Friday, July 31, 2009

Malaise over Death Tolls

Reuters reported today that July was deadliest month yet for U.S. troops in Afghanistan, but you wouldn't know that trolling CNN or watching the network news.

And yet it's hard to forget the daily lead plastered on the front page of all the major sites decrying the number of needless deaths as a result of Bush's awful wars. So why is it so much less important today than it was a year ago? And for that matter, can you think of the last time there was a major news story criticizing U.S. military efforts in either Iraq or Afghanistan? There have certainly been opportunities - the botched missile attack earlier this month is just the latest example of a story that was buried by the press. The major news outlets seem to have absolutely no interest in our military efforts abroad, instead focusing its attention on yesterday's world-changing event in the back yard of the white house where 4 men grudgingly drank a beer together. CNN is putting it's best face on the disaster that is Bama's economic policy, cheerfully trumpeting the gains in the Dow while just about every other serious economic indicator remains fixed at the bottom of the tank.

The double standard is obvious. The media does not want to say anything about anything that may further erode American's dwindling confidence in Bama. While the media was engaged in a war of its own against the Bush Administration and Republicans in general, trotting out every shock tactic in the book, including showing the returning caskets of slain servicemen on Nightline and providing daily reminders of how bad it was and how many soldiers were dying and had no armor and isn't that ultimately George Bush's fault, they have no such agenda with Bama, so even though he increased the number of servicemen in Afghanistan by 40%, there's no coverage when something doesn't work out in the administrations best interests.

This is actually how a war should be covered by the press, as opposed to the scathing op-eds on a daily basis and overused scare tactics to make Americans think their military is either not competent, mismanaged, or over matched, none of which are true.

A friend of mine suggested Bama was elected primarily for his foreign policy promises, specifically related to Iraq. Well, 6 months in Bama is content to follow the time lines negotiated by Condi Rice and the Bush team. Hmmm, could that mean those decisions were actually well-thought out and based on facts, instead of just hollow promises based on, oh, I dunno, hope?

One might expect the liberals who voted for Bama, and the moderates who succumbed to the anti-war media blitz and elected the schmuck would be disappointed or even outraged that Bama's foreign policy with regard to Iraq is nothing more than an extension of Bush's, and some are, but most are content with the way things are going, because they aren't being told that things are really the same, and the conditions that prompted their vote are unchanged since their leader assumed the role of Commander in Chief. I wonder how long the media can keep spinning this rosy picture of Bama's presidency. If poll numbers are any judge, they can't keep it going much longer. People are catching on, finally.

I hope I live to see the day when the Internet drives the last nail in the coffin of elite liberal media dominance. Three more years of Bama just might do it.

No comments:

Post a Comment