MediaBloodhound

Op-Ed Column: The Most Trusted Name in Armageddon

On Monday night's edition of Paula Zahn Now, the top story (promoted throughout the day) was introduced thusly by Zahn prior to breaking for a commercial:

ZAHN: And we move on to the question of whether the crisis in the Middle East is actually a prelude to the end of the world.

But, first, a word from our sponsors. George Carlin parodied this kind of lunacy more than thirty years ago. Today, it’s not part of a comedian’s hyperbolic bit; it’s what passes as news.   

Back from the commercial break, Zahn welcomes correspondent Delia Gallagher, whose title sounds ripped off from The Daily Show:

And tonight, faith and values correspondent Delia Gallagher is here because the Mideast fighting has many preachers and followers saying that the end is near again.

Faith and values correspondent. It’s official: “real news” and fake news are now nearly indistinguishable. Moreover, what is a faith and values correspondent? It sounds like something Jerry Falwell concocted to justify his appearances on CNN.

DELIA GALLAGHER, CNN FAITH AND VALUES CORRESPONDENT: I know. I know it sounds a little far-fetched, Paula, but the fact is I've talked to a lot of believers who say the events that we are seeing were talked about in the Bible and do suggest that perhaps the end is imminent.

I’ve talked to a lot people who think their dogs are human, but should that be a top news story?

Gallagher sets up the segment with the time-honored video and voice-over, interspersed with comments from the Armageddon faithful, including this evangelical preacher:

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You could get raptured out of this building before I get through finished preaching. We are that close to the coming of the Son of Man.

Well, in that case, screw it. I’m through paying my Con Ed bill.

GALLAGHER: So are we really on the road to Armageddon? Middle East expert and writer of end times fiction Joel Rosenberg has few doubts the rapture is on the way.

I have no doubt that Rosenberg - an evangelical Christian from an Orthodox Jewish background (can I get an oy vey?!) - is a writer of fiction. But Middle East expert? Rosenberg specializes in writing end times fiction. Calling him a Middle East expert is a little like calling a Christian Scientist doctor an authority on antibiotics.

JOEL ROSENBERG, AUTHOR, "THE COPPER SCROLL": You have the rapture, then the rise of the Antichrist, and then a terrible period of seven years of terrible war and famine and plague. This is known as the tribulation. And it's at the end of the tribulation that this massive attack on Israel, known as Armageddon, will happen, and then the second coming of Jesus.

Good times, those end times.

GALLAGHER: While there's no scientific evidence to support a dramatic increase in the number of earthquakes, believers also make accusations of a military alliance they say will play a role in the coming of the end time.

ROSENBERG: Russia and Iran and their Islamic allies will attack Israel, but Israel will not defend itself using military weapons. God is going to supernaturally intervene. We're talking about fire from heaven, we're talking about a massive earthquake, we're talking about disease spreading. It will involve a supernatural judgment that the whole world will watch on CNN.

Did he just plug CNN’s future coverage of Armageddon? Yes, I believe he did. And if “we’re talking about fire from heaven,” “about a massive earthquake” and “about disease spreading,” how exactly would it be possible that “the whole world will watch on CNN”? What rapturous brown-nosing!

Following the next commercial break, Zahn trots out that bastion of Christian love and reason, Reverend Jerry Falwell. His general view?

FALWELL: So the bottom line is, I believe that we ought to be living every day as though this is the crowning day.

Nice wording, reverend.

Ensuring balance, Zahn has also invited the more moderate Kevin Bean of New York’s St. Bartholomew's Church. But what happens when he injects some sanity into the conversation?

BEAN: I think our responsibility is for here and now and I think that any correlation that is made with present war making or other political schemes with the events that could lead to a final day and the second coming of Jesus and the separation of the faithful from the rest is an arrogant identification with these present day events with...

ZAHN: ... Arrogant, you say, and yet the Bible does talk about one-third of the world being wiped out, a world filled with 10-headed beasts, things coming up out of the ocean.

That's no typo. Those aren't Jerry Falwell's words. They're Paula's.

At the top of the program, Zahn covered the day’s events in the ongoing violence between Israel and Hezbollah. Surface-level reportage that touched on Israel’s widening of the war, the flight and despair of Lebanese civilians, Israel’s official response to Sunday’s horrific bombing in Qana, and George and Condi’s “renewed sense of urgency to get a peace deal done.” She could have then sifted through the rhetoric on all sides and explored this crisis within a frame of historical context and current facts on the ground, leaving her audience with a deeper understanding of the complex machinations at work.

Instead, Zahn shamelessly plays upon her audience’s worst fears, while diverting attention from what is happening in the here and now.

 

Story of the Day: Sunday Bloody Sunday

Normally, I post a cartoon on Sunday. But with today's airstrike in the Lebanese village of Qana that killed 60 civilians (34 of them children), I can't think of anything more apt - or surreally ironic - than this video of our Bleeder-in-Chief mouthing U2's anthem of non-violence:

Sunday Bloody Sunday
YouTube
(created by Rx)

From the Archives: Predicting Tom Friedman

(The MediaBloodhound op-ed column was originally posted on June 12, 2006. Before you sit down with your Sunday morning coffee and tune in to Meet the Press (because, apparently, you are also a masochist), you might want to revisit this piece on New York Times columnist Tom Friedman. The mustachioed master of the overwrought metaphor will be joining Tim Russert, and I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that Friedman will make yet another prediction on the situation in Iraq. In a perfect world, Russert would then cut to footage of every false prediction Friedman has made since the beginning of this war. Unfortunately, one hour may not be long enough.)

Tom Friedman likes making predictions. Especially about the war in Iraq.

Though, unlike most people, if Friedman's predictions don't come true - or, more precisely, are wildly off the mark - he refuses to admit he made a mistake. Instead, he simply changes the time frame in which the original prediction was to occur. And changes it again. And again. And again. Desperately hoping his prophecy will eventually come to pass. We're supposed to believe him because he's Tom Friedman, and he says we're supposed to believe him. (Kind of reminds me of The Decider in the White House.) And while that seems good enough for his colleagues in the mainstream media and those of his readers who defer to his alleged expertise "on the ground," it leaves the rest us wondering why his viewpoint on Iraq is still deemed credible by anyone.

In May, we covered the FAIR report documenting Friedman's pattern of endlessly rejiggering his timetable on when a clear picture of Iraq's success or failure will surface. His multiple "six-month window" projections have now extended to over three and a half years. And counting.

Yesterday, he was back with another prediction. This one predicated on why his original predictions were never actually proven wrong. Here's Friedman to explain, with help from CNN's Howard Kurtz:

KURTZ: Now, I want to understand how a columnist's mind works when you take positions, because you were chided recently for writing several times in different occasions "the next six months are crucial in Iraq," the next six months. And now you've written a column saying that Americans are simply not going to tolerate this kind of anarchy for another two years and deadlines have to be set. Were you conscious that you were now shifting your position on this?

FRIEDMAN: Not really. You know, the problem with analyzing the story, Howie, is that it doesn't -- everyone, first of all, this is the most polarized story I've certainly written about, so everyone wants, basically, to be proven right, OK?

So the left -- people who hated the war, they want you to declare the war is over, finish, we give up. The right, just the opposite. But I've been trying to just simply track the situation on the ground. And the fact is that the outcome there is unclear, and I reflected that in my column. And I will continue to reflect.

KURTZ: Unclear, but you're running out of patience?

FRIEDMAN: Well, it's not that I'm running out of patience. The story's evolving. And what strikes me as I see it evolve, when it drags on, six months after an election we still don't have a government. Then, as a columnist who's offering opinions on what I think the right policy is, it seems to me we have to be telling Iraqis we are not going to be here forever, providing a kind of floor under the chaos, while you dicker over the most minute things when American lives are at stake. So I think it's a constantly evolving thing.

The classic mainstream media square dance. Friedman grabs Kurtz's original question and tosses it aside. Kurtz obliges with a curtsy and dosey-do. Then Friedman swings logic round and round, and justifies his slippery timelines by declaring the situation in Iraq "a constantly evolving thing." Now...bow to your host...bow to your guest. And...pat yourselves on your backs. 

"A constantly evolving thing." What a convenient assessment of Iraq. The kind presidents and military brass use to dodge legitimate timetables and extend prosecution of wars far beyond reason. I somehow doubt Friedman would feel as comfortable with his wait-and-see attitude if he had a son or daughter in Iraq. If he had to greet each morning with the dreadful uncertainty of not knowing whether his child had made it through another night.

Just as Bush's credibility suffered by telling us that what we were seeing and hearing and reading about Iraq was all wrong, so too should Tom Friedman's. His ongoing reverential treatment by the mainstream media will only further erode public confidence in traditional news outlets. Sadly, Friedman will remain a fixture at The New York Times because he perpetuates the kind of nuanced cheerleading and cover for the Bush administration in which The Times often participates. Meanwhile, he represents everything that infuriates those who saw this illegal war for what it was prior to the invasion. Like this administration, instead of basing his analysis on reality, facts and common sense, he continues to rely on fitting the "situation on the ground" to his own ideology. In trying to save face now for his past assessments on Iraq, largely inspired by the geo-political perspective on which he's staked his reputation, Friedman has irrevocably tarnished his name in the process.

Of course, many will forget all about this. Eventually, the Bush administration will go darkly, brutally, into the night. We will bid Iraq adieu, wondering how mad our leaders must have been to have entered in the first place. Fresh calamities and concerns will arise, helping to wash away the memory of those in the media who served as mouthpieces or apologists for this White House. Time, most likely, will be more forgiving to Tom than not.

But here's a prediction. And a promise.

Tom Friedman's inability, or refusal, to accurately assess the situation in Iraq and the true intentions of this White House will be remembered by the current generation of progressive media, and by the ever-growing generation of readers who now rely on it to find the truth.

The Wounded-Courier: Leaked Rove Memo Reveals New Talking Points

A memo originally sent from Karl Rove’s office to members of the Bush administration has been anonymously leaked to The Wounded-Courier. The contents of the memo concern talking points administration officials and political allies should begin using this summer and into the fall elections. As our editors did not find anything in this memo that either jeopardizes national security or shows the administration in a poor light, we present it to you in its entirety.

July 27, 2006

To: Bushites
From: Uncle Karl

Re: Fresh Newspeak

“Sustainable cease-fire” has been an overwhelming success, everyone. Here’s an extensive list that should hopefully cover us through the November elections:

-------------------------------------------

Issue: Violence in Iraq

Old Term = Rising Death Toll
New Term = Ultimate Liberty Train

Example: We realize six car bombs in a ten-minute period paint a grim picture, but the ultimate liberty train does not discriminate.
-------------------------------------------

Issue: Israeli-Hezbollah Conflict

Old Term = Civilians
New Term = Obstructionist Sympathizers

Example: Though we are concerned obstructionist sympathizers have suffered casualties, they must stop willfully embracing an impedimentary stance.
-------------------------------------------

Issue: Global Warming

Old Term: Scientists
New Term: Earth Mongers

Example: While global warming may exist, these earth mongers won’t be happy until everyone’s riding a camel to work and eating sandwiches on “hempernickel” bread.
-------------------------------------------

Issue: Bringing Troops Home from Iraq

Old Term: End of Rotation
New Term: Desertion

Example: The United States military will not tolerate desertion. 
-------------------------------------------

Issue: Afghanistan

Old Term: Reconstituted Taliban
New Term: Taliban Sequel

Example: We all know the Taliban sequel is not as strong as the original.
-------------------------------------------

Issue: Stem-Cell Research

Old Term = Seeking a Cure
New Term = Rehabilitative Narcissism

Example: We sympathize with those suffering from an incurable illness or injury, but rehabilitative narcissism is antithetical to American self-reliance.
-------------------------------------------

Issue: Gay Marriage

Old Term: Same-Sex Marriage
New Term: Gateway Pairings

Example: What two consenting adults do is up to them, but sanctifying gateway pairings unleashes a torrent of impulses that leave no orifice, barnyard animal* or hollow area safe from defiling.

* Hat tip to Santorum
-------------------------------------------

Issue: Minimum Wage

Old Term: Wage Increase
New Term: Greed Incentive

Example: We should not encourage honest American workers to be motivated by the greed incentive. 
-------------------------------------------

Isssue: Detainee Treatment

Old Term: Torture
New Term: Beneficial Manipulations

Example: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has confirmed that beneficial manipulations conform to Geneva Conventions.*

* Buys us more time while MSM and Congress take nine or ten months to pin down meaning of “beneficial manipulations.”
-------------------------------------------

Issue: Presidential Powers

Old Term: Signing Statements
New Term: Executive Do-Overs

Example: The flexibility of executive do-overs enables the president to fight the war on terror without being hamstrung by Constitutional dithering.   
-------------------------------------------

Issue: Immigration

Old Term: Illegal Immigrants
New Term: Temporary Workers (whoops, used that one already)
New Term: Visiting Serfs

Example: As it says on the Statue of Liberty, give me your tired, your poor, your visiting serfs yearning to breathe free.

NYT Front|Back: Welfare of One Socialite vs. Welfare of Our Troops

FRONT:

As Mrs. Astor Slips, the Grandson Blames the Son
Phillip Marshall, grandson of celebrated New York City socialite and philanthropist Brooke Aster, has accused his father of mistreating the 104-year-old Mrs. Astor. Allegations include "failing to fill Mrs. Astor’s prescriptions, stripping her apartment of artwork, confining the dogs she doted on to the pantry, reducing the number of staff members looking after her, and forcing her to sleep in chilly misery on a couch that smells of urine." Are these allegations true? Or is this a power play by the grandson? (I'm on the edge of my seat.) Whatever the case, with the world in tumult, how is this front-page news?   

Intro:

Once, she and her pearls and her designer dresses were everywhere that was anywhere in New York society: this benefit, that party, this lunch, that dedication. At her 90th birthday party, she danced the first dance with the mayor. At her 100th, 100 well-connected friends toasted her with Champagne.

...

Now Mrs. Astor, 104, is at the center of a bitter intergenerational dispute that has become public. In a lawsuit, one of her grandsons has accused her son of mistreating her and turning her final years into a grim shadow of the glittery decades that went before.

BACK (page A22):

Americans Showing Isolationist Streak, Poll Finds
This article examines results from the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. One of the most salient findings related to the war in Iraq? The majority of Americans, 56%, want a timetable for a troop withdrawal. Though leave it to The Times to downplay results from its own poll. In the text of the article, the wording is "they supported a timetable for a reduction in United States forces..." But the wording of the question in the actual poll (you can view it by clicking to the left of the article) is, "Do you think the U.S. should or should not set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq?" A sterling job by Times reporter Jim Rutenberg and his editors. It's not like there's a substantial difference between a "reduction" and a "withdrawal." It's not like that one-word change dramatically undercuts the impact of the response. Brilliant.

All right, can the mainstream media finally admit that the majority of our citizens want our troops home now? They could start by not editing out protesters from its coverage who underscore this message?

Another telling Iraq-related finding? "More than twice as many respondents - 63 percent versus 30 percent - said the Iraq war had not been worth the American lives and dollars lost." Yet this eye-popping figure was buried (just like this story) in the second-to-last paragraph, twenty paragraphs into the article. One more sound editorial choice.

Finally, returning to this story's curiously slanted headline, it's interesting to note that, according to The Times, if Americans disagree with this administration's disastrous foreign policy moves and do not wish to become involved in another war (in Lebanon), then that somehow points to an "isolationist streak." But what this editorial decision does point to is that The Times editors seem to have a decided predilection for war-mongering.

Not surprising from the people who brought us Judy Miller and her incredibly lethal WMD lies.   

Excerpt:

Over all, the poll found a strong isolationist streak in a nation clearly rattled by more than four years of war, underscoring the challenge for Mr. Bush as he tries to maintain public support for his effort to stabilize Iraq and spread democracy through the Middle East.

 

Story of the Day: Networks Scrub Protester from Maliki Coverage

Number of the big three networks that reported on the war protester who interrupted Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s speech to Congress: 0. Number of them that mentioned Maliki's speech sounded almost entirely scripted by Bush administration speechwriters: O. Number of them that pointed out Maliki's address, replete with rosy descriptions of Iraqi democracy, was not supported by the reality of a new spike in violence: 0.

Number of the big three networks that narrowly focused on the fact that Maliki didn't denounce Hezbollah: 3.

Priceless.

Nice job, folks. NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams, World News with Charles Gibson and CBS Evening News with Bob Schieffer all failed to show, or even mention, the disruption, which stopped Maliki cold until Capitol police removed the protester. Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Code Pink ("a women-initiated grassroots peace and social justice movement working to end the war in Iraq..." as stated on its website), shouted, "The Iraqis want the troops to leave. Bring them home now..." Even though the majority of Americans agree with Benjamin, the big three networks seem to think that acknowledging her protest - which was exceedingly relevant and newsworthy - would be aiding and abetting the truth. Treason in the eyes of this administration.

What else is priceless?

Once Capitol police had silenced Benjamin, Maliki picked up right where he left off, in mid-sentence, with these words: "...hope over fear, liberty over oppression."

You really can't make this up.

VIDEO: Maliki Speech Interrupted By War Protestor
Think Progress

Op-Ed Column: The Two Faces of Chris Matthews

MSNBC's Chris Matthews has compared George W. Bush to Atticus Finch, Abraham Lincoln, and Winston Churchill. Though a seemingly personable guy, Matthews, overall, is a journalistic horror show. More showman than newsman. Often sloppy. Sometimes loopy. Even goofy. Watch carefully and you can often catch him tune out in the middle of a guest's answer (doesn't matter what they're discussing - nuclear Armageddon, civilian body counts, abuse of presidential powers). Just look for the distant, nearly narcoleptic-sounding, "Yeah...yeah," and you can be sure he's already OTL and over the rainbow.

Though, on occasion, Matthews will express a view or frame an issue on the basis of facts and draw logical conclusions. Every now and then during the mad reign of our boy-king, Matthews, like a crusty barfly suddenly nudged awake, would spout a truth about Iraq right in the middle of his show. Wait, Saddam never attacked on us on 9/11, he would say, before returning to the misty realm of Matthews land. It never lasts long and he usually allows his guests - whose political viewpoints almost unfailingly range from center (some might say center-right) to extreme right - to present half-truths or misleading statements without calling them on it.

But that's Matthews the host. Here's Matthews the guest on Imus' radio program this morning:

MATTHEWS: It’s all ideology with this crowd. All they care about is ideology. The President bought it, hook, line and sinker. He had– but you know, it was just put into his head, some time after 9-11, and his philosophy is what he has given it. He didn’t have to have any philosophy when he went in, and they handed it to him.

...

That was his problem. I don’t know what Bush stood for, except I’m a cool guy and Gore isn’t, and that was our problem. We elected the guy because he was a little cooler than the other guy, and, I hope the next election, it isn’t a problem of who goes to bed with their wife at 9:30 at night, or who knows how to tell a joke on a stage. But it’s who had the sense of strength that comes from having read books, most of their life, tried to understand history.

Imagine him saying all of this on either of his news programs. Cutting through the cult of personality - his, his guests' and that of the politicians they cover. Putting aside the play-by-play commentary that focuses more on underlying political strategy than it does on the effect of concrete governmental acts and national and world events. Giving it to us straight. Not in that Hardball just-the-facts sheen, but through an honest and substantive discourse. Not pretending that our eyes would glaze over immediately if a little history and context were injected into a discussion. Like so:

MATTHEWS: Every mistake we're making in the Middle East right now, was made years and years ago by the British, by the French, but the mistakes they made in Vietnam were made by the French before. In Algeria the French made all the mistakes we're making now. If you engage in an invasion you will face resistance from the local people based upon religion, and that, and nationalism. You will then have to put down that insurgency, and you're going to have to use cruelty and torture to get information, because it's the only way to get intel in a counter insurgency. Every single thing that's happened to Iraq was predicted by history. It's a standard pattern. Ten, twenty years from now, when kids are reading this in high school--They are going to say, 'Why were the Americans so dumb?' They committed the same mistakes that all the Europeans had done before. And it's like these guys, everything is a surprise. The insurgency was a surprise. The no WMD was a surprise. Everything that happens...

Who is this guy? Why can't he take over for the one on TV?

Again, Matthews the Good:

"We elected the guy because he was a little cooler than the other guy, and, I hope the next election, it isn’t a problem of who goes to bed with their wife at 9:30 at night, or who knows how to tell a joke on a stage. But it’s who had the sense of strength that comes from having read books, most of their life, tried to understand history."

And the journalistic anthrax of Matthews the Bad (from Hardball, 5/1/03):

"We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like Clinton or even like Dukakis or Mondale, all those guys, McGovern. They want a guy who's president. Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It's simple. We're not like the Brits."

As Jon Stewart said to former (the show was cancelled shortly after his blistering appearance) Crossfire hosts Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala:

"You know, the interesting thing I have is, you have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably."

Chris, what the fake newsman said.

Op-Ed Column: The "Sustained Cease-fire" Press Conference

Tony "The Press Corps Whisperer" Snow expanded on the Bush administration's shamelessly Orwellian "sustained cease-fire." Language that distorts the very intent of a cease-fire: to stop mindless bloodshed, at least in the short term, during which diplomacy is engaged. It also usually occurs when neither side will benefit from the continuation of violence, which appears to be the case here. For the Lebanese, because of the nearly 400 deaths and 800,000 displaced from their homes; for Israel, aside from the disruption of normal life in the north, because certain blowback from this crude operation accrues daily. As Lebanese civilians suffer wildly disproportionate casualties, the Israeli government, whether it recognizes it or not (or even cares) is losing the global war of opinion.

Even though our mainstream media has largely kept the horrific images of burned, blinded and blown up Lebanese civilians out of the public's eye (opting instead to concentrate on pictures of bloodless rubble), the rest of the world is viewing these disturbing images. One of the most horrific includes a baby who's had his head blown off. Too much? Sorry. This is the reality of war, and the reality that - though Hezbollah's actions are to be condemned as well - the Israeli army clearly has no qualms about slaughtering hundreds of innocents in the name of defense.

To the press briefing:

Q: On Lebanon, there seems to be two tracks that have emerged. There are those calling for an immediate cease-fire; there are those calling for a sustainable cease-fire. And the sustainable camp says there's a risk -- if you just call for an immediate, you'll be back here in three weeks or three months. Isn't it worth the risk if you stop innocent Israelis and Lebanese from being killed; isn't it worth taking that risk while you try to bang out something more sustainable?

MR. SNOW: The question is whether that's a fool's errand, Jim. The idea that you suspend -- number one, there's a notion that somehow both sides are going to suspend, and we remain deeply skeptical that Hezbollah is going to abide by any such agreement.

...

So the sustainable cease-fire is one that is not going to enable Hezbollah to declare victory, but instead will allow the people of Lebanon to look forward to peace and prosperity.

"Sustainable cease-fire," as it's applied by this administration, is simply a micro version of "perpetual war for perpetual peace." Precision-guided war mongering, if you will. But if someone is on fire, you don't plan his future; you put out the damn fire. Before looking "forward to peace and prosperity," the Lebanese people would first like Israeli bombs to stop killing and maiming them.

Q: If you -- I don't think there's any disagreement about the goal, even the folks calling for an immediate cease-fire want to see something sustainable. The point is, what do you do in the interim -- this risk everyone is talking about, that you could be back there in three weeks? So what? So you're back there in two weeks. In the meantime, you've had three weeks less of --

MR. SNOW: No, you're assuming that there are three peaceful weeks. And I'm not going to take out the crystal ball.  I'm telling you what our position is, which is --

Q: About your position, though, if they're not peaceful weeks, doesn't that, in some way, also insulate the administration, the Israelis from criticism from people saying that response is disproportionate. Doesn't that improve and strengthen your position to say, hey, we tried it, we called for it, and it didn't happen?

MR. SNOW: I don't think continued civilian deaths strengthens anybody's position. What you're saying is if there are further civilian casualties, it strengthens our position from a debating point of view.

No, what he's saying is that not only is your position inhumane and cynical but politically inept.

Snow's willful illogic and callousness continues:

MR. SNOW:  Well, no, that is -- no, that is if you call for a cease-fire that is unenforceable, that is not enforced and people suffer, that is the practical consequence. The point is, there's no give on this. The United States believes in a sustainable cease-fire. Secretary Rice is in the region talking about it. She had a very good meeting today with key leaders in Lebanon and they talked about that. They also talked about humanitarian assistance and a number of other topics.

So I think the notion that you have a cease-fire that, at this point, is unenforceable, does not really get us to the point we need to be at. You do not want to give -- you simply don't want to go there.

But people are suffering and dying now. That's the point. Just not Tony's. "The point is, there's no give on this." That's Tony's point. The same kind of belligerent, arrogant rhetoric we get from everyone in this White House - from Bush to Cheney to Condi to Rummy to Alberto to Ambassador Bolton. You don't like it? Go f*** yourself. That's how we roll. Whaddya think this is, a democracy?

"Secretary Rice is in the region talking about it. She had a very good meeting today with key leaders in Lebanon and they talked about that. They also talked about humanitarian assistance and a number of other topics." Talk, talk, talk. While Condi smirks through photo-ops and plays make-believe president - or empress - every hour adds to this humanitarian nightmare. Once more, this administration is moving at the speed of grinding incompetence. Yet what's even more infuriating is that chalking it up to incompetence, or even misguided policy, seems too generous. For it appears to be more a case of callous disregard. As with Katrina, this White House seems unfazed by needless death. Let's be honest. If they didn't care about our own citizens (or our troops sent into battle on false pretenses with insufficient body armor), they sure as hell as don't care about Lebanon's. (Or Iraq's. Or Afghanistan's.)

And just look at the conservative talking points spewing over right-wing talk radio and Fox News about how those Americans trapped in Lebanon - another delayed reaction moment for this White House - are all a bunch of "whiney babies" who had no reason to be there in the first place; so it serves them right whatever happens to them. Meanwhile, other countries, including France and Italy and Sweden, realizing their citizens were in danger, got them out immediately (and without demanding cash before they would help).

After other painfully ironic allusions to US humanitarian aid (food and supplies in one hand for Lebanon, more bombs for Israel in the other), Snow fields the original question, though quickly smothers it in this new rhetoric:

Q: To sort of follow on Jim's point, when so many other world leaders and entities are saying we need a more immediate cease-fire, and the U.S. persists in this view that it must be sustainable, is it not then for people to infer that the U.S. views that crushing Hezbollah is more important than the short-term loss of civilian lives and civilian structures?

MR. SNOW: No. Again, I think what you're posing is a false choice. If you can guarantee for us that Hezbollah somehow would stop rocketing, then maybe you'd have a point. But Hezbollah started this. You've got to keep in mind, the aggressor in this case is not Israel, it's Hezbollah. Hezbollah crossed over into Israeli territory and kidnapped two soldiers. It has been rocketing Israel, but it has been ratcheting up in recent days. Nasrallah has made it pretty obvious that he considers a war against Israel, and as a consequence, I think a lot of people -- look, we would like a cease-fire tomorrow, we would like a cease-fire immediately, but it has to be a cease-fire that is going to stand the test of time so that people in that region -- and people in Lebanon in particular, a country that has been hard hit by occupying forces and by frustrations of its democratic aspirations, deserves a shot in having the freedom and democracy its people deserve.  And the only way that's going to be possible is if there is no longer an internal threat of the sort that we've witnessed in recent weeks.

The press drops that line of questioning. (Never mind no one reminded Tony that it's now common knowledge Israel had planned this attack for a year, conveniently using those two Israeli soldiers as provocation.) Two questions. Two evasions. Why make more of an effort? It's only hundreds or, possibly in time, thousands of lives at stake. Nearly a million with no home. But the topic soon switches. Tony runs out the clock. It's just another day for The Press Corps Whisperer.

"...and people in Lebanon in particular, a country that has been hard hit by occupying forces and by frustrations of its democratic aspirations, deserves a shot in having the freedom and democracy its people deserve."

Unfortunately, Tony, freedom and democracy are hard to enjoy when you're already dead.

Story of the Day: Laughing All the Way to Oblivion

Cartoonist Ward Sutton gets all warm and fuzzy.

It's Sunday. As the Bush administration continues to promote its domestic and international "culture of life," here's a bit of salve for your soul:

Global Warming? Keep Laffin'!, by Ward Sutton
Sutton Impact

Story of the Day: Going, Going...Gone

Bringing the world ever closer to total chaos one day at a time (new tagline for GWB?), the Bush administration is again benefiting from bad news. The Israeli-Hezbollah conflict has kept the mainstream media's eyes almost solely focused on that region for more than a week now. Meanwhile, new counts showed that over a hundred Iraqi civilians were killed daily during the last two months of widespread sectarian violence (a.k.a. civil war). But violence has become so common there - actually increasing after all the fanfare about taking out Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - that, well, it's not really "news" to our mainstream media. And while the Taliban in Afghanistan have not only steadily regrouped but grown deadlier, news from today's Guardian UK tells of a country now on the brink of "anarchy."

The stark warning came from Lieutenant General David Richards, head of Nato's international security force in Afghanistan, who warned that western forces there were short of equipment and were "running out of time" if they were going to meet the expectations of the Afghan people.

Corrupt local officials were fuelling the problem and Nato's provincial reconstruction teams in Afghanistan were sending out conflicting signals, Gen Richards told a conference at the Royal United Services Institute in London. "The situation is close to anarchy," he said, referring in particular to what he called "the lack of unity between different agencies".

He described "poorly regulated private security companies" as unethical and "all too ready to discharge firearms". Nato forces in Afghanistan were short of equipment, notably aircraft, but also of medical evacuation systems and life-saving equipment.

Officials said later that France and Turkey had sent troops to Kabul but without any helicopters to support them.

...

The picture Gen Richards painted yesterday contrasted markedly with optimistic comments by ministers when they agreed earlier this month to send reinforcements to southern Afghanistan at the request of British commanders there. Many of those will be engineers with the task of appealing to Afghan "hearts and minds" by repairing the infrastructure, including irrigation systems.

Ah, yes, those hearts and minds. This might be a formidable task considering:

Afghanistan is now one of the poorest countries with an economy and infrastructure in ruins.

Not to mention a reinvigorated Taliban with no compunctions about killing civilians.

But, hey, look on the bright side: Condi is just about to try some diplomacy stuff in that Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. You may have heard of it. First, you see, she had to let the initial rumblings of democracy - what others call bombs and shrieking civilians - take hold.

As for Afghanistan, no worries. Resident George solved it long ago:

That's why I said to the Taliban in Afghanistan: Get rid of al Qaeda; see, you're harboring al Qaeda. Remember this is a place where they trained -- al Qaeda trained thousands of people in Afghanistan. And the Taliban, I guess, just didn't believe me. And as a result of the United States military, Taliban no longer is in existence. And the people of Afghanistan are now free. (Applause.) In other words when you say something as President you better make it clear so everybody understands what you're saying, and you better mean what you say. And I meant what I said. (Applause.)

President George W. Bush
September 27, 2004

If a Democrat presided over this absolute nightmare of a presidency, he would be tarred and feathered and toe-tagged by the mainstream media. Is there any doubt that a Democrat perpetrating even one tenth of this administration's abject failures and brazen felonies would be impeached? Bush's reverse Midas touch and often belligerent mien have no peer in the history of the American presidency.

Nevertheless, our mainstream media still largely treats him with the deference reserved for kings and the patience afforded a slow uncle.

Afghanistan Close to Anarchy, Warns General
By Richard Norton-Taylor
The Guardian UK