180 degrees liberal

Q: What kind of American would view the adoption of, “a more pro-American,” outlook by Al Jazeera as essentially ‘going over to the enemy?’

Yea, it’s a trick question because such a view would be anti-American by definition. Nevertheless, this view is held by many who believe that the War on Terror itself is a Goebbels-like propaganda ploy.

Is Al Jazeera about to Become Al-Foxeera?

Sources inside Al Jazeera confirm that there is an internal struggle underway that may dilute Al Jazeera's independence and steer it in a more pro-western, pro-US direction. ~alternet.org


To the left, Fox News is the 'Goebbels' News Network, not to be trusted and dangerous to even listen to. (Apparently it might poison the liberal mind with the truth.) Therefore the idea of Al Jazeera becoming more pro-western and pro-US -- i.e. more like Fox News -- is a catastrophe. Inherent in such a liberal declaration are several telling admissions about what they believe:

  • Pro-American is not good

  • Pro-American journalism is not good

  • Liberals are liberal first, Americans second

  • Media that is not liberal is 'biased' and needs to be actively opposed or shut down

  • A pro-jihad Al Jazeera is much preferred to a pro-American one


The left loaths the Fox News Channel for daring to depart from the Left-wing Main Stream Media bias that they have come to expect and enjoy. This bias is a handicap that they feel entitled to and helps to explain the vitriolic response when there are any dissenting voices from their own.

But the question is why does the left only support the, "voices of dissent," if they oppose the U.S.? Indeed, "dissent," and, "independence," is honorable even when it is supporting the views of Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorism, but Fox News? A heinous pack of lies and distortions that must be eradicated at all costs.

Doesn't it seem odd that Democrats have no problem being photographed with terrorist dictators but refuse to attend a political debate on Fox News? We are told we must "understand" the enemy and not fuel the fires of conflict-- except when the 'enemy' are American conservatives.

"We wanted to send a clear message to voters, the media and the presidential candidates that Fox is part of the right-wing smear machine, not a legitimate source of news," said MoveOn civic communications director Adam Green. ~washingtonpost.com

In other words, opposing terrorism with a 'War On Terror' only creates more terror but opposing the Right somehow won't create more conservatives but will lead to their defeat?
Democrat John Edwards Wednesday repudiated the notion that there is a "global war on terror," calling it an ideological doctrine advanced by the Bush administration that has strained American military resources and emboldened terrorists. ~abcnews.go.com

So is the left's opposition to conservatives merely a slogan designed only for politics, or do they actually believe that America and George Bush are the true problem?
"It is now clear that George Bush's misnamed 'War on Terror' has backfired — and is now part of the problem," Edwards told the Council of Foreign Relations in New York. "The War on Terror is a slogan designed only for politics, not a strategy to make America safe. It's a bumper sticker, not a plan." ~foxnews.com

Posted by Eric Simonson at June 12, 2007 4:22 PM
Comments
Comment #222998

Terrorism by definition has the goal of striking fear or terror into the hearts and minds of its victims and force the behaviors to erupt that accompany fear and terror. In this regard, terrorists have been very effective against Republicans who act as if terrorists are the greatest threat in the world to them personally.

Mayor Bloomberg takes a more rational view, he says you have more chance of being struck by lightning multiple times than being a victim of a terrorist bombing or killing. Bloomberg says go after the terrorists, BUT, don’t give up your principles, Constitution, or way of life in deference to terrorists. That is waving a white flag of defeat to the terrorists.

I agree with Bloomberg. I am ashamed of many Republicans whose rhetoric speaks of boogie men in every shadow outside their homes, in government, in other political parties, and in their fellow Americans, and would sell out our Bill of Rights for an illusion that they are now safer, which of course, they are not.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 12, 2007 4:37 PM
Comment #223003

Eric,

“Doesn’t it seem odd that Democrats have no problem being photographed with terrorist dictators but refuse to attend a political debate on Fox News?”

Amen, brotha!!

Posted by: rahdigly at June 12, 2007 5:05 PM
Comment #223004

Come on Eric…
THINK!

The mainstream media in America is neither republican nor democrat. They are sensationalists who will do what they can to make a buck.

The sponsor’s rule..along with their biases and pre-dispositions.

Fox News was put together by a group of backers who WANT you and others to buy into the hype of a ‘liberaly biased’ media, but it’s just hype.

When you compare OUR media with various international sources, you will see the bias for what it is.

You want a surprise? …look at various human rights NGO’s and compare with American media sources…then compare with our state dept. …then compare with the news sources from the regions being reported on.

OUR media is ultra conservative.
However, in doing this excercise, you will see how there is bias all over the place.

Now, ask yourself:
Whay axe does Fox have to grind and why? Who is the primary funding and beneficiary behind Fox News?

The Truth is NOT hard to find, Eric.
Perhaps you will prefer not to believe it, but that is another challenge entirely.

Posted by: RGF at June 12, 2007 5:08 PM
Comment #223013

I’m not sure I follow your logic or all your assumptions.

Whenever I look at the Al-Jazeera English-language website I’m impressed by how serious the journalists take their jobs. Eric, have you actually been to the website? You might be surprised.

Posted by: Gerrold at June 12, 2007 6:21 PM
Comment #223015

I’d rather have good journalists disagreeing with us than fluff-generating hacks doing PR. I’m not for anti-Americanism, but that won’t get solved by turning al-Jazeera into a cheerleading squad for America. To the extent that its popularity comes from its line, we will only see others step up to take their place, while our efforts fail. you can’t buy credibility with propaganda; the real world takes what the propaganda gives, with interest added on account of the BS you gave people.

The most pro-American station is the one that tells Americans what they need to know, good or bad. It’s the one that keeps people informed about what the politicians are doing.

You want ass-kissers in the newsroom. This country needs ass-kickers, willing to do what it takes to get the story and get it right.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 12, 2007 6:44 PM
Comment #223027

Ditto, Stephen D.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 12, 2007 10:21 PM
Comment #223041

David,

On your very first point I think you have failed to grasp something significant. A fighting response is not the response terrorists are looking for. All bullies assume that their intimidation will cow and put fear and terror into their targets. Standing up and smacking down the bully is the opposite of that.

The liberal response is precisely what the terrorists want and expect. Whether or not it’s done out of fear or bleeding heart illogic it looks like it is done out of fear.

Appeasement, cowing to, and bowing down in concession to terrorist demands is the fear response.

To put it in more personal terms, when I look around my neighborhood I assume that I am a citizen, a participant, and an owner of my neighborhood. If my neighbors are being jacked with I will assume the responsibility of a neighbor and help them, defend them, and seek help for them. This is my duty as a citizen of my neighborhood, my country, and my world. Non-violence is fine for most situations, but at some point you must call the police—- and the police are not just bringing non-violent intervention if there are violent perpetrators.

Being a non-interested, objective journalist has been twisted into making sure that evil is put on equal terms with good. But if there is a good and evil such ‘objective’ journalism is just as good as a lie and untrue.

Speaking of nonexistent boogeymen, what about global warming?

Posted by: eric simonson at June 13, 2007 1:21 AM
Comment #223042

Eric,

You don’t seem to get it.

With the exception of NPR journalism has gone the way of the Dodo, but of course conservatives wouldn’t listen to NPR because they might actually learn something.
Boy, that would get their panties in a bunch.

Fox is the National Enquirer of what the MSM has laughingly become.
CNN isn’t much better.

And the whole alphabet soup of networks gave up journalism for the almighty dollar back in the stone age of television.

Profit before integrity.

Posted by: Rocky at June 13, 2007 1:28 AM
Comment #223047

Eric-
I have some real world experience with bullies, so let me tell you want they really want: they want to humiliate you. knocking you down is just one way of doing that. If your response isn’t calm enough, and considered enough, their response will be to provoke you until you make a fool out of yourself, or until you make yourself look like you’re the one with the problem.

That’s the game they play, and it can be very effective with hard-headed people who have trouble backing down.

I advocate calm. I advocate not telegraphing our approach. If we act predictably, they’re smart enough to turn that against us. Not every method that works against the terrorists is an act of violence. They have goals. If we can get in the way of those goals, we win. When they do so with our goals, they win.

Iraq fulfills their goals. They know that as long as they cause chaos America stays, and does the for them in getting funds, recruits, and a swing of public opinion towards their ideology.

On the subject of journalism, your problem is that you don’t trust people to know evil for themselves.

As for Global Warming? Real upward trends in global average temperatures, with real carbon dioxide increases. Real evidence tying the Carbon Dioxide to us, real evidence showing it’s a greenhouse gas, and better than 90% attribution of the bulk of the climate forcings coming from that CO2. In short, the only thing that’s nonexistent is reason for complacency.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 13, 2007 2:35 AM
Comment #223058

Eric said: “On your very first point I think you have failed to grasp something significant. “

No, Eric, it is you who fail to grasp the point. 3,600 of our soldiers are dead, and 26,000 have been wounded. OBL still remains at large, untouched. Yes, we got a few of them. No where near the numbers of ours that have been gotten. Your whole metaphor of knocking down the bully has never transpired. IF that is your standard, then they are winning, not us.

But, the you assume al-Queda is a stupid bully. WRONG! Terrorism by OBL’s plan was to provoke precisely the over the top response Bush provided in attacking Middle Eastern nations even though they had no connection to the college educated terrorists on our 9/11 planes.

Just living in this century is all the education one needs to know that OBL could not possibly have expected the U.S. to lay down after the 9/11 attacks. He fought with us in Afghanistan. He was paid by us to fight the Russians. He was highly educated by western schools. You could not be more wrong to make the analogy that OBL thought we would not strike back. He counted on it. Moreover, he counted on the U.S. striking at targets not connected with al-Queda or Afghanistan. His hope was that stupid Bush would start a holy war, that would rally Arabic peoples behind OBL. And in fact, that is what Bush started to do, before being called up short and sternly by his advisors and told NOT to use words like Crusade.

al-Queda has grown and flourished around the globe thanks to our invasion of Iraq, which played right into OBL’s recruiting wet dream. OBL could not have found a more accommodating nemesis than GW Bush in OBL’s plans, save maybe for the 3 Stooges.

The world was with us in invading Afghanistan, home of the terrorists of 9/11. And the world turned quickly against us when we invaded Iraq, save for Blair and a handful of others like the Aussies. That was precisely the scenario terrorism is designed to invoke. An over response that shows the terrorized to be no better than the terrorists. And Abu-Ghraib, Guantanamo, rendition, torture, and mass killing of innocents in Iraq, all by the hands of Americans accomplished exactly what the al-Queda hoped. Bush’s and Congress’ reaction became their recruiting and rallying cry.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 13, 2007 3:50 AM
Comment #223074
Speaking of nonexistent boogeymen, what about global warming?

LOL.

Thanks for the laugh.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 13, 2007 10:11 AM
Comment #223087

David R. Remer,

You hit the nail on the head.

It is funny to me to note that now, with fiscal conservatism’s death at this pres’ hands, it is the evangelicals who guide the republican party and the republicans still cannot come to the understanding of how eye-for-an-eye and tooth-for-tooth mentality will only leave the whole world blind and toothless!!!

The American republican party now appear to be the foremost hypocrits on planet EARTH!

Posted by: RGF at June 13, 2007 12:55 PM
Comment #223095

RGF, I try not to think about the future of the American Republican Party, because believe it or not, doing so actually evokes sympathy from me for the fine upstanding American citizens who want so desperately to support a traditional conservative party the likes of Teddy Roosevelt’s or Dwight D. Eisenhower’s. After the damage these Republicans have done to my country, sympathy for their party creates a cognitive dissonance in me, which is uncomfortable.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 13, 2007 2:46 PM
Comment #223096

David,

You have my respect, now.
I, too, see Teddy and Ike as two of the greatest leaders we, as a nation, have fielded. Neither was without there flaws, but they both were profoundly moral and deep thinking people with GENUINE concern for the nation as a whole, not just a select few power and influence brokers.

We need someone like them again.

Posted by: RGF at June 13, 2007 2:57 PM
Comment #223150

David,

OBL still remains at large, untouched. Yes, we got a few of them. No where near the numbers of ours that have been gotten. Your whole metaphor of knocking down the bully has never transpired. IF that is your standard, then they are winning, not us.

In this you are mistaken. By any measure we have ‘gotten’ far more. Kill ratios in Afghanistan are around 100 to 1, and in Iraq around 10 to 1.

But, the you assume al-Queda is a stupid bully. WRONG! Terrorism by OBL’s plan was to provoke precisely the over the top response Bush provided in attacking Middle Eastern nations even though they had no connection to the college educated terrorists on our 9/11 planes.

Forgive me but must I question this reasoning.

  • A bully is not necessarily ‘stupid’ and I didn’t say that Al Qaeda or OBL was unintelligent or stupid. But the motivation and the deterent to that motivation is simple. Not responding, or even worse, responding as the left would have us do by blaming the United States for their acts of terrorism is what actually creates more terror.
  • If you are correct then doing nothing during the Clinton Presidency should have deterred OBL and Al Qaeda? Or is something more required? Perhaps we need to provide them with everything they demand in order to placate and appease their anger and rage against America the evil capitalist oppressor?
  • When we did after the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing did Osama Bin Laden say to himself, “Let’s stop the cycle of violence?”
  • When we did nothing after the Kobar Towers Bombing in 1996 did Al Qaeda hatred lessen?

    When we didn’t retaliate with an ‘over the top response’ after the Kenya and Tanzania embassy bombings in 1998 did the chain fall off of the cycle of violence?

…he [OBL] counted on the U.S. striking at targets not connected with al-Queda or Afghanistan.

Did he? Osama’s own testimony belies that. Osama himself said that the U.S. was, “a paper tiger.” Osama Bin Laden said and believed that the example of the Soviet Union being defeated by the muhajadeen proved that they could do the same to the United States.

In short, what you claim are the beliefs of OBL and Al Qaeda are actually the beliefs of the left.

al-Queda has grown and flourished around the globe thanks to our invasion of Iraq,

Truly? This is more of an assertion without facts to support it than a fact established. How many recruits have joined the ranks of Al Qaeda since the Iraq war began? And how many would have joined if we had not so rudely and ruthlessly invaded a sovereign muslim country? Oh wait, we did invade a muslim country before Iraq— which was Afghanistan. Are you sure that perhaps Osama didn’t believe and hope that Bush would merely invade Afghanistan? and thus ignite the holy faithful in a jihad against the great Satan and defeat them on the same ground that they defeated the Soviet Union?

The world was with us in invading Afghanistan, home of the terrorists of 9/11. And the world turned quickly against us when we invaded Iraq,

The left was not with us in invading Afghanistan.

…the terrorized to be no better than the terrorists. And Abu-Ghraib, Guantanamo, rendition, torture, and mass killing of innocents in Iraq, all by the hands of Americans accomplished exactly what the al-Queda hoped. Bush’s and Congress’ reaction became their recruiting and rallying cry.

Cheap moral equivalence. To suppose and posit that we are no better than Al Qaeda is extremely nearsighted moral equivalence. Moreover in order to hold such a view one would have to completely ignore every transgression of the enemy and hold to a microscope every failing of your fellow countrymen.

Posted by: esimonson at June 13, 2007 10:56 PM
Comment #223171

Eric said “Speaking of nonexistent boogeymen, what about global warming?

98% of the scientist from around the world are wrong and Eric is right?”

Please Eric, write an other article about the intellectual elitist on the left.

Posted by: 037 at June 14, 2007 6:49 AM
Comment #223181

Eric-
We had superb kill-ratios in Vietnam. Whatever you believe about what lost us that war, the kill-ratio didn’t win the war. Attrition only works when the soldiers are not easily replaceable.

Meanwhile, our Our own goverment’s figures tell us that the terrorist’s ranks are increasing. This isn’t about doing nothing. It’s about doing something that isn’t giving the advantage to the enemy.

You think it’s about keeping up a brave front, about not admitting defeat at any cost. That’s superficial. The truth is, victory and defeat over these enemies is about find appropriate and effective ways to confront them. Iraq has been neither. It’s made the problem worse. You can keep on telling yourself that it’s going to get better if we keep at it, but that’s what you’ve said all along as things have gotten worse.

The time has come to stop beating the dead horse that is the Iraq war. Everybody can smell that this nag is rotting, why can’t you? The time has come to move on to a more effective policy for combatting al-Qaeda and its children.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 14, 2007 10:51 AM
Comment #223368

al Qaida and all other terrorists are CRIMINALS, they are not NATIONS. Treat terrorists like the CRIMINALS they are, and they will defeat themselves. We elect to treat them like NATIONS, so they flourish…surprise, surprise!?!

Posted by: Marysdude at June 17, 2007 10:54 PM
Comment #223517

Eric,

Your post is 100% correct. I responded to a post on the leftist side of this blog about the support the U.S. is getting from some of our Islamic allies. My objective was to give references from a typically anti-American veiwpoint, so I used Al Jazeera reports for most of my references. As I was researching I found an increasing pattern of more positive articles in favor of the U.S. and its allies from Al Jazeera than from our own Press agencies here in America. It was quite eye-opening! I never expected to find Al Jazeera reporting about the support that the U.S. was getting from other Islamic countries, and how these typically anti-American reporters were giving a much more objective view of the War on Terror and the work of our allies. Needless to say, my response to the lefty post was not taken too well when I used Al Jazeera as my source.

JD

Posted by: JD at June 19, 2007 9:59 PM
Comment #223695

It’s simple. Compare:

CNN (America) with CNN international.

Time Magazine (American) to Time (international).

Are the “international” versions Anti-American? Is the BBC anti-American? You have been indoctrinated into the Limbaugh mantra of liberal bias. You seem to think that news reports who question the corporate-backed power elite they are somehow left wing. No, they are just being diligent.

Compare any network, international news, coverage to the BBC, international news, coverage. You dont get a left wing view from the BBC, you get a wider perspective. I realize it may be a more complex story than a bumber sticker can give, but that’s life.

Btw, If you really want to see what a left wing news show looks like, check out Democracy Now at www.democracynow.org

Posted by: Matthew at June 21, 2007 8:37 PM
Post a comment