The Washington Post’s ombudsman Andrew Alexander devotes his weekly column to explaining how the Post‘s food critic is above reproach. Fine. Over the last few weeks we’ve been treated to columns on reporters’ conflicts of interest (no, nothing to see there, move along), another on anonymous sources, and one more on a biased book review. So where’s the heartfelt examination of the Post’s coverage of the Virginia gubernatorial race? Hmmm.
No self-examination was forthcoming, no discussion as to why dozens and dozens of stories were devoted to Bob McDonnell’s twenty-year-old college paper — an “issue” the voters cared not a wit about. Odd, isn’t it, that on the most obvious example of bias and excess the Post wouldn’t want to clear the air and take a look.
Instead, this week the Post doubled down, screaming for the governor-elect to denounce comments made by Pat Robertson about Muslims. No, Robertson isn’t in McDonnell’s transition team and isn’t going to be in his administration. The Post breathlessly observes: “In addition to attending law school in the 1980s at what was then called CBN University, the Virginia Beach school founded by Mr. Robertson and named for his Christian Broadcasting Network, Mr. McDonnell served eight years as a trustee of the same institution after it was renamed Regent University.” The Post editors proceed to holler: “Doesn’t Mr. McDonnell owe them and other Virginians some reassurance that he doesn’t share Pat Robertson’s despicable view?” Actually, no. McDonnell is under no obligation to denounce every comment by a supporter with which he disagrees; no more than Obama is expected to denounce every controversial comment a supporter of his makes.
But what is clear here is that the Post is not chastened, has not given up its habit of fomenting hot-button controversies where none exist, and holding Republicans to a standard that would never be employed against Democratic politicians. The Post hasn’t looked back and isn’t about to change its tune. But one thing we do know: the voters don’t much care what the Post prints. Those darn voters have a mind of their own and seemed to have figured out the Post’s gambit.
If we’re not willing to prohibit the enemy finding sanctuary, then all we’re doing is stalling.
If you allow an enemy sanctuary, you’re making sure that whatever war you’re waging against him will be prolonged and protracted.
If we’re serious, we’d cross over into Wazirstan, into the NWFP, and thoroughly pound and crush our enemies.
If we’re not serious, we’ll continue along this pusillanimous and feckless course that Bush, and Condi, {did you know she was a little girl in Birmingham…} have charted for us.
A serious power would have demanded A.Q. Khan to be forked over, and a serious power would long ago have stripped Pakistan of whatever nukes they had, and moreover, made sure that their nuclear infrastructure is reduced to dust.
You cannot consider yourself serious in the misnamed war on terror, and allow the lawlessness and the savagery to continue in Wazirstan, the tribal areas and the NWFP.
Those tribes, lawless and evil, who have the warped belief that they can continue with their lawlessness and evil until the crack of doom sounds, have got to be addressed, AND I MEAN ADDRESSED. As Lord Curzon suggested decades ago.
Those people and tribes need to be delivered a true tutorial, and not the kind of occasional and episodic punitive operation they’ve known heretofore.
Half measures pursued half heartedly will only make sure we lose this damn war.
What is the NWFP?
There is a tiny bit of hope that was shown by a news story in today’s (January 30) New York Times under the headline “Kidnapping Prompts Rally By 500 Women in Afghanistan.” Women in Afghanistan are free enough to rally against the kidnappers who captured American aid worker Cyd Mizell. Of course, if there were more hope than a little bit, the kidnappers would have been caught by now and Cyd Mizell would have been freed. If there were lots of hope, she couldn’t have been captured in the first place
What is the NWFP?
The NWFP is the enemy sanctuary in Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier Province.
The Pakistan Army is currently making an offensive in Waziristan to break the Hagsud tribe, the Taliban’s chief supporters there. If Pakistan can finally exert control over the NWFP instead of letting it run wild it can, if it wishes, eliminate that sanctuary. If it diesn’t it will have joined our enemies, and can be treated as such.
Too many people seem to hear the word “war” and imagine that we should be doing things as we did in WWII. This is not that kind of war. It is a long term struggle with an incohate, hydr-headed movement that, if left alone, will grow stronger and eventually gain state power, in which case its terrorism will grow even more aggressive and dangerous. Nor does it help to intone “rubble causes no trouble” as some do. The rubble of Afghanistan caused us plenty of trouble, and the rubble of Somalia is doing the same today. Even more important, the political rubble that is the Arab and most of the Muslim world causes immense trouble, for us, for Muslims and for others. That must be changed, and it will take a long time and much effort to do it, if it can be done. If it can’t be done nuclear war will eventually result. Or, as an Indian coworker of a friend said to him, ali will march.
That last line should have read “Kali will march.” Sory.
3aThank’s for greate post.6q I compleatly disagree with last post . vkh
ламинированный паркет 3u