About that Unilateral Approach....

The Democrats and the mainstream media have long been pushing the meme that George W. Bush is a 'unilateral cowboy' who alienates our supposed allies. Funny thing about that, in the past six years, the governments who actively oppose American goals and who expressed their disdain for the current President have one by one been pushed out of office and replaced by governments who are much closer to the Bush Administration. This has happened so far in Germany (Angela Merkel), France (Nicolas Sarkozy), Canada (Stephen Harper) and now in one of Russia's closest allies, the republic of Serbia.

As reported by the Washington Post,

Serbia's pro-Western president declared victory in Sunday's parliamentary elections_ a stunning upset over ultranationalists who tried to exploit anger over Kosovo's independence. But his rivals vowed to fight on, and it was unclear if he could stave off their challenge.

"This is a great day for Serbia," Boris Tadic proclaimed after an independent monitoring group that carried out a parallel vote count nationwide said his bloc won 39 percent _ about 10 percent more than the ultranationalist Serbian Radical Party.

Of course the Post managed to miss the fact that this is one more supposed ally of Russia's neo-Communist and imperialist president Vladimir Putin that has instead chosen closer ties with the free states of Europe and the United States. Michelle Malkin pointed out the fact that the Post managed to completely miss, writing,

Some of you may remember some other recent unpleasantness involving that Mladic jerkwad and the Serbians in the 1990’s. Well, despite all that, they’re throwing in with the West against Pooty-poot.

We’re justifiably focused on the events of the day, especially the great war we’re involved in and our upcoming election. But there are a thousand little things like this going on all over the world every week that barely get discussed. (Dozens of them flash across my monitor every day, and usually their significance is yet too obscure for a blog post or I just don’t know enough to say anything useful.*)

As one state after another rejects the anti-American and anti-Western hysteria of the mainstream media, wouldn't it behoove said media to actually take note and report this trend? But I fear that we will have to wait until Bush is out of office for anyone to note that he actually accomplished a great deal more than his enemies would like to give him credit for, and that the Bush-as-unilateralist meme is about as truthful as the 'Hillary as brilliant' meme. But I suppose that actually asking the mainstream media to be objective and *gasp* do their jobs, would be too much- especially with them salivating at the chance to finally give the White House to a Democrat after failing so miserably in 2000 and 2004. Hat tip to Michelle Malkin and cross posted on NewsBusters.

Big News in Italy- Press Yawns

Michael Ledeen over at the National Review's Corner reminded me today that the recent elections in Italy resulted in a historic first- for the first time since World War II, no Communist was elected to the Italian Parliament. And in an equally positive corollary, no member of the fellow-traveling Green party won either.

Mr. Ledeen also noticed something that the Big Media around the world managed to miss- the incoming government will be decidedly pro-American and pro-George W. Bush. Ledeen writes,

Tomorrow's papers will pretend that this didn't happen, and warn that Berlusconi's allies in the Northern League are mercurial and dangerous, and that his majority isn't as stable as it looks. But it is. And there's an even more annoying feature to these elections, as seen by the chattering classes: Berlusconi is an outspoken, even passionate admirer of George W. Bush and the United States of America. Reminds one of the elections that brought Sarkozy to the Elysee, doesn't it? Best to keep that quiet, or somebody might notice that hatred of America doesn't seem to affect the voters in Italy, France or Germany.

When many foreign governments were in office that enjoyed spiting Mr. Bush's initiatives, the media reported that Bush's America was 'unilateral', although the U.S. would have liked to work with those countries- it was their incumbent governments who preferred not to co-operate with the United States. Now that Germany, France and Italy are governed by those who are more admiring of Mr. Bush, will the Press report that in fact, the previous issues were mostly caused by the attitudes of the foreign governments, and not Mr. Bush's supposed arrogance and unilateralism? Will the Press admit that from the first, this Administration has worked well with many other countries, though those workings are not always in plain view?

Certainly the Bush Administration has made a great number of mistakes. However, the level of vitriol directed at this Administration by the Press is astonishing, especially considering that there appears to be no logical reason for it. The Press has distorted and downright twisted many of the actions the Administration has taken, and their dishonest presentation of the Coalition and its accomplishments has limited the ability of the American people to understand the magnitude of the task and how things have changed. If not for real journalists like Michael Yon, perhaps the media would have succeeded in twisting the tale of Iraq to match their dark victory in Vietnam.

Perhaps all that loud talk about Bush's 'going it alone' was simply blather. But I won't hold my breath waiting for the media to acknowledge how wrong they were- they never apologize, just move on to the next hit job. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

Media Won't Report On Bush Malaria Initiative

Since 2000, the mainstream media has conducted a war against the Bush Adminstration the likes of which have not been seen since their equally vitriolic campaign against Richard Nixon. They have refused to publish anything positive about Bush or his Administration, they have manufactured scandals out of nothing (Valorie Plame) while doing their best to expose secret operations that are protecting Americans and they have consistently refused to accurately report the good economic news.

Today comes even more evidence of just how badly the press has failed in their duty to report to the American public. Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft corporation, spoke to a forum to discuss fighting malaria. As reported by Power Line, Gates said,

Today, malaria kills more than one million people every year, most of them children in Africa. That's the equivalent of losing every student in the New York City public school system in one year.

We know that eradicating malaria is an audacious goal. But advances in science and medicine, new political commitments, and the dedication of people like you have given the world an historic opportunity to conquer malaria. It won't be easy and it won't happen quickly, but I'm optimistic that we can make this disease history.

At the forum in Seattle, Melinda and I called on the U.S. presidential candidates to commit to expand the President's Malaria Initiative, a great program started by President Bush. I hope you will join us in asking all of the candidates to make this pledge and keep the fight against malaria on the national agenda.

Funny- I don't recall any press organization ever mentioning that President Bush had started an anti-malaria program? Just as they prefer to downplay this Administration's efforts in Africa (which dwarfed the better-known efforts of Clinton), and snipe at the President whenever and wherever they can. As one example of the disparity in how Bush and Clinton were covered on the topic, The Washington Post published an article on Bush's African efforts in 2005- on Page 22. A less-expansive Clintonian intiative received Page 2 coverage.

I would wish that the Press would perform their duty to inform and report fairly, but alas that is a duty that the Press is all too unfamiliar with. So we can only hope that the citizenry relies less and less on these dinosaurs of the Old Media, and remove their patronage from the corporations who employ these propagandists. The sooner, the better. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

USS Cole Anniversary: Media Silent

On this day in the year 2000, the guided missile destroyer USS Cole was attacked by Islamic terrorists associated with Osama bin Laden's al-Quaeda group. Today is the seventh anniversary of that attack. Seventeen American sailors were killed and thirty-eight injured in the attack which severely damaged the ship. Yet not a single major media organ has reported this so far.

Attacking a ship of war has been long viewed as an act of war. The most recent example occurred in 1968 when North Korea attacked the USS Pueblo. To our national shame, the Pueblo is still in the hands of the North Koreans. A rather more forceful response occurred in 1941, when Japan attacked the US Pacific Fleet at anchor in Pearl Harbor.

However, then-President Bill Clinton did not respond to the attack, emboldening the Islamists who viewed the United States as a paper tiger. The attack on the Cole was one of a series of attacks on Americans throughout the decade of the 1990s to which the United States failed to respond. This eventually led to al-Quaeda and its allies decided to attack the Twin Towers in 2001. Unfortunately for them, President George W. Bush took a different view, correctly deciding to respond with military force. Since 2001, there have been no further successful attacks on American soil, though we remain engaged in a military offensive against the Islamic terrorists.

However, despite the significance of today's date, not a single major media organ has chosen to cover it. Why? CNN felt that news about Britney Spears' thoughts on her children were important enough to put on their front page, but there is no mention of the attack on the Cole. MSNBC has former Vice-President Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize3 plastered all over the front page, but there is no mention of the anniversary of the attack on the Cole. What happened to remembering cowardly attacks on Americans and avenging them? The attack on the Maine sparked a war with Spain. the attack on Pearl harbor sparked US involvement in World War II- a war that ended with then unconditional surrender of our opponents. Yet not a single media organ seems to care that Americans were attacked and killed.

Does our media not care? They are assiduous in reporting deaths of Muslims at the hands of Americans- even when those deaths did not occur, or when those killed were actually terrorists (see Haditha). Yet the anniversary of an unprovoked attack on a US warship that resulted in the deaths of American military personnel does not even warrant a mention on the anniversary. I can only gather that to the US media, Muslim terrorist lives are more important than American military lives. Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

CORRECTION: I initially typed 'North Vietnam' instead of 'North Korea' in describing the 1968 attack on the Pueblo. It was North Korea, not Vietnam, that attacked and seized the Pueblo. Thanks to numerous commenters for pointing out the initial error.

Student Journalists: F*** Bush Editorial Is About Free Speech

Do student journalists understand the difference between free speech and common sense? If they are at Colorado State University, the answer appears to be a resounding no.

According to the Associated Press, the editorial staff of the student-run Colorado State University newspaper The Rocky Mountain Collegian published an editorial which in its entirety read 'Taser This... F*** Bush'. Then the student staff claimed that it was all about free speech,

Collegian Editor David McSwane said a group of seven student editors discussed the statement for several hours before agreeing to publish it.
"We felt it illustrated our point about freedom of speech," McSwane told 7NEWS. "I think we could write 250 words and ramble on and I don't think anyone would pay attention."

So what exactly was their point? Writing 'F*** Bush' makes no point about free speech that I can see- it rather shows the lack of erudition in the Colorado State University Journalism Department, since the students apparently could not create an actual reasoned argument. It shows no courage since it seems to the be the majority viewpoint among reporters and college faculty. Instead, it simply shows the appalling level to which so many so called journalists and journalists in training have sunk. They appear to believe that by running this 'editorial' it somehow makes a statement about free speech. And it also shows the lack of maturity in most journalism departments that apparently no faculty advisor stepped in to talk to these oh-so-brave students about consequences of speech that is designed to offend.

And speech does have consequences- something that apparently these students have never learned. Apparently after they ran the editorial, advertisers responded by pulling advertisements. The AP article states that the Rocky Mountain Collegian lost approximately $30,000 dollars in advertising on the heels of the editorial board's decision to attack a sitting President with foul language. The students were apparently 'extremely disheartened' by the reaction. Perhaps if the students had learned a little about speech and consequences, they would have understood that their viewpoint might not be popular outside their little cocoon and that others might not aggree with their decision- others might see their 'free speech' as a tasteless and pointless attack on an elected President, especially since the students were unable to make a reasoned argument and apparently missed that Bush has not Tasered anyone- it was a Kerry event at which the Tasering occurred.

What the students apparently do not understand is that yes, they have the right to say what they wish, as long as it is protected speech, which their appalling editorial was. However, others also have the right to respond as they see fit, and those who disagreed with the students have every right to refuse to be associated with them or with their newspaper. I am sure that the students think the loss of advertising constitutes censorship, but to me it shows that common sense in Colorado is not entirely missing. The advertisers have every right to react to the newspaper by pulling their ads if the newspaper does not reflect their views.

This event reflects the entire media world. Newspapers and news organizations have bad ratings, are losing their subscribers, and do not enjoy much public confidence. Yet they seem oblivious to the possibility that their skewed and biased coverage, coupled with their significant slant leftward- a slant not shared by the public, might actually have something to do with their dropping revenues. If I were to recommend a remedy, it would be to spend less time genuflecting in front of dictators and more time studying basic economics- starting with how to supply a quality product.

War and the American Left

The Left's view of the war on Iraq continues to confound me. Apart from the exceptionally clear-eyed Christopher Hitchens and a few others, the Left is simply in denial as to the nature of this conflict upon which we are currently engaged. Radioblogger has a wonderful exchange between Ron Reagan Jr and the afore-mentioned Mr. Hitchens. The execrable term "bitch-slap" defintely applies here, as Mr. Hitchens takes Ronnie to the proverbial woodshed for his lack of understanding and historical perspective.

However, the exchange proves little other than that most leftists are incapable of putting aside their fervent and damaging partisanship long enough to confront the threat that this country and indeed our civilization, face from the Islamists. I would provide a point of reference, however. In 1996, then-President Clinton launched missile strikes against Iraqi targets (as documented at the time by CNN) to punish Iraq for attacking the so-called Kurdish safe areas. The Republican response, voiced by then-Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole, was praise for Clinton's action and a recommendation of even stronger military action. There was no chant comparable to the oft-repeated "Bush lied, people died" from the conservatives. The same was true in Somalia and even in Kosovo. Conservatives wondered how these operations advanced U.S. interests, and there were rumblings of worry regarding the percieved wasting of valuable resources on non-strategic objectives, but by and large the Right supported the actions, despite their misgivings. The same spirit is evidently not true of the Left- unless it is in power at the time.

Compare the differing reactions from the media on Clinton Administration warnings of Iraqi danger as opposed to how the same media organs reacted to Bush's essentially restating the same facts less that three years later. If the charges were true in 1998 when advanced by a Madeleine Albright, why were they less true in 2002 or 2003 when advanced by Donald Rumsfeld or Colin Powell? It seems to me that the answer is that it was a despised Republican making the arguments, not a beloved Democrat.

I would wish that the left today would show the patriotism that their forbears showed in Korea, World War II and even in Vietnam. However, I fear that the days of the Democratic Party as one of loyal opposition may be gone forever.