Of course, it could be that I am reading from and listening to the wrong sources (I don’t have a television set so I can’t be watching), but it seems to me that the news media is swallowing hook, line, and sinker (I have been wanting to use that cliché all my life!) what the Obama regime is saying about its support of the so-called “rebels” in Syria.
Unless I am mistaken, they are “goodies” (fighting the “baddies”) and are “freedom-fighters” seeking to get rid of a dictator (when did he become a dictator? by the way) and bring democracy to their country.
No one, it seems, reports that they are criminals and gangsters who resort to kidnapping (unless “goodies” are permitted to resort to heinous crimes because we say that they are “goodies”).
This was brought home to me when I received a report from an Armenian news source that the son of a well-to-do Aleppo Armenian family has been kidnapped and is being held ransom by the “rebels.” The report indicated that kidnapping for ransom is not new with the “rebels”––”…recently the kidnappings have become frequent…. They usually kidnap members of well-provided families in order to demand a ransom.”
If it isn’t “new,” why hasn’t it been reported––and reported more often? Could it be that our media still sees itself as the cheerleaders for the administration (whether Repugnant Party or Dummycrat Party) when it decides to make intrusions into the internal affairs of other countries? It would appear that the cheerleading media learned no lessons from the lies told by one of our presidents about all those weapons of mass destruction we would be finding all over Iraq, when it undertook that glorious adventure.
Reading between the lines and reading some foreign sources, it would appear that the winner between America and Iraq is Iran. But, I digress.
According to Washington, and repeated by the cheerleaders, Iraq is better off today than under Saddam even though, for instance, there still isn’t 24-hour electricity, some streets are open sewers, and corruption exists. But from these foreign reports, for instance, I learn that more than half the Christians of Iraq (who had a good life under Saddam) have fled the country, and local Imams have now instituted a “tax” on the remaining Christians for the “right to live in a Muslim country.” And, some Imams have told Christian fathers that they must marry their daughters to Muslims, which may explain why those Christians with children are fleeing Iraq.
I asked the question (above) when Assad became a “baddie”? Permit me to expand that question: “When did the recently fallen dictators became dictators or, more accurately, “baddies”? After all, for years and years America had been getting into bed with the dictators of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and now Syria, and had been providing them with money and arms and who knows what else.
At no time did I read or hear of America saying to these leaders, “Ease up a bit; give the people some rights; win elections by 60 to 40 and not 99 to 1 so that the people think they are having a say; don’t put all the money we send you into foreign bank accounts, spend a couple of dollars on the people.” Etc.
But, when their subjugated people rise up, suddenly America joins in and says that it supports the “rebels” because “we want to bring democracy” to those countries–when we didn’t give a Yankee-Doodle-damn about the lack of democracy the day before the uprisings.
Does the word “hypocrisy” come to mind?
But, what is the excuse for our media? Why has it abdicated its role to ask “Why?”? Why does it not ask the President or the Secretary of State, “Didn’t you tell us, last week, that [name the dictator] was such a good man and that we were going to send him more money? So, when did he became bad?”
Does the word “sycophant” come to mind? Or, are the more-accurate words “incompetent” and “lazy”?
Filed under: Local SPJ Blog