Subscribe to BrookesNews’ Bulletin
Are cut-and-run Democrats changing their tune?
Dick McDonald
Media And Iraq: The people who did so much to put the cut-and-run crowd in power have a new theme — the dangers of a hasty retreat. Why weren’t we hearing more of this before the election? What a difference an Election Day makes. With the Democrats back in control of Congress, their friends in the news business apparently figure it’s OK now to say things that might have helped the Republican cause before Nov. 7.
Wednesday, the New York Times ran a front-page story headlined, Get out of Iraq Now? Not so Fast, Experts Say. As those words suggest, the article was a blast at Democrats such as Sen. Carl Levin, soon to be chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who were urging a withdrawal of U.S. troops within four to six months. The choice of “experts” quoted by reporter Michael Gordon was revealing; prominent among them were two leading critics of the Bush administration's handling of the war, Anthony Zinni and John Batiste. Like most articles labeled “analysis,” this one had an editorial point to make: That the people now taking power in Congress have a poor plan — more like a recipe for disaster — to deal with the mess in Iraq.
A couple of days later, NBC fleshed out this warning with some harrowing footage and dire predictions on the Today show. According to the network’s Middle East bureau chief, Richard Engel, “Iraqis overwhelmingly say” that a quick U.S. pullout “would push the country deeper into chaos,” with an al-Qaida-run state one of the possible outcomes. Given the New York Times’ usual role as pack leader of the mainstream media, we can expect to see more such cautionary stories in the coming days.
Another sign of the newspeople’s sudden skepticism toward Democrats can be seen in the post-election coverage of Rep. John Murtha. Yesterday’s anti-war hero lost his halo, and fast, once the victorious Democrats in the House had to decide whether to make him their majority leader.
Before the election, few mentioned the fact that he had nearly been indicted in the 1980 Abscam bribery sting. Post-election, that grainy video of Murtha turning down a bribe — for the time being — from a fake sheik seemed to be popping up everywhere.
Murtha’s baggage wasn't totally ignored before Nov. 7. The New York Times, to its credit, ran a critical story early in October about Murtha and his pork-mongering. And on the subject of Iraq exit strategies, the Times did editorialize back in August against what it called the Democrats’ “withdrawal option.” But stories like these were just a sporadic counterpoint to the media's main theme, which was that the Republicans were headed for a much-deserved punishment for the Iraq War and other sins.
Better late than never, we suppose. But the question remains: Why did they wait? Those “experts” now exposing the Democrats’ exit strategy as a deadly fantasy were available to reporters before the election. A full airing of their views at that time might have helped voters make an informed choice. It might even have kept the GOP in charge of Congress. But such pointed criticism of the winning party came too late. Why does that not surprise us?
Dick McDonald can be found at The Right Scale
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 27 November 2006