Three groups are waging a spectacularly unified propaganda war against the Israeli military, the U.S. military and the Bush administration. They are the liberal media outlets, liberals in the U.S. Congress and the United Nations. In a world with a 24/7 microscopic news cycle, one statement that is twisted, misunderstood or misrepresented can sway public opinion and political reaction more than 1,000 tanks and 10,000 bombs.
The liberal media outlets basically refuse to call the members of Hezbollah, Hamas or our enemies in Iraq what they really are – Islamic terrorists. They most often refer to the Islamic terrorists as militiamen, militia fighters, insurgents and guerrillas. The liberal media see a moral equivalence between our soldiers and those of the enemy. Our soldiers and allies do not intentionally target innocent civilians. Islamic terrorists do.
For example, an article in the July 28 Washington Post said, "Undeterred after 16 days of attacks, Hezbollah militiamen again fired volleys of rockets into northern Israel..."
First, these so-called Hezbollah militiamen attacked Israel on its soil, which triggered the current conflict. Israel is retaliating against the Islamic terrorist organization for killing and kidnapping its soldiers and continuing to launch rockets into its homeland.
Second, Hezbollah is not a fledgling organization comprised of militiamen. Hezbollah is a well-funded and well-trained Islamic terrorist organization. It is backed by Syria and Iran and has stretched its tentacles into Lebanon's political system.
We can also see the liberal media's propaganda machine by watching White House spokesman Tony Snow's press briefings. Snow has painstakingly labored to explain to White House correspondents that a cease-fire for a cease-fire's sake will solve nothing. Numerous cease-fires have been declared in the past, and the Islamic terrorists break the agreements every time.
And yet the following question, asked at the July 24 briefing, suggests that at least this member of the press has no understanding whatsoever of this history: "When so many other world leaders and entities are saying we need a more immediate cease-fire, and the U.S. persists in this view that it must be sustainable, is it not then for people to infer that the U.S. views that crushing Hezbollah is more important than the short-term loss of civilian lives and civilian structures?"
The question is more like an accusation – accusing the administration of favoring the destruction of Hezbollah, as if this were an inherently objectionable position. Perhaps the liberal reporters do not want to get it.
Continued... |