Lessons in Journalistic Integrity: In Which the WaPo Engages in Propaganda, I Wallow in Hypocrisy, and the New York Sun Proposes the Unthinkable
First, let's go to seminal liberal blogger Atrios, who illustrates the Washington Post's ugly side. This entry over at his site reveals how the Post took a Reuters story that read:
"Bleichwehl said troops, facing scattered resistance, discovered a factory that produced "explosively formed penetrators" (EFPs), a particularly deadly type of explosive that can destroy a main battle tank and several weapons caches."
And then changed it to read:
"The U.S. military said two U.S. soldiers died in separate roadside bombings in the east and west of Baghdad on Friday.
One of the bombs was an explosively formed projectile, a particularly deadly type of device which Washington accuses Iran of supplying Iraqi militants."
Because, you know, we can't have it known that these Iraqi insurgents, heretofore incapable of producing these surely Iranian-made explosives, are actually building them on their own. I mean, that kinda conflicts with the raison d'etre of the upcoming war on Iran, no?
I've been pretty wary of assuming that we'll go marching into Iran, or even bombing the country, despite its recent belligerence toward Britain, the saber-rattling of the White House, and the fact that, strategically, we've got them nailed to the wall, with fronts along their western border (Iraq) and eastern border (Afghanistan), control of the bodies of water to the north and south, and have even been engaging in some black ops along the southeastern border with Pakistan, where the CIA has been aiding the anti-Iranian Pakistani militia known as Jundullah.
I mean, sure, that adds up to an awfully frightening endgame, and Bush isn't exactly the type of guy I'd depend on to diplomatically extract us from a powderkeg situation, but ... we wouldn't really be stupid enough to attack Iran ... would we?
And even assuming we would do such a disastrously asinine thing, surely a major newspaper that's generally seen as having a liberal bent wouldn't engage in propaganda to try to sell that war ... would it?
Ah well. Stop worrying and learn to love the bomb.
Moving on, I don't know how I could have missed something so spectacular, but almost a week ago, the New York Sun, admittedly as right-wing a rag as they come, called for DICK CHENEY TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT
Yes, that Dick Cheney.
It boggles the mind. How could any editorialist, no matter how far to one political extreme, actually call for Cheney to run for president? First, there's the political realities to consider. Dick currently polls at about 39 percent, according to Rasmussen. That's bad enough. But when you consider that his unfavorable rating is a majority 55 percent according to the same report, and that, historically, he has polled as low as a staggering 18 percent, making him about as popular among Americans as Caligula was among Romans, a Cheney run becomes a lesson in futility.
And that's not to mention the policy decisions that a Cheney administration would mean. The Sun article states, "for those of us who are concerned with extending Mr. Bush's campaign for freedom around the world and cutting taxes at home, a Cheney campaign is attractive." That line engages in such breathtaking doublespeak, it's difficult to say where to begin. Shall I discuss this "campaign for freedom," a war based on lies that has resulted in numerous war crimes, an American military stretched to the breaking point, and the needless deaths of thousands of Americans? Or maybe I should focus on "cutting taxes at home," citing the disastrous Bush tax cuts, coupled with out of control spending, that has driven our country's economy to the brink of collapse — perhaps not today or tomorrow, but certainly once my doomed generation is old enough to take the reigns of power.
And even if Cheney won the primary but failed to overtake his Democratic opponent, can you imagine the horror of a Cheney campaign? Perhaps no politician engages more often in dissent-is-treason rhetoric than Dick Cheney. The very idea of a Cheney campaign leaves me feeling vaguely queasy, despite the fact that it would almost assure a victory for the party that, at least these days, stands for a more sane approach to our nation's problems. And maybe that's what folks like the editorialists over at the Sun like best of all — a Cheney campaign means pissing off liberals.
Ah well. Stop worrying and learn to love the vampire.
Moving on once again, a while back, while commenting on another blog, I took a fellow to task for trolling the Internet for blog entries written about him. But this got me thinking. If Andy Martin's prowling around out there, I wonder what I could turn up about me. Besides, Doomed Generation turned one year old a week ago, which calls for a look back. Hell, I even learned a few things.
According to the Keynoter, I am a political pundit.
I somehow made it onto the blogroll of BarCamp Miami, despite not having participated in the event.
I'm also on the blogroll of several blogs that I hadn't added to my own roll, including Coconut Grove Grapevine, among others. All y'all have been added to my rolls.
Laura Fiorilli, who keeps on eye on political Web sites for the Tampa Tribune's site, has referrenced my work several times.
The conservative blog Post Political credited me with a photo that I don't deserve credit for.
Speaking of conservative blogs, my entry pointing out that the supposedly independent Draft Condi movement is merely a front for the National Black Republican Association enjoyed a brief life in the conservative blogosphere, cited by Bullwinkle Blog, The Florida Masochist, and even the D.C.-based blog Outside the Beltway, which built upon my initial observation and surmised (rightly, I now believe) that this is more a cheap fundraising ploy by the NBRA than it is a sign of a Condi Rice presidential campaign.
Anyway, all told, a surprising trip through Google. I now take back everything I said about Martin. He does have a life ... I mean, at least I now assume he does.