Big News That Isn't News

I just got on and checked the New York Times and Washington Post. Both lead with the same story: "U.N. Finds ‘Systematic’ Torture in Afghanistan," and "Afghan detainees tortured in prison, U.N. says." The Afghan government is torturing prisoners? No way! I'm totally shocked.

Out of concern about prisoner mistreatment, the NATO coalition said last month that it had stopped transferring detainees it arrested to 16 Afghan-run detention centers. The U.N. report said Afghan authorities were taking steps to address the problem.

If I were someone who cared how the Afghan government treated prisoners, I'd see the NATO action as a ridiculously belated effort at public relations and nothing more. No one with the slightest clue who paid even a little bit of attention has ever thought that the Afghan government treated prisoners by some sort of Western standards.

What's the next story to headline the New York Times and Washington Post? How about U.N Finds Endemic Corruption in Afghanistan?

Panetta States the Obvious

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta made big news by stating the obvious on a visit to Iraq. He told troops stationed there,

“The reason you guys are here is because on 9/11 the United States got attacked,” Panetta told the troops. “And 3,000 Americans — 3,000 not just Americans, 3,000 human beings, innocent human beings — got killed because of al-Qaeda. And we’ve been fighting as a result of that.”

For some reason this statement made the front page in multiple newspapers, and Panetta had to issue a clarification. Anyone with the slightest clue understands that 9/11 provided the impetus for the Iraq War. Political acceptance of the idea of preemption arose in the aftermath of the attacks on the U.S. It is highly unlikely that there would have been widespread support for invading Iraq, let alone a Congressional authorization, had 9/11 never taken place. Only an idiot would take Panetta's remarks to mean that he believed we went to war in Iraq because of the presence of Al Qaeda in that country at the time. Front-page stories about his statement appear to be an effort to manufacture a controversy.

Laughing at the Left - Fox News Hatred

One of the funniest things about the left is their over-the-top hatred of Fox News, which dares to be the only right-of-center news channel. Liberals like to pretend that Fox doesn't do actual news reporting, and is merely some sort of right-wing propaganda outfit -- thus the common disparaging nickname "Faux News." I was reading through various left-wing blogs for amusement, and came across an article at The Mahablog, one of my favorite spots to see what some of the most clueless left-wingers are writing about. This caught my attention.

rejoice that we just had the strongest holiday sales season since 2006. That’s something you’ll never hear on Faux News.

Really? Does Fox News deny the reality of holiday shopping numbers? I spent 30 seconds on Google and found this article. From the story:

Strong sales in the coming week would build on the highest-spending holiday season since 2007, which was a record year.

Is the Mahablog author just too stupid to check whether Fox covered the story before writing that line? I doubt it. Instead, as a left-winger, that blogger is comfortably situated in an echo chamber where everyone knows that Fox News isn't a real news organization, just a GOP propaganda machine. This is yet another example of why I laugh any time some liberal starts whining about Fox News. Most of them have no idea what they are talking about, and get their information about Fox from actual propaganda outfits like Media Matters.

Right on Cue

I just read that the Fox News White House correspondent was moved to the front-row in the briefing room, as the AP correspondent (already in the front), shifted over to take Helen Thomas' old spot. My first thought was, this is bound to drive leftists crazy. And right on cue, here's left-wing hack John Cole at Balloon Juice.

I suppose as a reward for their excellent achievements in propaganda ... It’s just obscene to reward them, but as we know, in the beltway, this isn’t about journalism

It's pretty funny when a propagandist gets upset because he thinks another organization is putting out propaganda. And I'm not sure what's supposed to be "obscene" about moving the leading cable news channel to the front row. It should have already been there. But then again, logical reasoning is wasted on the left and its rabid hatred of Fox News. As I wrote little more than a year ago,

One of the funniest things about leftists is their constant whining and sniveling about Fox News, and their inability to distinguish individual shows from general news coverage. If you watch standard news ticker type coverage on Fox, it is very similar to what you get on CNN. Fox slants Republican just as other channels slant Democratic, but it's basically a right of center approach. Fox News is no more extreme right than MSNBC is extreme left.  

The vote to move Fox was apparently unanimous. Have fun whining, liberals. 

Much Ado About Nothing: Afghanistan Edition

If you go to the Guardian website you'll see a sensational front page piece called, "Afghanistan: The War Logs." According to the paper a "massive leak of secret files exposes the real war in Afghanistan." The Guardian is all excited and happy about leaks of classified information that they think undermines the war effort. 

A huge cache of secret US military files today provides a devastating portrait of the failing war in Afghanistan

Really? Let's look at some of the things they cite.

coalition forces have killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents So what? It's well known that the accidental killing of civilians causes ongoing problems with the Afghan government. It's not at all surprising that the coalition would try to keep some incidents quiet. It's just a smart thing to do.

Taliban attacks have soared and Nato commanders fear neighbouring Pakistan and Iran are fuelling the insurgency. This is supposed to be startling classified information? Anyone paying the slightest bit of attention knows that Taliban attacks are on the rise, Pakistan is playing both sides, and Iran is meddling.

a secret "black" unit of special forces hunts down Taliban leaders for "kill or capture" without trial. That's a good thing. The only bad thing is that the existence of such information has been revealed to the press by various useful idiots for our enemies.

the US covered up evidence that the Taliban has acquired deadly surface-to-air missiles. Ridiculous use of the term "covered up." There could be all sorts of reasons why the U.S. would rather not publicize such information.

the coalition is increasingly using deadly Reaper drones to hunt and kill Taliban targets by remote control from a base in Nevada. Another big, so what? Everyone has long been aware of the U.S. drone assassination program. 

the Taliban has caused growing carnage with a massive escalation of its roadside bombing campaign, which has killed more than 2,000 civilians to date. Again, is this something that's supposed to be surprising or shocking?

The Guardian makes a big deal of various civilian casualty incidents. As with most anti-war types, they ignore the forest for the trees. Civilian casualties happen in all wars, and they are unavoidable in wars against an enemy that wears no uniforms, hides amongst the civilian population, and deliberately attempts to maximize civilian casualties. If anything the US and other coalition forces should be praised for their extreme efforts to minimize the loss of life among civilians -- to the point that they imperil the safety of their own forces. But as usual, the U.S. and its allies get no credit. No matter what steps we take, no matter how far we bend over backward to limit civilian casualties, it will never be enough to satisfy those that would rather put out propaganda benefiting our enemies.

Leftists Upset that the U.S. Press Might be Even Marginally Pro-American

Not content with whining and sniveling about the torture of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, years after it happened, now leftists are upset that U.S. newspapers apparently adopted more neutral language in cases involving America. Here's Adam Serwer at American Prospect.

Glenn Greenwald points to a study from the Joan Shorenstein Center at Harvard showing that news outlets referred to waterboarding as "torture" in stories in which other countries used the technique but not in stories when the U.S. government used it

He's upset that U.S. news sources actually recognized that that the practice was controversial, and that there were arguments each way.

As soon as Republicans started quibbling over the definition of torture, traditional media outlets felt compelled to treat the issue as a "controversial" matter, and in order to appear as though they weren't taking a side, media outlets treated the issue as unsettled, rather than confronting a blatant falsehood.

That's because the issue was and is still unsettled. There is no clear, widely accepted definition of torture. But like many leftists, Serwer typically views his own opinions as facts.

this attempt at "neutrality" was, in and of itself, taking a side, if inadvertently. It was taking the side of people who supported torture, opposed investigating it as a crime, and wanted to protect those who implemented the policy from any kind of legal accountability.

If only it were true that these major news sources actually supported intelligence efforts meant to defend the U.S. But Serwer is spouting obvious nonsense. The referenced outlets such as the New York Times and LA Times were & are anything but bastions of support for Republican positions, on waterboarding or pretty much anything else.

What's Wrong With This Headline?

Skimming through the news, I came upon a wire story called, "Atheism book found in home linked to fire suspect." The "fire suspect" is suspected of burning down a church. Here's the first line of the story.

Investigators have seized books on demons and atheism as well as rifles and knives from in a home linked to one of the men charged with setting an east Texas church on fire and suspected in a string of similar blazes.

Further along there's some more detail.

Investigators ... discovered paperback books titled "Demon Possession" and "The Atheist's Way,"

So apparently a guy who burned down a church happens to have one book on atheism, and another on demon possession -- two things that don't exactly go together. So what does the AP choose to highlight? Why is the atheist book more significant than the book on demon possession (assuming either has any importance at all)? It's almost as if someone is trying to imply that atheism caused him to burn down a church. Why doesn't the headline read, "books on atheism and demon possession found in fire suspect's home"? Am I reading too much into what may have been just an attempt to put up a shorter headline? Maybe. But I'm not particularly sensitive or easily offended, and I found it annoying. It's pretty likely that some people will read just the headline and jump to the conclusion that an atheist was burning down churches -- as if that's naturally something atheists might be prone to do.

ABC News Gloats About Damaging U.S. National Security

ABC News is congratulating itself about its "exclusive" reporting exposing a formerly secret CIA prison in Lithuania. Aside from the damage to the CIA from yet another expose, the report also has negative consequences for Lithuania. The head of Lithuanian intelligence resigned yesterday in the aftermath of the report.

After ABC News revealed the location of the prison, a top Lithuanian official said that the report was damaging to his country's reputation.

I realize that we can't expect a shred of patriotism or concern for national security from most U.S. news organizations, but the obvious self-satisfaction at ABC is still grating. Never mind that future attempts to gain the cooperation of friendly states on intelligence matters are likely to be far more difficult. They clearly can't trust us to keep secrets secret. Why cooperate and risk exposure, international embarrassment, or negative political consequences? Lithuania assisted the U.S. by hosting a secret CIA facility and what thanks does it get? It gets a U.S. news organization running around its country exposing its secrets. Plus it gets terrorist rights supporters using its country for anti-American propaganda, and accusing it of being complicit in "torture."

"The activities in that prison were illegal," said John Sifton, a New York attorney whose firm One World Research investigates human rights abuses. "They included various forms of torture, including sleep deprivation, forced standing, painful stress positions."

Needless to say these are allegations based on very little, other than his own interpretations, including about what constitutes torture. But Sifton, an American, has no problem disseminating anti-American propaganda. 

About the only positive in the story is the response of the CIA itself.

The CIA declined to talk about the prison. "The CIA's terrorist interrogation program is over," said CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano. "This agency does not discuss publicly where detention facilities may or may not have been."

It's good to see that the agency is refusing to comment, as it should about any intelligence matters that are supposed to be secret.

Matthew Yglesias is a Clueless Leftist

What other explanation could there be for  this piece at Think Progress? It's called, "Fred Hiatt Wants The Washington Post to Go Out of Business." Here's Yglesias,

What other explanation could there be for deciding that he wants to run an op-ed by Sarah Palin about how Obama should “boycott” the Copenhagen conference?

Well let's see if I can provide a clue to the clueless. At this moment, the Palin article is the number 3 most read article in the top 5 at Washingtonpost.com. Maybe the reason they ran the op-ed is because it's an opinion piece by a major, controversial political figure, and therefore almost guaranteed to attract a large readership. Generally speaking, running articles that bring in huge numbers of readers is exactly what you want to do in the newspaper business. I know leftists are pretty ignorant of basic economic matters, but you'd think even someone like Yglesias would understand that running a Palin op-ed is good business for a major newspaper. Then again, maybe he really is that clueless.

NYT Publishes about Current Secret Operations

Not content with revealing classified information from CIA programs which were never implemented, the New York Times today published a piece on current operations.  In a highly irresponsible piece of reporting, the Times wrote about the use of Blackwater, now known as Xe, contractors in the ongoing drone assassination campaign against suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders. 

Rather than just acting as a useful idiot for our enemies, as is typical, the Times is now directly publicizing classified operational details of a major intelligence operation directed at at Al Qaeda and its allies. Remember the hysterical outrage at the so-called "outing" of Valerie Plame, a non-covert analyst working at a desk in Langley? What are the chances that the same people who were so upset about that earth-shattering breach of security, will be outraged at the unnamed "officials" who provided this information to the Times? I won't hold my breath waiting for them to weigh-in.

Department of the Obvious

I just saw an item on Memorandum that links an article from the Sydney Morning Herald. The title? "Attacks on aid workers harm humanitarian efforts." Really?! So killing people who provide humanitarian aid actually damages humanitarian relief efforts. No way, I never would have guessed. 

The article is by John Holmes, the UN under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief co-ordinator. He points out that,

The past two years have been successively the most deadly for aid workers on record. Too often, UN and NGO flags and emblems are no longer protections but provocations.

There's nothing wrong with the article itself, but whoever came up with that headline might want to put a little more thought into it next time.

The Good Guys

The right-wing blogosphere was all over the latest embarrassing example of crazy Obama worship by Newseek editor Evan Thomas. Most of the attention was focused on Thomas' description of the president as a god-like being. But there was another line he threw out that should have also been noticed.  Here's Thomas:

Well, we were the good guys in 1984, it felt that way. It hasn't felt that way in recent years.

Really? It felt like our enemies were the good guys? We are fighting the same enemies as in "recent years," but only now does this clown feel like we are the good guys -- because his messiah Obama is in charge. Thomas was apparently  unsure about whether or not Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and hostile Iraqis were really the good guys instead of the U.S.

Another Misleading News Headline

The New York Times online has a story up entitled, "U.S. Forces Mistakenly Kill 6 Afghan Police." If you just read the headline, you would naturally assume that his was a U.S. military screw-up. But if you read the article you find that 

A statement issued jointly by the American and Afghan military commands said a contingent of police officers fired on American forces after the Americans had successfully overrun the hideout, killing the suspected Taliban commander and detaining another man.

So, unlike what the headline implies, U.S. forces had carried out a successful operation when they were mistakenly fired upon by Afghan police. Only then did they return fire, killing them.  Why use a headline that while technically correct, badly distorts what happened?