must-read article; Asian values; Total Recall in SK too?; Wider regional role for USFK; NK Developments; Nukes updates; What to do about NK?; Lifestyles of the Rich and Stalinist; ROK forces to Iraq?; Food aid to NK; NK’s economy…