Sometimes, A Cigar Is Just A Cigar And Real Agendas
June 23, 2006
Is nothing sacred?
The New York Times has taken it upon itself to determine what is and isn't in the 'best interest' of Americans. In a perfect world, that of course, is not altogether a bad thing. The press in a free society plays an important role in defending freedom- in a perfect world.
Of course, we don't live in a perfect world and both the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times have a distinguished track record of partisanship, irresponsibility, deceit and a marked reluctance to correct errors. That hardly gives those news organisations the credibility they need to justify their editorial positions.
Dr Sanity has a good post on the subject, with some good links.
…we begin to get an idea of what Time and the NY Times really considers "heroic". And, what a surprise, what comes across very clearly is that the only heroism in this conflict is their own behavior, speaking the cliched "truth to power", standing up for the fundamental principles of a free press and the public's right to know the truth. Having identified their real enemy–the Bush Administration–they willingly aid and abet the terrorists, whose side they are clearly on.
National security be damned. They have their own war to win. And they won't cut and run or redeply their forces until their mission is accomplished and Bush is defeated. Anything that furthers that specific goal, by their definition, is truly heroic.
Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.
The programs used to track money and terrorists are not about targeting Muslims or about Bush administration delibertate excesses. The millions of dollars spent on those programs are meant to avoid unnecessary funerals and children growing up without parents. As Dr Sanity notes, the NYT and the LAT are deliberately obfuscating the rationale behind these programs, and the end result of those obfuscations will inevitably prove tragic.
While the institutions that are the NYT and the LAT are heroically waving the full disclosure mantra, they remain reluctant to disclose their own agendas. While media claims the right to disclose information about those politicians and policies that might effect the nation, they remain cool to the idea about disclosing information about themselves and their own agenda. Like the politicians and political ideologies, the media too, can and does influence huge parts of the population. Shouldn't they and their agendas too, be subject to scrutiny?
The current brouhaha that is being played out and debated is only the tip of the iceberg. The damage that reporting on the government program that tracked money being funneled to terrorists has yet to be fully understood.
It is clear that like an iceberg, the real damage that will result from the publication of this classified information, will come from what we cannot see. There will come a time when we will learn that money used to fund terror was rerouted in an attempt to circumvent monitoring systems.
Claiming that counter terror operations are 'racist' or 'anti-anything,' is absurd. Fighting terror is like fighting a disease or mental illness. You go to where the problem is and you seek out and address that problem head on. Our efforts fighting AIDS is wisely directing our resouces where the problems are. Breast cancer research funding is directed at women and breast cancer, and nowhere else.
We do not stigmatize all women because some get breast cancer and we have not deprived gays, hemophiliacs or heterosexuals because they have contracted AIDS.
There are a few (mostly Muslim) that are intent on supporting an violent, radical Islamist agenda. That does not mean all Muslims support that radical agenda, any more than it means all Italians are mafioso or support the La Cosa Nostra. Now, there was a time that wasn't as clearly understood- primarily, because of language. We fear those we cannot understand, overlaying on them our most primal fears. The same is true of Muslim Americans. While there are clearly serious and dangerous trends, primarily radical Islam and the seemingly unending Saudi funding, that by no means can be construed as terror being a monolithic Islamic response.
The NYT and the LAT are guilty of manipulating the unseen and unspoken realities. They believe they can couch their political agenda by reframing the issue. We don't want to be perceived as racist, so by opposing programs that are meant to protect us, we prove our opposition to what are clearly 'racist' motives of the Bush administration. They are no better than Zarqawi, et al, that wanted to ferment religious strife.
In fact, this isn't about the Bush administration- it is about much more. Administrations come and go. What is being done affects the health of the nation and the health of democracy. The deliberate weakening of our nation is a reflection of a tremedous self hate. It is about an agenda that wants to witness the implosion of America and democracy, replaced with an intolerant and bigoted ideology.
This isn't even about secualrism- for the most part, secularists take issue with religion and religious influence. They view democracy through different lenses.
No, the kind of agenda that would tolerate, advocate and assist in the tearing down of this nation and her freedoms, and exposing her to danger, is a very different- and dangerous, ideology. It is not a new ideology, of course, just another incarnation of an agendized few attempting to force their will onto a population. 'Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are meant for a select few, only.
The Anchoress is all over this. She's covering all the bases and the outfield as well.