The Discerning Texan
All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.
-- Edmund Burke
-- Edmund Burke
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Journalistic Treason: at High Tide
Who else but the New York Times would write a "fluff piece" about a clearly psychopathic Iranian President? That anyone would paint a picture of this man as less than a raving lunatic is disturbing; but for a major US daily with (regrettably) a lot of influence still, to actually write an article which seems to be designed for nothing short of "softening" the American public's view of this man--who is arguably as megalomaniacal as Hitler, with the same desire to exterminate the Jews (read: "wipe Israel off the map")--is mind boggling.
Why would they do this? Is an American newspaper trying to help the number one sponsor of State Terror in its propaganda war against the Bush Administration? Or worse, is it trying to "prime the pump" for attacking the war effort in case hostilities break out between the US and Iran? Why else would an American newspaper do such a thing? This really is analagous to the NYT trying to sway American public opinion--in say 1938--by saying: 'that Adolf Hitler's not such a bad guy--he's just misunderstood... Germany really does have a historical "right" to liberate Austria and the "illegal" Czech occupation of the traditionally German Sudetentland...' Seriously; what's the difference??
It would be redundant to call this "a new low" for the Times--because when it comes to supporting the American war effort post-9/11, the Times has not really had any "highs" that I can remember. Their "support" has been absolutely non-existent. Some may think it over the top for me to continue to call this publication 'The Enemy of the State'--to me it is simply rational thinking. And in today's PC world, today's particular instance of American journalistic irresponsibility is in itself not enough to prosecute; but it is close--especially when one considers that "Tokyo Rose" arguably told the "truth" in her broadcasts to American troops in the field during the darkest days of WWII. It could be argued that, for the Marines on Iwo Jima, many of their comrades were dying--"Rose" wasn't misrepresenting the truth. So why prosecute her after the war? Easy, because the entire purpose of "Tokyo Rose's" broadcasts were to demoralize American troops and make them want to quit. And "Tokyo Rose" was tried and convicted as a war criminal for just this reason.
So one might ask--if the object of a large number of New York Times or Washington Post or CNN stories is to try and convince the people at home that their sons and daughters are fighting for "nothing"--and if news of this is regularly reaching the troops on the front lines (which it is), how can the intent of our seditious media NOT be to demoralize both the troops abroad and the support for those troops at home? Yet for some reason, the incessant anti-Americanism pouring daily from these papers is given a "pass" by the public and--more to the point--by our law enforcement agencies during this war.
Still there have been plenty of cases where the papers have knowingly revealed classified information--which has served to endanger US National Security by revealing to our enemies technical secrets which allows them to adjust their methods of communicating so as not to be detected. That is more than just "demoralizing". As I see it, it is a much different thing to subtly and persistently try to demoralize our troops--even though in my book it ought to be criminal, especially if we went by the same standards in today's war as we did in prosecuting "Tokyo Rose" after World War II--and to knowingly publish TOP SECRET information that endangers our troops and the rest of us. The latter is nothing short of is high treason.
It is time for the prosecutions to begin. Enough is enough. Faster, please, Mr. President and Mr. Attorney General. To win this war, we must pull out all the stops--much as Lincoln and FDR had to do. And if that means shutting down a seditious press, for the sake of those whose lives are on the line, the sooner the better.
Here is Steven M. Warshawsky's take on the lastest outgrage, from The American Thinker:
The New York Times Sunday offered a disgustingly sympathetic portrait of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (hat tip: Dinocrat). While the article acknowledges (in the words of an anonymous political science professor in Tehran) that “being against Jews and Zionists is an essential part” of Ahmadinejad’s political identity, the focus of the article is on Ahmadinejad’s “speed and aggression” in accumulating power and in “reshaping” the nature of Iran’s government.
For what ends? Here the article is curiously silent about Ahmadinejad’s threats to destroy Israel and Iran’s support for international Islamic terrorism.
While the New York Times cannot quite bring itself to call Ahmadinejad a “reformer,” that is clearly the thrust of the article. For example, the article repeatedly trumpets that Ahmadinejad is “a proponent of women’s rights,” has “challenged high-ranking clerics on the treatment of women,” and has “defended women in a way that put him outside the mainstream of conservative Islamic discourse.” Of course, the “mainstream of conservative Islamic discourse” takes a rather dim view of “women’s rights”—certainly as westerners have understood that term for the past several hundred years. Moreover, the only specific example of Ahmadinejad’s alleged support for women was his proposal to allow women into sports stadiums—which was promptly rejected by the Supreme Ayatollah Khamenei. So much for Ahmadinejad as Iran’s Susan B. Anthony.
Another aspect of Ahmadinejad’s leadership style that appeals to the New York Times is his economic populism. The article quotes Ahmadinejad as saying that “parliament and government should fight against wealthy officials,” who “should not have influence over senior officials” and who “should not impose their demands on the needs of the poor people.” As for the poor people, Ahmadinejad “promises to improve the lives of the poor” by forcing banks to lower interest rates, offering inexpensive housing loans, promoting “development projects” throughout the country, and trying to inject oil revenue into the economy.
Although the Times acknowledges that the Iranian economy is “almost entirely in the hands of the government” and that Ahmadinejad lacks “a strong grasp of economics,” nowhere does it suggest that greater freedom and deregulation might be the keys to a stronger economy.
Ah, freedom. Something the New York Times interprets most expansively at home (e.g., the alleged First Amendment right to expose national security secrets), but cares rather little about abroad, at least in countries not allied with the United States. Hence, the article on Ahmadinejad offers little disapprobation for his “political arrests,” which the Times brightly reports “are down”; or for his “pressure” on newspapers “to be silent on certain topics, like opposition to the nuclear program”; or for his “punishment” of officials running the nation’s cell phone system, which people were using to circulate jokes about Ahmadinejad’s poor personal hygiene.
This sounds like a joke itself, but totalitarianism is no laughing matter. Plainly, the Times downplays the tyranny and brutality of Ahmadinejad’s regime because it does not fit into the “reformer” mold into which the article tries to squeeze him. Apparently, Islamic tyrants are now going to be accorded the same white glove treatment that the Left has always shown Communist tyrants.
Lastly, the Times article paints Ahmadinejad as an “ideologically flexible” leader who seeks a “dialogue” with the United States. Indeed, Ahmadinejad’s ridiculous, and chilling, letter to President Bush is presented as a “significant” act of “reaching out.” The Times also describes Ahmadinejad’s “consistent theme” as “the concept of seeking justice.” Again, a term that has very different meaning to westerners than to Ahmadinejad and his supporters.
The point of these word games, and blatant misrepresentations, is to suggest that Ahmadinejad is not the warmongering Islamic fanatic that he, in fact, has shown himself to be time and time again. Quite obviously, this is part of the Times broader strategy of opposing U.S. military intervention in Iran. The Times once again takes the side of America’s enemies.
I predict we will be seeing many more Times articles over the coming months portraying Ahmadinejad as a reasonable fellow with whom the United States can negotiate peacefully—and all the while Ahmadinejad will continue his pursuit of nuclear weapons to use to destroy Israel and terrorize the West into submission.
The intellectual dishonesty, and moral hollowness, of the New York Times no longer surprises me.
Why would they do this? Is an American newspaper trying to help the number one sponsor of State Terror in its propaganda war against the Bush Administration? Or worse, is it trying to "prime the pump" for attacking the war effort in case hostilities break out between the US and Iran? Why else would an American newspaper do such a thing? This really is analagous to the NYT trying to sway American public opinion--in say 1938--by saying: 'that Adolf Hitler's not such a bad guy--he's just misunderstood... Germany really does have a historical "right" to liberate Austria and the "illegal" Czech occupation of the traditionally German Sudetentland...' Seriously; what's the difference??
It would be redundant to call this "a new low" for the Times--because when it comes to supporting the American war effort post-9/11, the Times has not really had any "highs" that I can remember. Their "support" has been absolutely non-existent. Some may think it over the top for me to continue to call this publication 'The Enemy of the State'--to me it is simply rational thinking. And in today's PC world, today's particular instance of American journalistic irresponsibility is in itself not enough to prosecute; but it is close--especially when one considers that "Tokyo Rose" arguably told the "truth" in her broadcasts to American troops in the field during the darkest days of WWII. It could be argued that, for the Marines on Iwo Jima, many of their comrades were dying--"Rose" wasn't misrepresenting the truth. So why prosecute her after the war? Easy, because the entire purpose of "Tokyo Rose's" broadcasts were to demoralize American troops and make them want to quit. And "Tokyo Rose" was tried and convicted as a war criminal for just this reason.
So one might ask--if the object of a large number of New York Times or Washington Post or CNN stories is to try and convince the people at home that their sons and daughters are fighting for "nothing"--and if news of this is regularly reaching the troops on the front lines (which it is), how can the intent of our seditious media NOT be to demoralize both the troops abroad and the support for those troops at home? Yet for some reason, the incessant anti-Americanism pouring daily from these papers is given a "pass" by the public and--more to the point--by our law enforcement agencies during this war.
Still there have been plenty of cases where the papers have knowingly revealed classified information--which has served to endanger US National Security by revealing to our enemies technical secrets which allows them to adjust their methods of communicating so as not to be detected. That is more than just "demoralizing". As I see it, it is a much different thing to subtly and persistently try to demoralize our troops--even though in my book it ought to be criminal, especially if we went by the same standards in today's war as we did in prosecuting "Tokyo Rose" after World War II--and to knowingly publish TOP SECRET information that endangers our troops and the rest of us. The latter is nothing short of is high treason.
It is time for the prosecutions to begin. Enough is enough. Faster, please, Mr. President and Mr. Attorney General. To win this war, we must pull out all the stops--much as Lincoln and FDR had to do. And if that means shutting down a seditious press, for the sake of those whose lives are on the line, the sooner the better.
Here is Steven M. Warshawsky's take on the lastest outgrage, from The American Thinker:
The New York Times Sunday offered a disgustingly sympathetic portrait of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (hat tip: Dinocrat). While the article acknowledges (in the words of an anonymous political science professor in Tehran) that “being against Jews and Zionists is an essential part” of Ahmadinejad’s political identity, the focus of the article is on Ahmadinejad’s “speed and aggression” in accumulating power and in “reshaping” the nature of Iran’s government.
For what ends? Here the article is curiously silent about Ahmadinejad’s threats to destroy Israel and Iran’s support for international Islamic terrorism.
While the New York Times cannot quite bring itself to call Ahmadinejad a “reformer,” that is clearly the thrust of the article. For example, the article repeatedly trumpets that Ahmadinejad is “a proponent of women’s rights,” has “challenged high-ranking clerics on the treatment of women,” and has “defended women in a way that put him outside the mainstream of conservative Islamic discourse.” Of course, the “mainstream of conservative Islamic discourse” takes a rather dim view of “women’s rights”—certainly as westerners have understood that term for the past several hundred years. Moreover, the only specific example of Ahmadinejad’s alleged support for women was his proposal to allow women into sports stadiums—which was promptly rejected by the Supreme Ayatollah Khamenei. So much for Ahmadinejad as Iran’s Susan B. Anthony.
Another aspect of Ahmadinejad’s leadership style that appeals to the New York Times is his economic populism. The article quotes Ahmadinejad as saying that “parliament and government should fight against wealthy officials,” who “should not have influence over senior officials” and who “should not impose their demands on the needs of the poor people.” As for the poor people, Ahmadinejad “promises to improve the lives of the poor” by forcing banks to lower interest rates, offering inexpensive housing loans, promoting “development projects” throughout the country, and trying to inject oil revenue into the economy.
Although the Times acknowledges that the Iranian economy is “almost entirely in the hands of the government” and that Ahmadinejad lacks “a strong grasp of economics,” nowhere does it suggest that greater freedom and deregulation might be the keys to a stronger economy.
Ah, freedom. Something the New York Times interprets most expansively at home (e.g., the alleged First Amendment right to expose national security secrets), but cares rather little about abroad, at least in countries not allied with the United States. Hence, the article on Ahmadinejad offers little disapprobation for his “political arrests,” which the Times brightly reports “are down”; or for his “pressure” on newspapers “to be silent on certain topics, like opposition to the nuclear program”; or for his “punishment” of officials running the nation’s cell phone system, which people were using to circulate jokes about Ahmadinejad’s poor personal hygiene.
This sounds like a joke itself, but totalitarianism is no laughing matter. Plainly, the Times downplays the tyranny and brutality of Ahmadinejad’s regime because it does not fit into the “reformer” mold into which the article tries to squeeze him. Apparently, Islamic tyrants are now going to be accorded the same white glove treatment that the Left has always shown Communist tyrants.
Lastly, the Times article paints Ahmadinejad as an “ideologically flexible” leader who seeks a “dialogue” with the United States. Indeed, Ahmadinejad’s ridiculous, and chilling, letter to President Bush is presented as a “significant” act of “reaching out.” The Times also describes Ahmadinejad’s “consistent theme” as “the concept of seeking justice.” Again, a term that has very different meaning to westerners than to Ahmadinejad and his supporters.
The point of these word games, and blatant misrepresentations, is to suggest that Ahmadinejad is not the warmongering Islamic fanatic that he, in fact, has shown himself to be time and time again. Quite obviously, this is part of the Times broader strategy of opposing U.S. military intervention in Iran. The Times once again takes the side of America’s enemies.
I predict we will be seeing many more Times articles over the coming months portraying Ahmadinejad as a reasonable fellow with whom the United States can negotiate peacefully—and all the while Ahmadinejad will continue his pursuit of nuclear weapons to use to destroy Israel and terrorize the West into submission.
The intellectual dishonesty, and moral hollowness, of the New York Times no longer surprises me.
