Fisking the L.A.Times

The L.A. Times has barely managed to rise above hack status recently, but a review in their op-ed pages just reflects how truly over the edge they've gone. Their editorial review of "The Power of Nightmares", a program to run on the BBC (where else) shows us how the L.A. Times lost touch with American interests a long time ago. Consider some of what they say about this documentary.

To even raise the question amid all the officially inspired hysteria is heretical, especially in the context of the U.S. media's supine acceptance of administration claims relating to national security. Yet a brilliant new BBC film produced by one of Britain's leading documentary filmmakers systematically challenges this and many other accepted articles of faith in the so-called war on terror.

Now call me crazy, but I see questioning of all aspects of the WOT everyday in our media. Every day is met by a new chorus singing the faults of everything that Bush and Rumsfeld have done. Also note, "officially inspired hysteria." That's funny, because aside from the leftist nutjobs, I haven't really seen much hysteria. The occasional report gets to us that OBL might be planning something (Duh) but I've hardly seen people running through the streets proclaiming the end to be upon us. In addition, I am sure that if a terrorist attack did take place on American soil, the L.A. Times would be among the first to blame the President for not doing enough to prepare and defend us. Here area few of the "tough" questions that the program "dares" to ask.

If Osama bin Laden does, in fact, head a vast international terrorist organization with trained operatives in more than 40 countries, as claimed by Bush, why, despite torture of prisoners, has this administration failed to produce hard evidence of it?

I'm sorry, what? What hard evidence does the L.A. Times need to be convinced that OBL runs a massive organization. We've had dozens of groups perpetrating attacks around the world since 9/11, and they all claim allegiance to OBL. What other hard evidence do you need? They willingly claim to be a part of OBL's umbrella corporation. Don't forget to notice the brief reference to torture slipped in either. We can't have a report about the WOT without mentioning that.

How can it be that in Britain since 9/11, 664 people have been detained on suspicion of terrorism but only 17 have been found guilty, most of them with no connection to Islamist groups and none who were proven members of Al Qaeda?

Where to begin with this one? The report fails to mention that only 17 have been found guilty so far because many are still awaiting trial. Second, I would like to see some research that suggests that "most have no connection to Islamist groups." Again, what criteria are we working from? Apparently, to the L.A. Times, swearing allegiance to OBL and receiving training in a terrorist camp doesn't qualify you as a member of the Islamic terror community.

Why have we heard so much frightening talk about "dirty bombs" when experts say it is panic rather than radioactivity that would kill people?

Okay, now we're just way off the deep end. There be monsters here! I have not heard one person suggest that the chaos would kill more people than the bomb's affects. Sure, chaos would be harmful. But that's part of the plan of OBL. Cause chaos. A dirty bomb would take lives, but it would also cause fear, which is what the terrorists want. Still, are they arguing that we shouldn't be worried about the bomb? Do we just need "chaos training" to make everything better?

Why did Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claim on "Meet the Press" in 2001 that Al Qaeda controlled massive high-tech cave complexes in Afghanistan, when British and U.S. military forces later found no such thing?

What planet are these people living on? We've found not only massive bunker systems, but whole computer systems set up in them. We've found discs full of info, papers detailing plans, and lots of weapons. This is a well documented fact.

But the film, both more sober and more deeply provocative than Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," directly challenges the conventional wisdom by making a powerful case that the Bush administration, led by a tight-knit cabal of Machiavellian neoconservatives, has seized upon the false image of a unified international terrorist threat to replace the expired Soviet empire in order to push a political agenda.

Okay, listen. I'm tired of this term getting thrown around by the left as if it means something dark and nefarious. The term "neocon" means one thing. It is a reference to former liberals who have come over to the Republican side of the aisle because of issues of defense and sometimes economic issues. There is no such thing as a neocon controlled wing of the party. Plenty of neocons are pacifistic. All it means is that they're former liberals. But of course, this is exactly why the left reserves all their venom for this group. These are people who, according to the left, knew the truth at one point but walked away from it. These people were priviledged with a seat at the great table of liberalism and dared to leave to dine with the gun-toting, homophobic, war-mongering Neanderthals that are Republicans. And for that, the left will forever hate and besmirch them.



UPDATE:

Another site has picked up the story and performs their own disection.