Cross posted from Left of Center.
I love Fox news. I mean really. Okay, I don't. In fact, I don't even have cable, and have been proudly cable free for about five years now. This might make me a little slow in regard to cable news, but I'll gladly take that in exchange for all the extra brain cells I get to keep.
So, me and FNC. On the rare occasion that I do get to watch cable at a friend's house or something, I usually switch straight to C-Span, and veg until I'm forced out of the house because my hospitable host wants to do something trivial like sleep (some people). But when I'm stuck in a waiting room to get my hair cut or my teeth worked on, I too often find myself subjected to the full frontal labotomy that is Fox News. But, as today's brief showing proved, it can be an eye opener.
Case in point. I've only been interested in politics for about a year, and only been writing about them for a few months. So why is it that I know something that Senators of the ilk of Kerry and Kennedy don't seem to know?
Lesson 1: When the current news is blatantly telling you one thing, don't jump up and say the other.
Here's how Fox's coverage of Iraq's election this morning went. First, you had footage after footage of Iraqi's dancing, singing, holding up their ink stained fingers in victory. Smiles and triumph. Over this strangely artful montage, there was a voiceover that sung the praises of the Iraqi people. It went on and on about how brave they were to vote despite the obvious danger. It also went on about how fortunate it was that so few acts of violence occured. This was a triumph of democracy. Than there was the phrase that triggered a big fat "oh shit," in the back of my mind. "And now let's hear what some of the democrats had to say about the election."
Which was followed up quickly by John Kerry talking about how this was great and all but now we need to do this this and that or else the election will have been a failure. Then a quote from Kennedy flashed up on screen next to a picture. In the quote, kennedy wasn't dancing with all the Iraqi's but instead playing even more doom and gloom.
Here it is not two days after the election, and the democrats already look like the assholes. On NPR's Left Right and Center, whoever was speaking for the right had in his final rant said that he wished the Left would quit trying to undercut the beautiful work of democracy that occured in Iraq.
Look, I'm with the dems on this one. Yes it's great that the election came off as well as it has so far (I was a little high in my estimation of the death toll, but not much. I was dead on about Bush's speech already, and look for more tonight during the SOTUS), but the fight is not over. Contrary to Allawi's belief, the terrorists have not been defeated.
I'm not saying that what the democrats are saying is wrong, I'm saying that the fact that they are saying it so soon after the election, and in such a manner that takes away from the accomplishments of the election is just stupid.
So let's sum up. The Iraqi people are brave. The elections went considerably well. Democrats still haven't figured out how to stop giving the right wing noise machine ammo. I have more political sense then Kerry and Kennedy(okay, not really).
Mr. M
ed. note: Looks like Mark Halperin & Co. think I'm right. Damn, doesn't it suck being right all the time?
12 comments:
Tragically, I think some of our political leaders inhale a little more than just tolerance.
Mr. M
Certainly it was a defeat FOR, if not OF the terrorists. A battle, if not a war, won. But you're dead on about Kerry and Kennedy being tone deaf.
2 possibilities:
1. K&K are morons.
2. They are pandering to the fanatical left which send them money.
I have to go with 2.
Wait. I have to go with 1 & 2. You dems can do so much better than those 2 clowns.
Just for a little clarification, here's exactly the part of that article I'm referring to:
"The terrorists were defeated in Iraq," he said.
Which would be true if the terrorists were defeated, which isn't. An election was held. Does that mean that in the future there is a greater possibility that the type of environment that fosters terrorism may go away? Maybe. But it does not mean that the terrorists were defeated. It really doesn't mean that the terrorists even suffered a blow. Only time can truly tell that.
Here's the big flaw with the idea that spreading freedom will end terrorism: Democracy is not some magical ward against terrorism. We've been a democratic nation for what? A little over two hundred years now? That democracy didn't stop four planes from turning into terrorist weapons on the morning of Septermber 11th.
"But Mr. M, these guys are coming from the middle east because they aren't free." Eco-terrorism, pro life terrorists (a particularly ironic sort), oh and hey, how about that uni-bomber. All home grown.
What occured in Iraq was a beautiful and inspiring thing. To my knowledge, only one American voter has been threatened with actual violence for voting (interesting story about a Marine that threatened to stab his girlfriend if she voted for Kerry), and yet we still can't get everyone up to the polls. In Iraq, despite a very real possibility of violence, the citizens came out and did their thing. Rock on.
But don't kid yourselves, and considering that if you are reading here, you probably don't. Democracy in the middle east can be a very good thing. But it's not magic.
I guess my real bone to pick is that Bush is selling a bulk of this country on a lemon that seems much to the magnitude of "Mission Accomplished."
I think a good portion of people really believe that establishing a democracy in the Middle East is going to end terrorism. That just isn't so.
The Democrats aren't wrong. This was a great step, but it was a step. I just wish they weren't so apt to shoot themselves in the foot by actually telling the truth so much.
Mr. M
I think it is very clear that terrorist DID suffer a blow. A might blow. Zarqawi clearly stated he is against democracy. 80% of Iraqis just participated in it.
How can this not be a blow to the terrorists? If 15% of the population voted it would clearly be a great victory for the terrorists.
Some number, say in the 30 to 50 percent range, would maybe be ambiguous. But 80%!?!?
To comment on Fox News...
I love the not-so-subtle sex of the female talking heads. However, I happened to be off last Wed. when the trains crashed in CA watching Fox News as the story broke.
The commentator did not want to speculate on a terror connection and would not describe the horror of mangled and deformed bodies from the incredible force of the crash. He could say there was no specific warning of a terror alert for Southern CA and he was unaware of a change in the terror alert status, but it would not be right to speculate on a terror connection. Did he mention that the dead would be horribly disfigured by the terrible wreck?
Fair and Balanced and Sensationalized. E.D. Hill has competition in the legs department.
Kirkrrt
Hi Harkonnendog,
I don't know where you got that 80% of Iraqis figure. The news reports I have seen so far say about 60% of registered voters overall, which represents in turn about 60% of eligible voters. In other words about on par with a US Presidential election and below par for a European country's general elections. Still a remarkable occurence.
OK, so Iraq had a democratic election.How long do you think this "peace" is going to last.
The Americans are going to stay in Iraq for some time yet.The fact that they are there and what they have done is going to be a big factor what is going to happen in the coming months and years.
I predict that within weeks we will have the same situation we have had for the last nearly two year....Americans killing innocent people, and insurgents killing Americans.
More and more and more insurgents as they pour in from other countries.
Just my humple opinion.
shadows
Fox! is a GOP propaganda station; if a Democratic senator says _anything_, they will twist it around for propaganda purposes. The reason they're doing those artfully edited clips of Kerry and Kennedy is that they're trying to bully the Democratic Party into aubmission.
Hi Cernig,
Whoops... I think you're right. 57% is the number I just found. I'm busted.
Still, I would contend it is a blow to the terrorists. Anything which convinces more Iraqis that the terrorists are fighting against a free Iraq, rather than against an occupied Iraq, is a blow to the terrorists.
I don't think the violence will end tomorrow, but I do think the meme that "this is the beginning of the end," which I've read a few places, is correct.
Hi Harkonnendog,
I hope you are right. Maybe because of my background, I am a bit sceptical and I am not going to lose my head over this. I am a forty year old ex-pat Scot, and for most of my life my cousins in Ireland were blowing each other up for political reasons and for supposedly religious ones. It's amazing how some people will shoot their fellow man simply for not praying to a God they both agree upon in the "right" way. The Sunni's and Shia have been doing the same kind of thing for a long time in various places.
I fear still. I fear that the new political ascendancy, at last mirroring their numerical superiority, will do something dumb and give the Sunnis a whole new "justification" for conflict. Goddess, I hope it doesn't turn out that way, but experience shows it often does.
If it does, then 20 to 30 years is my estimate for peace in Iraq. If it doesn't - around four to six years if the powers that be can stop the haemmorageing in the Iraqi National Guard and Police. Oh, and maybe someone should give the Iraqi Army some tanks and stuff because right now there is NO defence against an external organised threat from another state other than the occupation forces and I haven't yet seen anyone talk about remedying that.
Regards, Cernig
First, Orc, you're right. Fox news is at least a little bit a piece of the right wing noise machine. But, if you check the link to The Note in the bottom (I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If you don't read The Note regularly, you're screwing up). It is quickly becoming the general theme that the Dem's are shooting themselves in the foot.
Granted, if all fails, then in the future they got one hell of a "I told you so" moment awaiting them. But, and this is for both Hark and Orc, there's really no telling.
The Dem's are right in wanting people to treat this election with cautious optimism, but politically, the best course is to pursue that cautious optimism with a heavy emphasis on the optimism, allowing the caution to build up over time.
Realistically there is more cause for caution than there is for optimism. As is commmon, Bush and the right wing noise machine do eventually tell the story, but the one that is heavily sold to the public is the rose colored version. They establish mile stones, which is good, but put a weight on each as though that's the end of the struggle, which is highly misleading. It used to be, once we get Saddam out of power, or once we get to the WMD's, or once we have elections. Now that the elections are held, it will be once we get a constitution written, then it will be this and then it will be that.
For public consumption, it's extremely easy. If they accomplish a milestone, it's good, and irrefutable proof that what our leaders are doing is both correct and right. If a milesone is not hit, like finding WMD's, it's definitely bad, but a little spin, and all is better. What's missing is the context of the bigger picture.
Of course this would be all that much simpler if no one tried to politicize it, and just leveled with the public. "Look, whether we belong there or not is an interesting acedemic query, but pragmatically, we are there, and we have to look at what needs to come out of the experience. It is our belief that a fully functioning and self-reliant democratic nation will be less-likely to spawn terrorist activity, and so that is our goal. To achieve that goal, we must overthrow the current dictator, establish an interrim government, create a vehicle through which the Iraqi citizenship can elect their own government, blah blah blah."
I once argued with a conservative coworker of mine, "what is the exit strategy?" His answer was "democracy."
The problem with that argument, and with the conservative bleating as of late is that democracy is a goal, it's not a strategy. And as goals go, it's a good one, but not the only one that is needed.
Mr. M
"t is quickly becoming the general theme that the Dem's are shooting themselves in the foot"
It's not called the mighty wurlitzer for nothing, you know. I don't like the Republicans at all, but they're _very_ good at pushing catchphrases out into the street. The curse of not being a Republican is that _anything_ you say will be pushed into the wurlitzer and spat out as an attack against you. Saying that more things have to be done is only stupid because it's obvious; if Kerry and Kennedy didn't say anything, Fox! would merely spin them as sore losers.
That's why I don't pay any attention to advice from Republicans. They want to win, and they won't give out any advice that would make it easier for non-Republicans to win, no matter how calm and reasoned their arguments may be.It's a good gig -- if you're a Republican -- to play bullmoose and get the liberals to sit at your feet and bask in your words of wisdom, but it doesn't help advance any of the goals that the liberals want. Instead it merely acclimates them to Republican propaganda, so when the next round of the issue of the election (g*n c*ntr*l, preemptive war, torture, social security piratization) comes up you'll be able to strip off another layer of people who've been brainwashed into believing that the issue of the election is soooo important that it will trump all of their previously held beliefs.
"t is quickly becoming the general theme that the Dem's are shooting themselves in the foot"
I've got the world's smallest violin in my hands right now, and I'm playing the saddest song in the world.
Post a Comment