posted on January 15, 2008 11:34
I have a close friend who is, unaccountably, a liberal. Why unaccountably? Because she is an intelligent, thoughtful, well-educated person. She's also an attorney, though, trained at a top-tier law school, and her biases run so deep that it's nearly impossible to get through a conversation with her without stopping a dozen times to point out that many of the facts she takes completely for granted are actually falsehoods gently and deliberately rammed down her throat by entities who have none of her interests at heart.
J. recently sent me a link to this article from the New York Times. Its thesis is that the war has not been an issue in the current primary campaigns because the American people find it a downer. She found the article to be a "thought-provoking commentary."
Me, too. Here's my response:
A clear case of insidious bias at such a deep level that you won't even see it unless you know what to look for.
Here's the 2nd paragraph. My commentary follows:
The reasons for Iraq's political eclipse begin with the unfortunate fact that candidates strive to create feel-good associations, and the war is a certain downer1. The film studios could barely get a Middle East movie to break even in the past 12 months ("In the Valley of Elah," anyone?2), and the political image makers have apparently taken note.
1 Why? We're winning the damned thing. It also happens to be—and this is NOT hyperbole—the least bloody conflict of any significance in the history of warfare. EVER. The only reason the war is a "downer" is because entities like the New York Times have done everything in their considerable power to make it that way.
2 In the Valley of Elah is not a "Middle East movie." Here's a reference to Tommy Lee Jones' face in the movie synopsis at RottenTomatos.com: "His mug becomes a symbol for an America with no other choice but to confront its own grave flaws if it's ever to find any answers." Every "Middle East movie" that came out last year was a similar attempt to bash America and our War on Terror, and the American people closed their wallets and voted overwhelmingly thumbs-down.
And that's just one paragraph. I could go on for twice the length of the article. The point is that the TOPIC of the article barely matters, compared to its relentless reinforcement of the suite of falsehoods that have been the Grey Lady's stock in trade since long before Jayson Blair. Read the writings of Goebbels or Lenin and you'll see that the Times employs propaganda tactics that are lifted straight from the operational manuals of the most brutal regimes of the 20th century.
The war is not an issue in the current campaigns for two reasons. On the Left, the dirty little secret is that Clinton, Obama, and the rest of them have been DEAD WRONG on the issue from day one, and every piece of good news from Iraq is another nail in their collective coffin. The NYT won't print that kind of news because, according to their political agenda, it isn't "fit to print."
On the Right, the issue is simple cowardice. Reagan would have been trumpeting the war from his first day on the campaign trail, and would be in the process of generating another 49-state landslide as a result. Sadly, there are no Reagans onstage today. But just wait 'til after the primaries, when the Republican candidate gets to take the Democrat and his (or her, I guess) actual record to task on the national stage. It's going to be a bloodbath, and frankly, I can't wait.