Right now, the main news is that Senator Lugar agrees with James Baker and others that we need to see Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia as reasonable partners who can be worked with.

This sounds almost identical to what was the elites opinions in the 1960’s, that the US should stop warmongering and see Russia and China as reasonable partners and cut the defense budget.

Lugar and Baker, like the Europeans, are making the world safe for business, but assume everyone sees the world in their same pragmatic way.

They’re the same type as those in business and the US State Department who backed the anti Communist  Marcos dictatorship in the Philippines: pragmatists who will work with a moderate tyranny so that a worse tyranny won’t take over.

On the other hand, the template of the elites in the University and much of the Catholic establishment was similarly simplistic: “evil Marcos vs wonderful liberators of the poor”. DUH.

Well God threw a monkey wrench into the pot, and voila, people power and the Philippine democracy goes on: corrupt, imperfect, but viable and vibrant.

That is why I can only shake my head at the way the headlines news is presented on CNN INternational and some of the US media on their template of Iraq.

Take last week. Part of the surge is to stop Sadr’s Mahdi militia from murdering innocent Sunnis (who are needed since they have the most expertise) and to tweak the Sunni tribes into ousting Alqaeda.

Yet the press seems to grind their stories into “look another attack. It’s Bush’s fault. Let’s leave”. Never mind the reality on the ground. Seeing the “glorious insurgents” allows them to report the story as a “we them” story, and allows the aging hippies to relive their glory days of protesting Viet Nam (conveniently ignoring the holocaust and ethnic cleansing that followed).

So last night (before the UK bombing took over as the story of the day) CNN International started the news with had a five minute report that essentially was slanted as if the US had not killed “insurgents” but innocent civilians. (And what is worse is their newsreaders who have british accents tend to smirk at any American news.)

So what was going on?

The surge is hitting the Iranians in Baghdad.

Yup. Bill Roggio explains and they’re going after the Iranian funded Mahdi militia and their Iranian advisors. But Sadr is part of the government, and he complained to the president, who of course was obligated to say they’d “investigate” the incident. Translation: The Americans were tasked to do the dirty work, and we will “complain” and that’s the end of that.

But why did CNN spin the story as “yes. More murder by American soldiers…”? As if the accusation by the head of a murderous militia was true, and the soldiers involved were lying.

observes that historians will have a field day with how and why the press spun anti American propaganda in a manner that resembled Tokyo Rose.

Acid Tongued Spengler, no friend of Bush, has a similar take. In an article about on Berman’s expose on a well known “moderate Muslim spokesman” in an essay on the New Republic (which obviously I can’t afford to read), Spengler writes:

…What Berman dubs “the intellectual establishment” has decided, “Better the 7th century than Nicolas Sarkozy,” and attacks Muslim dissidents such as former Dutch Member of Parliament Hirsan Ali while cozying up to presentable Islamists like Ramadan. ..”

Spengler takes issue with Bermans’ explanation of a “Stockholm syndrome” trauma that has reporters ignoring what is actually being preached:

Willful blindness in the face of undisguised intentions to do violence to the West, Berman writes, requires explanation. The physical threats that follow journalists who attack Ramadan and his homicidal family, he concludes, have turned some of the more timid members of the fourth estate. A simpler explanation is that left-wing journalists hate the United States and Israel so much that they relish the idea of terrorist attacks on civilians, the way that left-wing intellectuals in the West defend Josef Stalin’s terror. But that is another matter. On these matters, read Berman’s booklet for yourself.

Spengler is a secular who sees the problem with Bush and his neocons as being naive against the fascist elements behind the terrorists interpretation of Islam.

As for me, having lived in a lot of countries, I am both amused and aghast at how western reporters put everything into their template, usually leftist.

For example, here in the Philippines, the press, especially in Europe, actively protests the “extrajudicial killing” . But what about when terror groups try to inflame the impending peace treaty of the government with the MILF by beheading road workers or bombing fiestas? Why not a European or American outcry against politicians who kill their rivals so they can continue to run their provinces as feudal lords? Or why no outcry when communists kill those who don’t pay them kickback?

The answer is, of course, that politics trumps reality.
It makes one feel so self righteous to have an enemy. Too bad that while they are playing politics, the fascist ideas described by Berman are spreading, thanks to Saudi funded mosques and the press.

So the news now will spin the UK car bombs as Bush/Blair’s fault, not seeing that the same ideology has bombed Mumbai subways and Filipino ferries and fiestas, and like the Bali bombing (which was in retaliation for East Timor) has little or nothing to do with Bush, Blair, or Iraq.

Nancy Reyes is a retired physician living in the Philippines. Her website is Finest Kind Clinic and Fishmarket. 



Be Sociable, Share!