|
|
| Advertising | Contact | FAQ | Home | Links |
|
|
|
| Advertising | Contact | FAQ | Home | Links |
|
|
May 10, 2004
The Negative Media Filter In Iraq
Most of the American press (and for that matter the British press) have done an abysmal job of covering what's going on Iraq. What's my beef with their coverage? Well, before I get into that, let me show you what quality coverage looks like. Here's StrategyPage on what's happening in Iraq as of May 9th... "May 9, 2004: Gunmen loyal to Muqtada al Sadr are getting nervous, as public support, which was never very strong to begin with, turns to public hate. American troops have been arresting leaders of al Sadr’s militia throughout the Shia areas of Iraq in the last few days. In most cases, the al Sadr gunmen flee rather than fight to protect their leaders. Some al Sadr men in Basra tried to seize more government buildings, but were driven off by British troops and chased back to residential areas where gunfire could be heard for hours. The strategy appears to be that the Shia leadership (civil and religious) will continue negotiating with al Sadr for his surrender, while coalition troops dismantle the al Sadr militias that have sprang up in many Shia neighborhoods. One good thing that has come out of the al Sadr experience is to convince many Iraqis that the independent militias are a bad thing. While it can be thrilling, at first, to march through the streets behind a bunch of young guys with guns, it soon turns ugly when the guys with guns start to throw their weight around and turn into capricious bullies. Fallujah, which had become a refuge for all manner of Baath Party and anti-government gunmen and terrorists, is still blockaded by American marines. Patrols by the security forces recruited locally have gone on without much fuss. But the various gangs are still in and around the city. The Iraqi “Fallujah Brigade” apparently will not go looking for gunmen, but will just confront those who openly disturb the peace. Meanwhile, the gangs will use Fallujah as a base for attacks on coalition convoys and bases. The marines feel they may still have to go in and deal with the gangs. Eventually, someone, either from the coalition or Iraq, will have to kill or disarm the various Sunni, terrorist and criminal gangs in the Fallujah region. While the coalition would prefer that the Iraqis do it, there is a real fear that an Iraqi army, ordered in by an elected (by the majority Shia and Kurd) government, would simply level the city, with great loss of civilian life. The violence by Sunni and Shia gangs has caused about 30 percent of non-Iraqi aid workers to leave since April. They have been replaced by Iraqis. This is very popular with Iraqis, who see unemployment as a major problem and were dismayed at the number of foreigners who were brought in to do jobs that most Iraqis thought Iraqis could handle. There have been few, practically none, losses among the 6,000 Iraqis already working on reconstruction. This is despite the threats, and sometimes physical violence, by Baath Party thugs. Despite the headlines by the foreign press, most of Iraq has been quiet for the past few months. The Sunni Arabs were hostile to the coalition from the beginning, and foreign reporters could always get a colorful anti-coalition quote or demonstration by just going to a Sunni neighborhood and looking for Saddam supporters. There was, and is, real fear in these neighborhoods. But not fear of coalition troops, but of the Shia and Kurd troops that will appear with the coalition soldiers leave. This story angle is rarely pursued by the media. But the troops in Iraq know all about it, as it's a matter of life and death to know which neighborhoods are pro-Baath Party, and which ones are not." Note that this isn't all glowing, positive, news. There's a mixture of good, of bad, and there's context. Quite frankly, you can learn more about what's going on in Iraq from reading these 3 paragraphs than you could from reading the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, watching CNN, watching NBC, ABC, CBS -- all of them put together. Why is that? Why can't the mainstream media seem to give any context? There are several reasons why the press can't or won't give the public the straight story about whats really going on in Iraq... 1) Some members of the media see every war as Vietnam redux. When you start out with a basic assumption of "we can't win no matter what we do," it taints every article you put out. 2) Many people, particularly on the left, simply don't believe brown skinned Muslims can build a Democracy. This is part of the reason why the Abu Ghraib pics are big news / Israel is savagely condemned while ongoing torture around the Middle-East / Palestinian suicide bombers are treated as yawners. The attitude is "What do you expect from people like that? Asking them to act like civilized human beings is more than we can expect!" The soft bigotry of low expectations makes the press expect failure. 3) Although it has become taboo to admit this, a large percentage of people on the left DETEST the military. They think of them as gun toting, conservative, AmeriNazis. However, they know that the American people strongly support the troops. So through gritted teeth they say they too "support the troops" while they look for ways to undermine them at every opportunity in the articles they write. 4) A large portion of the left hates America. The Noam Chomsky, Ted Rall, Michael Moore set genuinely thinks the US is an oppressive, evil, corporate juggernaut running roughshod over the rest of the planet. So any victory for America, is a victory for the "bad guys". Again, they can't be too blunt about it because although it won't hurt them on the left, this sort of thinking is anathema to most Americans and they'll immediately tune out if they hear it. So again, the "mainstream media" types who feel this way keep it quiet but slant the news to express their beliefs. 5) Last but not least, there are a lot of members of the mainstream media who want George Bush to lose in November and they'll do everything they can to make that happen. They do this in part by picking which stories are page 1 day after day (Ex: Claims that George Bush was 'AWOL') and which stories get buried (Ex: John Kerry's first purple heart was fixed with a band-aid, John Kerry attended a VVAW meeting where assassinating US Senators was voted on). With this group, it's all about gotcha politics and Iraq is just another political tool for them to use. The problem with all of this is that the media is so biased that they've essentially allowed themselves to become the most powerful weapon in our enemy's arsenals. The Al Sadrs and Al-Qaedas can't actually beat us or make Democracy in Iraq impossible, but they don't have to. They just have to get their unwitting -- for the most part -- allies in the press to convince the American people they can't be defeated and they win by default. In reality, most of the war news you're seeing in the mainstream media has more do with things like what the people reporting it think about Vietnam or how much they hate Bush, than what's actually happening in Iraq -- and that's too bad. ***Update #1***: Also, note this update from StrategyPage on Abu Ghraib... "Moreover, you have many Iraqi Shia and Kurds who see these pictures and react quite differently. The Shia and Kurds not only understand that the prisoners are suspected Baath Party members, but will often comment that they should "all be killed." Eventually, an elected Iraqi government is going to have to take care of the anti-government (mainly Sunni Arab) violence. An Iraqi government dominated by Shia and Kurds, with memories of millions of their kinsmen murdered, tortured or otherwise abused by the Sunni Arabs, will have to muster enormous restraint to avoid much uglier incidents of violence against prisoners. The US wants to hold the elections, and let the Iraqis sort it out themselves. But there is some unease about what the Shia and Kurds will do to these still violent Sunnis." Interestingly enough, you can see just the sort of reaction SP talks about there in a story done by the Seattle Post Intelligencer about Iraqi-AMERICANS. But, why isn't the mainstream media talking about this sort of very relevant reaction in Iraq? Because it would hurt their Vietnam comparison or Bush bashing memes? It's pathetic, just pathetic... My Favorite 25 Political Websites On The Net
My favorite 25 political websites on the net, in order. Do keep in mind that these sorts of lists change all the time. Websites go up and down, pages come on and go off the list, etc, etc. With that being said, here are my current selections... 25) Glenn Beck Program *** I decided Scrappleface & IMAO were ineligible because I syndicate some of their content and I chose not to put The Command Post, ChronWatch, & Men's News Daily in the running because my columns appear on those websites. Princeton Professor In The WAPO: Let's Deliberately Lose Iraq
Last week, I covered loopy Libertarian, Lew Rockwell's oddball plan to replace all of our troops in Iraq with Jimmy Carter and a few diplomats who would be setting up an election so the "wildly popular" Saddam could sweep to victory at the ballot box. But, if you thought that was a farfetched scheme, you ain't seen nothing yet because I've found a column that can top it -- in the Washington Post no less! As you read the details of John Brady Kiesling's daffy idea for Iraq, I want you to remember that he "is a visiting lecturer at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School and Hellenic Studies Program (and) (h)e spent 20 years in the U.S. Foreign Service before resigning in protest on the eve of the war in Iraq". Get ready for some ivory tower idiocy in 3...2...1... "...The uprising of radical Shiite Moqtada Sadr and his militia, an uprising that briefly unified Sunni and Shiite insurgencies in opposition to the United States, points the way forward. Our goal is a legitimate Iraqi state. Resistance to the United States turned Sadr from a scruffy mediocrity into a national figure. The struggle against foreign occupation can generate the legitimacy needed to hold Iraq together. A leader who drives the Americans out can claim the loyalty of enough of the Iraqi people to govern Iraq by methods more acceptable than Saddam Hussein's. To achieve its vital war aims, in other words, America must abandon its dream of victory and accept the appearance of defeat. What does this mean in practice? Quite simply, the United States must take a cold, analytical look at the forces arrayed against us in Iraq and decide which leader should be allowed the glorious destiny of redeeming his country from foreign occupation. Once the United States has fixed on a credible resistance leader, our goal should be to cede him tactical, positional victories while denying them to his competitors. The U.S. military might be able to find and disable any resistance large enough to be a military threat, but this leader's movement we should allow to grow. We should open a communications channel, and enforce a set of rules to limit the battlefield and minimize casualties. Success breeds success. Iraqis will quickly rally to any leader associated with our retreat. We should strive to become invisible, while our foe takes on responsibility for the security Iraqis have learned to value more than freedom. When the time comes, we will pull out completely, and an Iraqi leader will enter Baghdad in triumph, greeted with the flowers our troops never received. He will be the one to invite in the U.N. reconstruction effort. He will be able to guarantee the security to reconstruction teams that the U.S. military could not. There are plenty of difficulties with this scenario: The president may not be brave enough to admit defeat, even a nominal defeat that ensures our key aims and stanches the hemorrhage of lives and treasure. Moreover, the Kurds will not be impressed by any savior from outside Kurdistan, so Turkish threats and U.S. promises will be needed to keep the Kurds within a federal Iraqi state. And no U.S. Congress would willingly appropriate reconstruction money for a country that defeated us, no matter what we promised the Iraqi people. Accepting this leader will be a bitter pill for us to swallow. We may hit upon a dynamic nonsectarian figure to lead Iraq, a genuine Iraqi patriot, but we cannot hope that he will be pro-Western. Perhaps there is indeed a budding George Washington who will refuse the kingship a grateful Iraqi people would offer. More likely we will end up with a reasonably popular despot. But we cannot dictate a system, only promote a leader. If we prefer not to choose, the choice will be made by our foes. ...America's reluctance to make difficult policy decisions will probably doom us to a decade of pointless losses in Iraq. There is an alternative: Not to cut and run, but to fight with honorable cunning and to lose. Let us see whether President Bush is brave enough to finish what he started, in the only way that might, ultimately, leave America a little safer than before he took office." Yes, you're reading that right. Kiesling, a man who "spent 20 years in the U.S. Foreign Service," is suggesting that George W. Bush DELIBERATELY ENGINEER A US DEFEAT in Iraq. That's a great idea -- super -- well, as long as we're talking about some BIZARRO WORLD where everything wrong is right, everything good is bad, and where George W. Bush wouldn't become even more despised that Benedict Arnold if he somehow managed to pull this off. There are so many problems and difficulties with Kiesling's analysis that it's hard to know where to begin. But we must begin somewhere, so let me note that despite Al-Sadr's faltering insurgency, what happened in Fallujah, and the scandalous pics that came out of Abu Ghraib, time is on our side. Al-Sadr's revolt is very unpopular, Iraqi police and military forces are getting stronger by the day, we have a limited handover of sovereignty on June 30th, and there are national elections scheduled for Jan of 2005. Despite the headlines that dominate the headlines written by our Vietnam obsessed press, Democracy is moving inexorably closer and at the moment there's nothing on the horizon that threatens to derail it. But, even if that weren't the case, what Kiesling suggests is ridiculous and not just because it would require President Bush to commit treason to pull it off. What do you say the families of the soldiers who are killed as we're faking our way of Iraq? Come to think of it, you couldn't say anything if you were going to actually pull it off. Say, how does that work exactly? How do you throw a war without alerting the military, most of your own staff, and Congress? Because if everyone knows you're losing the war on purpose, then it would undercut what you're trying to do. Moreover, what it do to our reputation in the region, in the world, in the eyes of the terrorists we're fighting if we deliberately allowed some thugs with a few thousand men wielding AK-47s to run us out of Iraq and take over the country? Imagine "Blackhawk Down" times 50. That fact that Kiesling, who must be a fool to have written this column, got published in the WAPO, is a visiting lecturer at Princeton, and spent 20 years in foreign service, proves that we tolerate fools too gladly in our society. Study Shows People With Cell Phones More Important Than Other People By Dan Bristol
New York – A study has revealed that people who use cell phones are much, much more important than other people. According to the study, led by Dr. Henry Crankhore, people who are seen using cell phones in public places are more likely to be thought of as big-@ss important people, whereas people who don’t use cell phones in public are unimportant nobodies who don’t count. “We sampled a demographic of 500 people,” said Crankhore. “It showed that, if cell phones were invisible, most people wouldn’t own or use them. The whole point is for you to see the big-@ss important man using his pretentious status symbol so you’ll know that he’s a real busy and important man.” The study shows that this does not only apply to adults. Teenagers, who mistakenly believe that phone-use is a basic human right, would not be caught dead with a cell phone if it couldn’t be seen by their peers. “This way,” Crankhore told Spoof reporters, “they can perpetuate the illusion that they have something important to say which, let me assure you, they do not.” Shortly after releasing the report, Dr. Crankhore was seized by an angry, torch-wielding mob of villagers and cell-phone manufacturers and burned alive for having an unpopular opinion. If you enjoyed this satire by Dan Bristol, you can read more of his work at The Spoof. John Kerry, Who Served In Vietnam By The Way, Flip-Flops By Hadez & John Hawkins
May 07, 2004
I Was Dragging Today...
Sorry if I went heavy on the humor and light on the political commentary today, but I was hang dog, tongue hanging out, bout to keel over tired all day. I was looking about like my dog Patton does after I play ball with him for about 30 straight minutes...  ...and I just was not able to write the amount I normally like to before I had to go to sleep. On the other hand, I have some sweeeeet articles planned for Monday, so make sure to tune in then... ***Update #1***: In the comments section Slayerdaddy asks... "Is Patton one'a them Right Wing Attack Dogs?" and vrwc_overlord responds... "Ya'll must be kiddin'..Patton is Chomps' little brother;-)...Can't you tell, he's got that same ferocious hippy hating look in his eyes;-)" Oh yeah, Patton could handle the part of Chomps' little brother...  Unfortunately, he'd be too wild and unruly to actually star in a movie, but I bet he'd look great on a RWN t-shirt... Bush Apology Sparks Torrent of Global Goodwill By Iowahawk
IMAMS: "YOU HAD US AT 'SORRY'" Washington - The recent apology of US President George W. Bush for abuses by American military prison guards continued to reverberate around the globe today, as the White House was again inundated with with a flurry of "apology accepted" notes from world media, governmental leaders, and Islamic fundamentalist clerics. Typical of the responses was a personal note from Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad, who wrote "aww, dude, you know I can't stay mad at you," saying that the apology had prompted him to immediately dismantle his country's secret nuclear weapons program. In a postscript, Assad added, "good luck to the Rangers this year." "Now was that so hard?" joked Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat in an email to Bush. "Now get out of here ya knucklehead, before we have to do one of those awkward man-hugs." The apology also prompted an outbreak of gratitude in the Arab street, as hundreds of thousands of Muslims took to the streets Friday in an impromptu demonstration of thanks. In Gaza, a cheering crowd estimated at 30,000 waved American flags and banners reading "No Prablem Bosh" [sic], while in Damascus throngs gathered in the Square of the Martyrs chanting "U-S-A, U-S-A". "I used to dream about dying in a glorious fireball of martyrdom," said Ali Ahmed Amoud, 23, a marcher in the first annual Infidel Appreciation Days parade in Nablus. "But that apology was so nice and sincere, it just seems kind of petty to keep nursing a grudge." In Tehran, the ruling council of Iranian clerics ordered a "national day of celebration and family fun" to commemorate the historic apology. "The Great Satan has given our honor back, so it's time to move on and let bygones be bygones," said Ayatollah Rafinstani in a nationwide radio address. Rafinstani also announced Iran's immediate nuclear disarmament, and cautioned celebrants not to drink and drive. In Cairo, local clerics were equally enthusiastic and appreciative of Bush's gesture. In his weekly Friday sermon, Egyptian Imam Muqtaba Salim urged followers to show their appreciation by "reaching out and hugging a Zionist." "Sure, they're a little pushy and abrasive, but c'mon guys -- let's take a deep breath and count to ten before we go all 'martydom operations,'" said Salim. Perhaps the biggest reaction to the Bush apology occured in Saudi Arabia, where leaders of the fundamentalist Wahabbist sect issued a rare commendation of the president. "It's just been such a catharsis for all of us," said Imam Abdelkarim Matwalli, prayer leader of the Grand Mosque in Medina, choking back emotion. "All we really ever wanted was a simple 'I'm sorry,' and Mr. Bush delivered. Thank you, America." The president's apology was no less well-received in Europe, with dozens of newspapers blaring effusive, pro-Bush headlines. The Parisienne Le Monde declared "All Is Forgiven, George" while the Manchester Guardian lionized Bush as "an Apologizer for the Ages"; the tabloid Sun carried a simple "Dubya, We Lubya" above a flattering photo of the president festooned with garlands. The apology also appeared to have created a thaw in the United States' sometimes icy relationship with continental political leaders. French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhardt Schroeder issued a joint communique welcoming the United States "back in the fold of civilized nations," and vowed to introduce a UN resolution asserting the US right to exist, following scheduled week-long pro-Bush demonstrations across Europe. Newly elected Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero also commended the President's contrition, and said that "I would gladly once again pledge Spanish troops to the War on Terror, if the whole terror thing ever becomes a problem again." Domestic reaction was generally favorable, led by Congressional Democrats who drafted a resolution prasing the President's "bold, thoughtful groveling for world peace," and calling on Bush to "stop beating yourself up." Progressive websites such as DemocraticUnderground, Daily Kos and BartCop urged readers to "forgive, forget, and send a nice thank you card to the White House." Despite the outbreak of world geopolitical harmony, not everyone was satisfied with Bush's overture. In a scathing OpEd in today's New York Times, columnist Thomas Friedman demanded an additional apology from the President. "Fess up, Mr. Bush," said Friedman, "that was my idea." If you enjoyed this satire by Iowahawk, you can read more of his work here. John Kerry Wants to Give Louisiana Purchase Back To France By William Grim
Senator John Kerry, Democrat candidate for President, said yesterday during an address to the American Chamber of Commerce, that if elected he intends to give back the Louisiana Purchase to France. “America owes everything to France,” said Senator Kerry. “No other country has treated us so poorly over the years. If it weren’t for France, what would self-loathing liberals like myself do?” Legal experts say that Kerry’s proposal is based on a dubious understanding of the law and could result in years of litigation. The same legal experts say that the years of litigation stand to make legal experts extremely wealthy and so they are in favor of Kerry’s proposal. Right Wing News Inspires An Urban Legend
Lookie, lookie! RWN has inspired an urban legend at Snopes. That certainly doesn't happen every day... Kerry: Bush 'Not Qualified' To Be Disgusted By Scott Ott
Democrat presidential hopeful, and Vietnam veteran, John Forbes Kerry today said President George Bush is "not fit to be disgusted" at photos of U.S. military prison guards hazing Iraqi prisoners. The president recently granted two interviews with Arab-language TV networks, telling reporters that he found the actions of the prison guards to be "abhorrent." But Mr. Kerry immediately held a news conference to challenge the president's credibility on the issue. "While I was commanding a swift boat in the Mekong Delta, George Bush stayed stateside with the National Guard," said Mr. Kerry. "He never had an opportunity to commit atrocities against the enemy, like I did, so he's not fit to judge the abuses in Abu Ghraib prison. America needs a commander in chief who knows the harsh reality of war and man's inhumanity to man…the darkness that lurks in the soul of even the most cultured, erudite and refined among us." White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, "Senator Kerry is entitled to his opinion. I think the president was simply reacting to the photos the same way most Americans did." A spokesman for the Kerry campaign said Mr. McClelland's remarks represent another example of "Bush's right-wing attack dogs questioning Senator Kerry's patriotism." Later, when asked by a reporter on his campaign plane what he thought when he first saw the prisoner-abuse photos, Mr. Kerry said, "I was disgusted. They were abhorrent." If you enjoyed this satire by Scott Ott, you can read more of his work at Scrappleface. |
|
