Wednesday, February 01, 2006

It's A Disaster Because The Most Important People In The World Are Being Harmed

From James Taranto:

Voice of Reason?

In a post after the cloture vote, Markos Moulitsas, "Kos" himself, attempted to calm the waters by offering some good news--or what passes for such among Angry Leftoids:

While we obsessed over the cloture vote, that was not news to the rest of the country, blissfully unaware.

What was?

Bob Woodruff almost getting killed and Jill Carroll pleading for her life, both in Iraq. Go to the homepages right now (as of 6:20 PT) of CNN, ABC News, Fox News, and CBS News. This, for the real America, was the news today.

This isn't meant to minimize the importance of the Alito vote, but to note that this has not been a glorious day for Dear Leader. In fact, it's one of those days that may very well have turned the public against his presidency once and for all.

Take heart, Angry Left: Journalists are in peril in Iraq.

One of many odd things about this is the assumption that the suffering of journalists is somehow going to turn the American people against the war effort. Actually, this assumption seems widespread among journalists, at least among CNN journalists.

"The war in Iraq has basically turned out to be a disaster and journalists have paid for it," Christiane Amanpour complained last night on "Larry King Live." This morning Soledad O'Brien put the following question to Sen Bill Frist:

Isn't it going to be problematic for the president to say as--and I'm quoting you now--you know, winning with war on terror when, in reality, we have this brand new videotape from Ayman el-Zawahiri. We have an anchorman injured in Iraq. We have a journalist, a young woman, who's been kidnapped and is seen sobbing on national television, taken from the Arab media, as well? Is the public going to buy we're winning the war, it's going well, there's progress, when there's so much evidence to the contrary?

So O'Brien's evidence that we're not "winning the war on terror" is (a) Zarqawi's new videotape and (b) the kidnapping of one journalist and wounding of another.

Don't get us wrong: We view war-zone reporting as a heroic endeavor, and we were acquainted with one journalist, Michael Kelly, who was killed in Iraq, three years ago. But there is something self-absorbed almost to the point of solipsism about journalists insisting that their adversity is the most important thing about the war.

It's worth keeping a few things in perspective: Like soldiers, journalists choose their profession voluntarily. Unlike soldiers, journalists do not have to go to Iraq: They are free to seek other assignments or other jobs. Like many soldiers, many journalists choose to return to Iraq despite the dangers out of a sense of duty. But if journalists don't cut and run, why do they expect the leaders of the military to do so?

As for Kos, it's a measure of just how far gone the Angry Left is that he--who two years ago responded to the murders of four American civilians by saying "Screw 'em"--is now the voice of reason on his own Web site.

No comments: