Of course the press isn’t biased. They’re just smarmy and arrogant. Like many career bureaucrats, they know better than the public what is good for the public. That is why they write, for the same reason I write – not to report the facts, but the influence opinion. The only difference is that I will admit my entire blog is my attempt to get my view out to the world, but a journalist, when asked, will usually tell you they are just reporting the facts. The problem with that is that they skew the facts, however subtle that process may be. Here’s an example:
Even as they were locked in genuine confrontation on the battlefield, al-Zarqawi and the United States engaged in public, tit-for-tat insults.
On April 25, al-Zarqawi brazenly showed his face for the first time in a video posted on the Internet. In a lengthy diatribe, he accused Bush of lying to Americans about U.S. military victories in Iraq. U.S. forces, he predicted, “will go out of Iraq humiliated, defeated.” The video showed al-Zarqawi strutting across a desert landscape, wielding an automatic weapon.
Genuine confrontation on the battlefield? There was no genuine confrontation on the battlefield. When did Zarqawi stand and fight? Never. The number of force on force battles between the U.S. and al-Qaeda has been very limited in comparision with a traditional battlefield because the enemy is so completely outclassed in every way when it comes to training, logistics, and technology that they have to hide most of the time. So let’s be honest – al-Qaeda hides and attacks from the shadows. They may have a valid reason for doing so – survival – but let’s not pretend their is a battlefield. The battlefield is anywhere al-Qeada can deliver a bomb, but they won’t be there when the explosion goes off.
But the U.S. psychological operation appeared to backfire, according to one military study of how it played in the Arab and U.S. media. While some media outlets found al-Zarqawi ludicrous, most wondered why he was so hard to capture or kill if he was so incompetent.
Weekly press briefings are not psychological operations, anymore than having a weekly business meeting is a psychological operation. Note that it’s the media outlets’ opinions that are important in the above sentence, not the opinions of the audience.
By then, administration attention was locked on Iraq. In a speech in Cincinnati on Oct. 7, 2002, Bush outlined the “grave threat” Saddam posed to the United States.
I know from doing it that when I put a snippet of a quote inside a larger sentence while talking about a speaker I am mocking them, or trying to point out that I am dubious about whatever is in quotes. Saddam may or may not have posed a grave threat to the U.S. He certainly posed a grave threat to Iraqis, his neighbor nations and anyone who displeased him. I think it’s possible the U.S. displeased Saddam and that, given the opportunity, he would have facilitated a strike against Americans on their home soil. Of course, that possibility has been largely poo-pooed to the extent that roughly half the U.S. public is now dubious about Saddam the psychopath. In fact, there is a growing chorus of lunacy at home singing songs that paint Bush as more evil than Saddam could have ever hoped to be. It’s a silly and disturbing trend.”
What’s the point of the article entitled Al-Zarqawi served role in U.S. strategy in Iraq. Karen DeYoung and Walter Pincus were trying to get something across to their audience with the article. I’m not sure I understand what it was. Zarqawi was an evil man. His departure from this plane of reality isn’t going to change the U.S. strategy in Iraq one bit. Security, unity, prosperity – three simple words that explain what the U.S. would like to achieve. Simple stuff. If Zarqawi had a three word plan for Iraq it would have been – Allah my way. That’s really all that matters to me.
Maybe I’m spending too much time looking between the lines?