Unfriendly Fire From Left
AIM Column | By Malcolm A. Kline | May 13, 2008
The outlook of the fourth estate can be seen in, among other ways, their coverage of abuses, verifiable or alleged, at the Abu Ghraib prison for prisoners of war.
In
World War II and even into the Cold War, academics, journalists and
politicians tempered their criticism of American foreign policy with a
concern for U. S. troops serving in harms way. Sixty years later, men
and women in U. S. military combat fatigues can count on no such
sympathy from American elites.
This treatment is on vivid display in the new book Party of Defeat: How Democrats and Radicals Undermined America’s War on Terror Before and After 9-11 by David Horowitz and Ben Johnson. Perhaps not too surprisingly, the most unrepentant offenders were the renegades cocooned in academia.
“Seeing an opportunity to discredit the allied cause, American radicals
began an anti-sanctions movement based solely on the Iraqi regime’s
propaganda,” Horowitz and Johnson write of the Left’s efforts in the
run-up to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. “The founder of the movement
was [University of] Texas journalism professor and jihadist sympathizer
Robert Jensen, who claimed that ‘each month 5,000 to 6,000 children die
because of the sanctions.’”
Working journalists were not much less reckless than journalism
professors such as Jenson. The outlook of the fourth estate can be seen
in, among other ways, their coverage of abuses, verifiable or alleged,
at the Abu Ghraib prison for prisoners of war.
If the number of stories on Abu Ghraib equaled the number of legitimate
complaints unearthed by every bipartisan official source, all the major
media would have tapped and sapped this journalistic well in about a
month. Instead, we are still seeing Abu Ghraib stories four years after
the last official report was submitted. “There were 24 New York Times
stories on the holocaust during World War II compared to hundreds on
Abu Ghraib during the Iraq War” in that same newspaper, Horowitz
pointed out at the national Press Club here on April 22.
As the title of his book indicates, it is big-name Democrats Horowitz
primarily takes to task for setbacks in the war on terror. “As a result
of Howard Dean’s surge in votes and fundraising [Sens. John] Kerry and
Edwards took an anti-war stance” in the campaign for the Democratic
presidential nomination in 2004, Horowitz observed. “Gephardt, Biden
and Lieberman didn’t go along.”
“Gephardt retired and Lieberman was driven out of the party.” Horowitz
himself is a fairly high-profile political pilgrim who has moved from
red-diaper baby to Conservative-Republican senior citizen.
Among the bill of particulars he faults congressional Democrats for in
the war on terror: thwarting investigations of terrorists. “Senator
Robert Byrd introduced a bill to establish a commission that would
investigate the now-crippled surveillance program,” Horowitz and
Johnson recount. Sen. Byrd said that such a commission “will lift the
fog of secrecy and clandestine government activity aimed at law-abiding
citizens.”
“How a citizen taking an international call from a previously
identified member of a terrorist organization would qualify as
‘law-abiding,’ the senator didn’t explain,” Horowitz and Johnson note.
The scary thing is that Sen. Byrd is the Democratic Party’s go-to guy
on the Constitution, perhaps because his fellow Democrats think he was
there when it was written.
“Responsible criticism expresses policy differences without malice
towards the soldiers implementing those policies or their commanders
defending the national interest,” Horowitz and Johnson write. Though it
does not make up the bulk of the book, the authors do deliver such
critiques themselves.
“More precisely, they failed to see that we are in a war with Islamists
who were terrorists, a failure contributed to by the Bush
Administration’s reluctance to recognize the religious nature of the
enemy we face,” Horowitz and Johnson write.
“It is a civilizational war,” Horowitz explained at the Press Club. “It
is against a movement within Islam, not Islam itself.”
Horowitz also criticized elements of the first President Bush’s
incursion into the Gulf. “The coalition that Bush 41 assembled to go
into the war in Iraq was too multilateral,” Horowitz said. “It included
the Arabs, Chinese and Russians, all of whom were doing business with
Saddam and had no interest in overthrowing him.”
Malcolm A. Kline is the Executive Director of Accuracy in Academia. If you would like to comment on this article, please e-mail .
15 Comments | Post a Comment
David Horowitz deserves high recognition from Americans for pursuing the truth despite attacks on him from the left-biased media. If one of their favored leftists endured the persecution David has
David Horowitz is America’s best and most courageous friend. Would that even 15% of US citizens share his views! It seems to me the US is being destroyed from within by self-serving vacuum brained people and interests. Where has plain common sense gone?
I served in Iraq from April 2004 thru February 2005 and again during the Surge, March 2007 thru April 2008. Between these two tours there was one very significant difference; during the first tour (an election year) the media was FULL of “pull out now” quotes from Democratic politicians. I can tell you from personal experience that this rhetoric had very detrimental effects upon our mission. Iraqis watch TV and pay close attention to what is said in Washington. With the media providing the perception of a massive groundswell for withdrawal, the Iraqi people had no incentive to get behind our efforts. They simply paid us lip-service and began to posture for post-Coalition Iraq.
That changed by Spring 2007 when it became apparent that, not only were we not leaving, we were showing our commitment by sending in more troops and doubling our efforts to train and mentor their own security forces. The effect upon both the insurgency and local governments were profound. We managed to do alot of good during the Surge.
Now we are once again in an election year and the rhetoric over what to do about Iraq is in full swing. Once again the Iraqis must hedge their bets against who may occupy the White House and what they will plan for the future.
While I sincerely doubt that either of the Democratic candidates truly believes they can pull out of Iraq on a whim (which would be impossible), they still talk about it in order to placate their constituents. Unfortunately, it also plays right into the Jihadist propaganda campaign; that we are weak and cannot see Iraq through to the end. This in turn causes young Islamic men, who are sitting on the fence, to join the Jihadist cause and undermines U.S. Military credibility when dealing with local politicians. All of this serves to put us at further risk and makes our efforts (and lives) seem wasted.
Could the idea that we are probably going to be in Iraq for decades - be another reason for the young Islamic men to join the jihadists???
DHorowitz deserves high recognition from Americans for pursuing the truth despite attacks on him from the left-biased media.May be this is ture.
How is the media biased to the left when they have allowed this administration, purported to be conservative, to get away with so any destructive, and outrageous things?
If we had had a media at all, left/right/middle, I a convinced we would not be fighting a war in Iraq today.
They knew the facts, yet they only played with asking questions.
No we do not have a left leaning media. We have a corporate media and a huge propanda tool for corporations.
@ladytexan
The fact that non islamic people exist is enough reason for young men to join the jihadists. If it weren’t america it would be another nation, spain, england, france etc… And without a target like a democratic nation, well history has shown that they will devolve into fighting one another for no more reason than different interpretations of the koran.
@ladytexan,
BenH is correct about the jihadists, but his answer doesn’t explain why “mainstream” muslims (if there is such a thing) buy into jihadist/islamist hatred. The reason has several components. First, is ignorance. The vast majority of Iraqis (and especially Afghanis) have a very low education level. (Literacy rates are abysmal.) Their knowledge of the world comes directly from those with the most influence over them locally; Clerics, security officials, and tribal leaders who also tend to be uneducated, and what amount to as organized crime figures. Add to this a natural tendency for conspiracy thinking (Arabs LOVE conspiracies!), and you have a people ripe for manipulation. The insurgency uses this very, very well (its called Information Operations). A great example is an Iraqi man I knew in 2004. He was typical of the work force - uneducated laborer. After he had been working for us for a while, he confided that he “used to hate Americans, but he never actually met one before.” Ignorance is a powerful ally of the wicked.
The second component is economic. Most Iraqis are poor and struggling (as they always have). While Coalition Forces are working hard to create jobs and infrastructure, it is far more easy for the insurgency to simply pay someone to do their dirty work. Its easy money for locals who, at the end of the day may not necessarily hate Americans, but don’t really care about them either. So, why not plant a bomb if it means you will be able to feed your family for another week. Conversely, if it is to their economic advantage to work for the Coalition, they will risk their family’s lives in order to build a better life. An Arab man does what he has to do - period.
Third, muslims are recruited by fear and intimidation. If an insurgent can’t co-opt a local through economic means, he will threaten the local and his family. This is probably the most common means.
Finally, there are the mistakes we made along the way. We just didn’t know their culture well enough, and admittedly, I think our initial troops in-country were just drunk with power and the notion of being in the wild, wild west. Any mistake we’ve made (Abu Ghraib, heavy handed patrols, etc.) were amplified by the insurgent IO operatives. This feeds the international recruitment machine especially well.
So, at the end of the day, our presence there is both a blessing and a threat to both the US and the insurgency we fight. For us, we can fight the bad guys there instead of here. It also affords us the opportunity for engagement with the Arab population. However, we are bogged down, taking some casualties, and running up our defense spending.
For the insurgency, it gives them the notion of keeping us bogged down there, but at the same time the fear that we might get our act together and seriously defeat them. They have not forgotten Afghanistan, and don’t want a repeat.
Now, having said (and typed) all that, you are spot on about the media. You will never see any explanations like this in the mainstream media because its a complicated situation that takes too long to explain. They just don’t think you have the education or attention span. However, I also think you suffer from failed expectation management. Its not the media’s job to police the government. That job resides with the American people (you, me, and everyone else).
It is true that people don’t really need a reason to fight. That is true of not only the Muslims, but others. That has been going on in the world since time began.
But I was answering your thoughts that the idea that this country was not really supporting the war would give young men the incentive to join the jihadist movement.
So your comment back nullifies that idea - if they just want to fight then they will fight whether we are there, or not, whether this country supports the war or not.
I’m just thinking the idea that we will be there for decades, maybe forever, would be more of an incentive to fight, than that we might be withdrawing soon.
When you were describing the Muslim or ME people, I got a strange feeling many of those descriptions could fit the people of this country quite well.
People are easily manipulated and the people of this country are, at this time, either very easily manipulated or simply don’t care.
As for ‘fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here’, I realize that is a favorite of the President and perhaps the military over there might think that is true, if they aren’t aware of the true situation here at home. I doubt it, though. The fact is, if they wanted ‘to fight us here’ - there is very, very little to keep it from happening.
We have an open - and welcoming - border. A border that has been kept open and that open border protected, quite strenuously by our government.
If the Muslims were so bent on destroying this country and it’s people, all they would have to do is send a dozen, two dozen, across that very open, very welcoming border. With the right haircut, a shave, western pants, shirt, hat, boots and a big belt buckle, and very few would know they were not Mexican.
Now I did hear some really bright (not!) congresscritter say that ME terrorists would never come across our southern border. They wouldn’t want to risk crossing a desert. Talk about not knowing anything about the ME!!!!!!! He was either very stupid - or thought his audience was.
The fact that small children, pregnant women, Grandmothers and Uncle Jose with a bad heart cross that border succesfully on a daily basis, could not be lost on someone intent on mayhem to this country.
No, the idea that somehow these terrorists are going to remain in Iraq and Afghanistan to fight the such a well-trained military, rather than cross that border and wreck havoc in this country, just makes no sense. If they simply hate us ‘for our freedoms’. Especially, since that seems to be their way to wage war. A dead soldiers is a tragedy, thousands of dead soldiers are thousands of tragedies. As sad as it is to say, we accept the death of soldiers. A dozen well-placed bombs in this country, would have a very different effect.
No, it makes no sense to think they are staying in that part of the country simply because our military is there - if their goal is to destroy this country. If it is to rid their country and area of the US, then it makes sense.
As for not knowing their culture - of course we did. As I said, we have been doing ‘operations’ in that part of the world for half a century. I’m thinking some didn’t care about the culture and weren’t willing to listen to those who did.
The media’s job is to report news - any news. That, in and of itself, is a form of policing the government. There was a time our news media was somewhat independent. There were thousands of newspapers across this country, large and small that would report what was happening. If some newspapers, even large ones, refused to report a dastardly doing, some would. Now newspapers are owned by corporate conglomerates - even the very, very small hometown newspapers. WE only get the news that our government and corporations want us to hear. It is a propaganda machine. No society can stay free without a free and responsible press. WE no longer have that.
But the fact is, your version of the happenings over there is exactly what the media has been telling us all along. I think they have done a very good job of putting that story out there.
Sounds like an interesting book, but do the authors deal with the intelligence distortions that took us to war in Iraq, despite the fact this nation had no proven role in 9-11? That fact can’t be blamed on the ‘left’, can it?
I do agree, however, that our news media are largely absent in protecting the public’s interests and are too often ruled by big business interests. But, isn’t Fox News, the ultimate propaganda machine for the Bush administration and the GOP, the best example of this phenomenon?
I agree Fox news is the biggest cheerleader for whatever this administration, with the support of Congress, has chosen to do.
But when corporations own the news media and somewhere in all their brother/sister companies is a company that is going to make huge money from the war, or the chaos, does anyone truly think they are going to be unbiased or honest in their reporting?
But this has been going on since before this administration.
We have had a problem, many problems, with illegal aliens in this country for over 30 years. It has grown tremendously since the amnesty of the 80’s. Our media, and politicians, pretended it didn’t exist until they could ignore it no longer. We still aren’t getting anywhere near the truth on this situation. The media is still full of sob stories about the illegals - seldom any sympathy for citizens harmed by this. Seldom any facts about the destructive aspects of it. The media is still the biggest champion and cheerleader for the illegals. Why? Corporations are making a lot of money because of them, because taxapayers are being forced to subsidize their cheap , to the corporations, labor.
I think immigration reform is going to happen, but as you point out, as long as both business AND consumers are accustomed to cheap labor and the low cost goods and services they deliver, its a tough issue to get movement on. A model worth looking at is Australia. Granted, they are surrounded by water which makes it easier to secure their borders, however, a long time ago they decided to drastically restrict immigration and not develop an addiction to cheap labor. But even this issue cuts to the damage done by an ineffective media and poor journalistic practices. Debate on immigration in the U.S. is so heated and so rarely more than one-dimensional, that nothing gets done and the public remains ignorant of the real issues and possible solutions. Ultimately, a prosperous middle class benefiting from good news reporting and children being properly educated to be informed citizens with critical thinking skills is the way to make America strong.
The only thing I can disagree with in your post is that consumers are ‘addicted to low cost goods and services’.
First off, we are not getting low cost goods due to the cheap labor. The benefits to the employers have not been passed on to the consumer. For large corporations, it has been used to gobble up more companies and to purchase more politicians to protect this travesty, and in million dollar salaries for CEO’s.
Secondly, the price of consumer goods connected with illegal immigration, is not reflected at the check out stand.
Illegal immigration has been one of the components of the high cost of healthcare.
It has contributed to many working citizens not being able to afford healthcare.
It is reflected in the increased property taxes to pay for the education, special education, of the children of illegals.
It is reflected, in Texas anyway, in the high cost of auto insurance to cover ‘uninsured’ motorists because they do not carry auto insurance and they do have accidents.
Some costs have not reached the peak yet - such as the increased strain on our infrastructure, our water supplies, our air quality, inc.
And do we want to even think about the amount of the deficit and our country’s debt that is monies used to care for the illegals?
The idea that consumers are benefitting from illegals is a total falsehood. We are not.
Yes, the debate gets heated. People are frustrated. They see their country being given to people who break the laws on a daily basis and it upsets them. They see themselves having to obey laws the illegals simply ignore. They see their monies being spent on illegals and their own children loosing out in many ways.
Then we get the organizations like LaRaza and LULAC, and the Mexican government who have no facts to support their position - and only present emotion and insults. Yet the media gives them credence.
The media is presenting it as heated. They need not. They could present the facts. The facts, however, is pretty horrendous. If the people of this country were actually given the facts, things would change.
The only immigration reform we will see will be complete amnesty and no change on the border.
People could make a change, a positive change, but it will our working together and that might be next to impossible to do. So many still think the government will do something - they will - but it won’t be to our liking or our benefit.
May 14 at 4:55 pm | #1 | Link
Politicians and journalists never change: the politicians take whatever stance will insure their elections while the journalists just want a wining byline. While the latest examples seem the most horrendous, today’s partisanship pales beside some of the past examples. Lincoln had a hundred Jane Fondas and as many Walter Cronkites, politicians and press, including General McCellan, who proposed giving up the war, which would have allowed the union to break up and slavery to flourish for another decade or so, perhaps even into the twentieth century. Republican partisanship’s reaction to Woodrow Wilson’s extreme partisanshp killed the the League of Nations. From Geo Washington on, the press has savaged one President after another. Yet, the press supported candidate Eisenhower as he undermined and slandered Truman: Eisenhower ran on a platform to get us out of Korea no matter what the consequences to the free world or America. An American general whose ambitions for the Presidency came before the welfare of the American soldier in a time of war: What greater betrayal! (Of course, TV has its retired generals busy undermining or men in Iraq) George Bush and the nation has fared no worse than Truman facing Eisenhower and the same hostile press. Hopefully future historians will finally tell the truth about Vietnam and the role of both the press and the more surrilous politicians in undermining what was noble effort by the US. (Of course some of Eisenhower’s perfidy had to do with his competition with MacArthur as greatest WWII general). Finally, the press in it’s anti-American bias would not support the Swift Boat veterans in their expose of John Kerry’s undeserved medals and craven cowardice in Vietnam (espeically running from the fight via his phony purple hearts), or the fact that his vehement, even vociferous, opposition to the war was such an obvious cover-up for that cowardice. I thought the press (and even Congress) would at least insist that no future Presidential candidate could be allowed to refuse to open his military records to inspection. Rather the Swift Boat veterans are slandered to this day. I think it’s quite ironic that politicans while smearing the swift boat veterans still fear being swift-boated: having to cough up the true facts.
We seem destined to suffer perpetually from the treachery of partisanship and the distortions of the press. But I feel that lost causes are still worth fighting. Beware NYT, ABC, etc.: The public isn’t always as dumb as the politicos and the press thinks it is!