Politics: A River in Egypt
I don't know if anyone had a chance to read the Washington Post's monstrous editorial on why they love the bomb, but there were some interesting tidbits in it.
Most distressingly, the Post did in this long editorial what they have done throughout the Editorial Page's treatment of this war: they have selectively included some facts while eliding over others at will. In the entire document, the words 'North Korea' never appear. Even places where the Post walks right up to some obvious point, they make an abrupt turn (always to the right) and ignore the obvious again and again.
For example, the Post (as if to cite their stellar record of backing the right horse) says that it supported Bush's incursion into Afghanistan in October 2001. But when an opportunity to directly address a complaint about the new war in Iraq, that it would distract from our very unfinished duties in that destroyed and destitute nation, the Post takes a pass. United States and its allies stay focused on Afghanistan and its reconstruction.
Like a set of talking points from America's war party, the item repeats inane falsehoods as if they were facts. Take "Given what we know about how containment erodes over time..." America's big experiment in containment, that whole Cold War, was something of a success. The piece lauds Clinton for talking big on Iraq in 1997 and 1998, but then chastises efforts to deal with Saddam Hussein which apparently didn't feature a long-term war against a non-aggressive and fully-contained Middle Eastern state.
For instance, the piece attempts to compare the U.S. campaign in Kosovo and the first Gulf War to this one, conveniently omitting that in both cases, an actual hostility had occurred before U.S. involvement did. Clear evidence has demonstrated that Slobodan Milosevic was executing a plan to eliminate ethnic Albanians from Kosovo. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. What did Hussein do this time? The Post doesn't explain that part.
Like the redundant parodies we hear from the right-wing, the Post editorial bashes France, claiming that Iraq rearmed and defeated sanctions with French "support." Oddly, the editorial doesn't mention Iraq's neighbors who were far more complicit in Iraq's continued health by working with the black market to get oil out of the country.
The editorial pays exactly no attention to the fact that far more lives will be on the line if a greater terror war is triggered by an American invasion of Iraq. No mention whatsoever of the danger of radical Islamists capturing the government in Pakistan and automatically possessing the weapon we have no proof Iraq has ever held. As a matter of fact, the word "Pakistan" doesn't appear at all.
The Post editorial is portrayed as a response to readers who are amazed that the ed page can continue to ring the war bell without cringing at the horror. At the outset, a reader is quoted as saying "It is truly depressing to witness the depths Washington Post editors have reached in their jingoistic rush to war." The editorial then takes on "rush to war," but leaves "jingoistic" un-addressed.
Think, then about all that the editors didn't address: The real threat of North Korea's actual nuclear weapons program, the precarious position of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, the potential loss of life from new terrorism events, the potential un-balancing of the entire Arab world and more. More importantly, why did it not speak to readers concerns that the war drums were taking on an increasingly jingoistic tone? And why does the Post not perceive the painful drift that the "War on Terror" is undergoing? What should readers of the Washington Post conclude?
Unfortunately, the Post editorial page doesn't have enough room to answer those unimportant questions. Instead, it just continues America's march to war, the proud descendent of America's yellow press.
I don't know if anyone had a chance to read the Washington Post's monstrous editorial on why they love the bomb, but there were some interesting tidbits in it.
Most distressingly, the Post did in this long editorial what they have done throughout the Editorial Page's treatment of this war: they have selectively included some facts while eliding over others at will. In the entire document, the words 'North Korea' never appear. Even places where the Post walks right up to some obvious point, they make an abrupt turn (always to the right) and ignore the obvious again and again.
For example, the Post (as if to cite their stellar record of backing the right horse) says that it supported Bush's incursion into Afghanistan in October 2001. But when an opportunity to directly address a complaint about the new war in Iraq, that it would distract from our very unfinished duties in that destroyed and destitute nation, the Post takes a pass. United States and its allies stay focused on Afghanistan and its reconstruction.
Like a set of talking points from America's war party, the item repeats inane falsehoods as if they were facts. Take "Given what we know about how containment erodes over time..." America's big experiment in containment, that whole Cold War, was something of a success. The piece lauds Clinton for talking big on Iraq in 1997 and 1998, but then chastises efforts to deal with Saddam Hussein which apparently didn't feature a long-term war against a non-aggressive and fully-contained Middle Eastern state.
For instance, the piece attempts to compare the U.S. campaign in Kosovo and the first Gulf War to this one, conveniently omitting that in both cases, an actual hostility had occurred before U.S. involvement did. Clear evidence has demonstrated that Slobodan Milosevic was executing a plan to eliminate ethnic Albanians from Kosovo. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. What did Hussein do this time? The Post doesn't explain that part.
Like the redundant parodies we hear from the right-wing, the Post editorial bashes France, claiming that Iraq rearmed and defeated sanctions with French "support." Oddly, the editorial doesn't mention Iraq's neighbors who were far more complicit in Iraq's continued health by working with the black market to get oil out of the country.
The editorial pays exactly no attention to the fact that far more lives will be on the line if a greater terror war is triggered by an American invasion of Iraq. No mention whatsoever of the danger of radical Islamists capturing the government in Pakistan and automatically possessing the weapon we have no proof Iraq has ever held. As a matter of fact, the word "Pakistan" doesn't appear at all.
The Post editorial is portrayed as a response to readers who are amazed that the ed page can continue to ring the war bell without cringing at the horror. At the outset, a reader is quoted as saying "It is truly depressing to witness the depths Washington Post editors have reached in their jingoistic rush to war." The editorial then takes on "rush to war," but leaves "jingoistic" un-addressed.
Think, then about all that the editors didn't address: The real threat of North Korea's actual nuclear weapons program, the precarious position of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, the potential loss of life from new terrorism events, the potential un-balancing of the entire Arab world and more. More importantly, why did it not speak to readers concerns that the war drums were taking on an increasingly jingoistic tone? And why does the Post not perceive the painful drift that the "War on Terror" is undergoing? What should readers of the Washington Post conclude?
Unfortunately, the Post editorial page doesn't have enough room to answer those unimportant questions. Instead, it just continues America's march to war, the proud descendent of America's yellow press.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home