If Kofi Annan had been speaking for the United Nations in 1944 as the tide of World War II turned strongly in favor of the allies, he no doubt would have insisted that the allies cease hostilities and permit Adolf Hitler time to re-arm his nation and murder more of his people. In fact, had the United Nations been around in 1940, there would have been voices insisting that the world take more time to truly understand the motivations of Japan and Germany. Applying today’s paradigm of thought to the 1940’s would have allowed America’s freethinking, socialist sophists to construct an elaborate, nuanced response that would have left Hirohito and Hitler in power well into the 1960’s. Fortunately for all of us, the prevailing thinking of the 1940’s demanded that we fight and win wars in the quickest manner possible. The constant equivocating of good and evil, which hangs like a musty scrim over today’s liberals, took a backseat to the world-wide struggle of good versus evil in World War II. The grayish miasma of leftist quibbling with the strong articulation the values of liberty, freedom, capitalism, and equality by our President and military apparatus had no place in the total victory for the allied powers in the great wars of the twentieth century.
Unfortunately for those of us present at the dawn of World War III, essential lessons of World War II are being ignored in favor of political posturing on the part of nearly every elected democrat public official. Domestically, we are experiencing a trivial political debate full of daily dogmatic drivel. A calculated strategy that is regularly employed by the liberals is to insist that the United States work with the United Nations. This notion of deference for the views of the United Nations is not a part of the autonomy that has served the United States throughout our history. Strident voices of the left are crying out in accord led by Jack Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and others blaming the Bush administration for failing at diplomacy for these past five years. These so-called leaders of the opposition seem to have diplomacy confused with appeasement, and along with Madeleine Albright, they seem to have all of the administrations flaws at their finger tips at any moment.
I am sorry that the United States of America must continue to participate in the charade at the so-called United Nations. The UN has become completely irrelevant, corrupt and useless. The mainstream media in our country has a glaring and unmet obligation to inform citizens of the culture of corruption which exploded at the UN under Mr. Anann’s leadership. The oil for food scandal and the correlating nepotism have not made their way into our national consciousness. Anyone who has any abiding faith in the ability of the United Nations to positively impact events in the Middle East is a fool!
There is some general concurrence on the useless nature of the United Nations in the 21st Century.
The gyrations of the United Nations on the terrorism raging in the middle east is all part of the great schematic template of thought being force fed to the American people by a mainstream media that has never been more treasonous. As if to please these voices of an imagined world unity, the American media cries for restraint on the part of Israel. These voices call strenuously for a proportionate response on the part of Israel. They say this as if another Israeli concession with bring a different result than those allowances that Israel has made in the past.
Despite the lessons of history, and the facts of the current conflict, the media uses its own predetermined model to tell their fictions from the Middle East.
The most pronounced example of a failed news template is the reporting emanating out of Lebanon, Israel and Iran this week. The reckless, tabloid, and adolescent reporting of the mainstream media is a dubious unison being sung by liberals in a prescribed, counterfeit harmony that pierces the realm of the harsh realities faced by the United States, Israel, and the world. Generally, the television networks and the work of their so-called reporters borders on an illusory sedition.
Whether you may watch CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, or MSNBC the plotline is the same with the only variation being the order of the talking points to be used against President Bush.
A short list of the most egregious and flawed viewpoints overused by the mainstream media would include the following:
• Israel must have a proportionate response
The shrill, piercing, and constant cry for a “proportionate response” from Israel from disjointed voices across the networks is redundant and demonstrates a profound ignorance of the circumstances that led to this war. Countless stories are based on the misguided premise that Israel somehow owes the world a proportionate response for being repeatedly and randomly attacked.
• Condolezza Rice should travel immediately to the Middle East
Madeleine Albright, Anderson Cooper and others in the media have promulgated a superfluity of stories making it appear that Condoleeza Rice should immediately go to the Middle East. Their desire for immediate gratification in the arena of cosmetic diplomacy has nothing to do with winning the war. This convoluted strategy is fraught with failure, and President Bush is not going to accept advice from the enemies of his doctrine. Albright and others need to apply their proportionality mechanism to their constant cries for Condi to intervene immediately. Like children throwing a earsplitting tantrum, the repetitive call for Condi to travel to the region has no logical purpose or conclusion. Condi, ever the mature adult, has called for a framework to be in place that would alter the broken structure of a strained peace between Israel and her neighbors. Condi and the United Sates must pursue the policy that terrorists must be eliminated not pacified, soothed, and placated!
• The evacuation of US Citizens from Lebanon is a replay of the Katrina evacuation
Using narrow prism of faux caring, meticulously polished with a shining veneer of feigned concern, Nancy Pelosi and her willing accomplices in the elite media have generated countless stories this week regarding the evacuation of US citizens from Lebanon. In a politically motivated effort designed to manipulate the thinking of unsuspecting viewers, this evacuation has been repetitively compared to the Katrina victims stranded at the Superdome. Rush Limbaugh created a montage of statements by several media personalities documenting this obsession on the part of the media.
The answer will not come from me, will not come from you,. It won't even come from the New York Times. The answer will come from polls and focus groups. As Bob Dylan once sang, ladies and gentlemen, the answer, my friend, is blowing in the polls. (laughing) The Democrats, I'm sure they're out focus-grouping this right now. Now, they may have already had their answer handed to them by the Drive-By Media. Dingy Harry and Nancy Pelosi have returned to the scene of the original drive-by, which is Katrina. The Lebanon evacuation is just like that now. Here's a montage of various leftists.
JACK CAFFERTY: Remember Katrina? France has gotten more than 700 of their people out!
CHRIS JANSING: Sort of brought back, you know, the whole Katrina thing.
ANDERSON COOPER: It's like Katrina all over again.
NANCY PELOSI: Just another manifestation of the Katrina mentality.
HARRY REID: It is too bad that this is being treated as a mini Katrina.
ANDREA KOPPEL: The slow response that the Bush administration had after Katrina...
MILES O'BRIEN: One of the people we talked to earlier today equated it to...Katrina!
KATE SNOW: Some in Capitol Hill are bringing up memories of Hurricane Katrina.
DAVID SHUSTER: The image of Americans terrified has burned the Bush administration before following Hurricane Katrina.
PAULA ZAHN: You have heard Katrina, calling it "a mini-Katrina."
These robots in the media seem to expect the American people to lap up their version of the news like thirsty dogs on a hot July day. There are obvious comparisons to Katrina: these comparisons are so obvious that the elite, arrogant, liberal media chooses to ignore these real stories while they invent other tales in order to twist the reality that is so painfully obvious.
The failure of the state and local governments in New Orleans is a direct parallel to the failure of the United Nations. The local and state government agencies and officials are well matched with the incompetent and ineffective officials of the United Nations.
The citizens of New Orleans and the US citizens in Lebanon have individual accountability for their circumstances that is ignored by the mainstream media. Neither the situation in New Orleans or Lebanon was entirely unexpected. Therefore, the threshold of personal responsibility trumps government culpability in our system of government.
Our media will never provide it, but we need a dose of reality on the networks and in the newspapers. Let’s see a rash of news stories exposing the evils of Iran, Syria, Hezbolah, Hammas, and the United Nations. Let’s review the fundamental lessons of history when it comes to appeasing terrorists and dictators.
Peggy Noonan makes the point stronger than I ever could in her Wall Street Journal column of July 20:
The other day ABC News's Internet political report, The Note, argued that President Bush, in his then-upcoming veto statement and other presentations, had better be at the top of his game if he wants his party to hold on to Congress in 2006. "[Mr. Bush] is going to need to be focused and impressive, not easy pickings for the Rich-Krugman-Dowd-Stewart axis."
As I read I nodded: That's exactly true. What was significant is that The Note did not designate as Mr. Bush's main and most effective foes Pelosi, Dodd, Reid, Biden, et al. Mr. Bush's mightiest competitors are columnists and a comedian with a fake-news show.
This is one reason the media is important. (It's not "the media are" it's "the media is." People see the media as one big thing.)
One big reason the media is important is that they change things. And they lead. On 9/11 itself it was the media--anchors, reporters, crews sent to the scene, analysts--that functioned, for roughly 10 hours, as the most visible leaders of the United States. The president was on a plane; the vice president was in the bunker and on the phone. It was on-air journalists who informed, created a seeming order, and reassured the public by their presence and personas and professionalism.
So they're important. But very recently it seems to me they're important because it is from the media that Mr. Bush's most effective opposition--attacks on his nature and leadership, attacks on his policies--comes. Among the Democrats an op-ed columnist has more impact than a minority leader.
It is common wisdom that newspapers are over. But when the most powerful voices against a powerful president at a crucial time are op-ed jockeys, newspapers are not over. Or perhaps one should say paper may be over, but news is not.
Supporting Evidence can be found: Wudrick Blog, Captain's Quarters, The New York Sun, The Wonderful Peggy Noonan, Hard AstarBoard, Perish The Thought-This is exactly what I have been thinking and saying!!, The marvelous Neal Boortz, Rush Limbaugh, The Mudville Gazette
Expose The Left, News Busters, Michelle Malkin,