Lisa Fabrizio
The PC press war and the public
By Lisa Fabrizio
This week's bombshell seems an awful lot like last week's and the week before: liberal reporter finds 'evidence' of a shocking story, liberal legislators conduct somber investigations demanding answers from the Administration, liberal press endlessly spins the results and the nation yawns.
For the last month, it was the cacophony of 'Bush Knew' stories which lead to the appalling public grilling of Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and others. This backfired as the immediate result was the inflation of President Bush's poll numbers, and so commenced the quest for a new shocking revelation. Enter the Abu Ghraib prison-abuse story.
You can only cry wolf so often and when Americans are asked to direct their indignation at the U.S. military, their famously short attention span narrows significantly. Add to the mix that the 'victims' in this case are, for the most part, bloodthirsty barbarians sworn to their slaughter and you have what is known as a non-event to most people.
Not so among the liberal media, whose outrage is, as usual, at a frenzied fever pitch — a level they've vigorously maintained since oh, December 12, 2000. On that day, when the U.S. Supreme Court ordered an end to the dubious counting methods condoned by their Florida counterparts, their mission became clear: the combination of bumbling cowpoke and flint-eyed imperialist that is George W. Bush must be driven out of office at all costs.
On the way to that lofty goal, the monstrous assault known as 9/11 temporarily stalled the liberal plan, but not to worry, operations are now back in full sway. And what better vehicle than one of their favorite moldy oldies, American military abuse? Although one wonders why current Army commanders were questioned when the greatest expert on the subject presently resides at the top of their presidential ticket.
Speaking of the presumptive Democratic nominee, it is he of course who has the most to gain from the continuing chorus of galloping woe dished out by the press. "Out of sight, out of mind," is never more apropos then when applied to John Kerry. Which is just the way his handlers prefer it and why you shouldn't expect a respite from the 24/7 reportage of bad news from Iraq any time soon.
Many have pointed out that some of the more enthusiastic coverage of the Abu Ghraib story and the non-stop airing of the photos amount to giving aid and comfort to our enemies and they are right. But the liberal media are only re-enacting their greatest triumph, one which ultimately led to the deaths of millions of innocents in Southeast Asia.
They somehow succeeded in promoting the notion that elected politicians should not be in charge of the way wars are conducted, but that the press should. And to this day that notion persists, especially in the Iraq conflict.
Is there any doubt that we could finish off the 'insurgents' post haste if we really wanted to? Is there any doubt as to who it is that is preventing just that? According to our PC press, not only is collateral damage strictly forbidden, but hurt feelings are also apparently off-limits.
For example, nearly all stories reported from Iraq contain the word 'holy,' suggesting that we may not attack anything, anytime or anyplace that might insult tender Muslim religious sensibilities. Think about it: is there a building, neighborhood, city, month or day that is not 'holy' in the entire country?
So U.S. soldiers must die in order that they do not offend a miniscule part of a population whose very religion commands their deaths. If there is any consternation on the part of the American people it is that this insanity is allowed to continue unabated.
But continue it will as long as no recent politician has shown the resolve to challenge the wrath of the fifth columnists of the fourth estate. George W. Bush has come the closest and is now reaping the rewards of trying to protect the nation as he (and the majority of the Congress at the time) saw fit.
Things change however, and the ruthless, cowardly murder of Nicholas Berg by a pack of beasts not fit to live has once again focused the country's attention on the severity of evil we must face and defeat. The fact that his executioner was none other than Abu al Zarqawi — a known Al Qaeda lieutenant who's been in Iraq since May of 2002 — should be instructive to those who don't believe Iraq has any significance in the War On Terror.
A recent poll that showed overwhelming support for Donald Rumsfeld is proof that the American people can discern the difference between the mistreatment of a handful of prisoners by a few bad eggs and the rampant slaughter that will impend should we fail.
© Lisa Fabrizio
This week's bombshell seems an awful lot like last week's and the week before: liberal reporter finds 'evidence' of a shocking story, liberal legislators conduct somber investigations demanding answers from the Administration, liberal press endlessly spins the results and the nation yawns.
For the last month, it was the cacophony of 'Bush Knew' stories which lead to the appalling public grilling of Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and others. This backfired as the immediate result was the inflation of President Bush's poll numbers, and so commenced the quest for a new shocking revelation. Enter the Abu Ghraib prison-abuse story.
You can only cry wolf so often and when Americans are asked to direct their indignation at the U.S. military, their famously short attention span narrows significantly. Add to the mix that the 'victims' in this case are, for the most part, bloodthirsty barbarians sworn to their slaughter and you have what is known as a non-event to most people.
Not so among the liberal media, whose outrage is, as usual, at a frenzied fever pitch — a level they've vigorously maintained since oh, December 12, 2000. On that day, when the U.S. Supreme Court ordered an end to the dubious counting methods condoned by their Florida counterparts, their mission became clear: the combination of bumbling cowpoke and flint-eyed imperialist that is George W. Bush must be driven out of office at all costs.
On the way to that lofty goal, the monstrous assault known as 9/11 temporarily stalled the liberal plan, but not to worry, operations are now back in full sway. And what better vehicle than one of their favorite moldy oldies, American military abuse? Although one wonders why current Army commanders were questioned when the greatest expert on the subject presently resides at the top of their presidential ticket.
Speaking of the presumptive Democratic nominee, it is he of course who has the most to gain from the continuing chorus of galloping woe dished out by the press. "Out of sight, out of mind," is never more apropos then when applied to John Kerry. Which is just the way his handlers prefer it and why you shouldn't expect a respite from the 24/7 reportage of bad news from Iraq any time soon.
Many have pointed out that some of the more enthusiastic coverage of the Abu Ghraib story and the non-stop airing of the photos amount to giving aid and comfort to our enemies and they are right. But the liberal media are only re-enacting their greatest triumph, one which ultimately led to the deaths of millions of innocents in Southeast Asia.
They somehow succeeded in promoting the notion that elected politicians should not be in charge of the way wars are conducted, but that the press should. And to this day that notion persists, especially in the Iraq conflict.
Is there any doubt that we could finish off the 'insurgents' post haste if we really wanted to? Is there any doubt as to who it is that is preventing just that? According to our PC press, not only is collateral damage strictly forbidden, but hurt feelings are also apparently off-limits.
For example, nearly all stories reported from Iraq contain the word 'holy,' suggesting that we may not attack anything, anytime or anyplace that might insult tender Muslim religious sensibilities. Think about it: is there a building, neighborhood, city, month or day that is not 'holy' in the entire country?
So U.S. soldiers must die in order that they do not offend a miniscule part of a population whose very religion commands their deaths. If there is any consternation on the part of the American people it is that this insanity is allowed to continue unabated.
But continue it will as long as no recent politician has shown the resolve to challenge the wrath of the fifth columnists of the fourth estate. George W. Bush has come the closest and is now reaping the rewards of trying to protect the nation as he (and the majority of the Congress at the time) saw fit.
Things change however, and the ruthless, cowardly murder of Nicholas Berg by a pack of beasts not fit to live has once again focused the country's attention on the severity of evil we must face and defeat. The fact that his executioner was none other than Abu al Zarqawi — a known Al Qaeda lieutenant who's been in Iraq since May of 2002 — should be instructive to those who don't believe Iraq has any significance in the War On Terror.
A recent poll that showed overwhelming support for Donald Rumsfeld is proof that the American people can discern the difference between the mistreatment of a handful of prisoners by a few bad eggs and the rampant slaughter that will impend should we fail.
© Lisa Fabrizio
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
