Fraters Libertas

Lest We Forget

In case anyone was still wondering whether or not ABC’s decision to read the names of the US war dead on Nightline last Friday was an attempt to exploit these deaths for partisan political gain, Brian Lambert removes all doubt. His endorsement was in a blurb attached to the end of an entirely unrelated column about local TV news reporters:

Finally, kudos to Ted Koppel and "Nightline" for honoring this country's dead in Iraq. Koppel will devote all of this evening's edition of the show (KSTP, Channel 5, 10:35 p.m.) to reading the 700-plus names of the war dead. Since photos of war dead returning in caskets have been declared off limits in a free and open democracy, it is gratifying that someone in the media dares to flout official sanctions and show, as Koppel has said, "the cost of war."

Well, there he goes again. Positioning the Bush administration as contrary to the principles of a free and open democracy, implying their fascist control of the media with delusional allegations of “official sanctions” then embracing the images as showing the “cost of war” (a war he’s consistently editorialized against)? Media bias, thy name is Brian Lambert.

Because, remember, he’s not a news columnist - he’s an entertainment columnist. Check out the Pioneer Press web site under the roster of news columnists. Even Mrs. Nick Coleman II is listed here, and she’s usually writing about her thoughts on cooking dinner and taking out the garbage. But Lambert’s nowhere to be found.

He’s in the Entertainment roster, along with Dear Abbey and something called “The Skinny,” whose tag line is: “Funny items five times a week.” Maybe they put Lambert along side that for balance? You’ve got some funny items five times a week, then some whiny, sneering, politically biased, delusional accusations three or four times a week.

As I’ve written before, the problem with Lambert is that he’s the assigned to write about matters of TV and radio, a non-political beat. And he’s the only one at the paper doing it, no countervailing opinions are solicited. Yet, every single column he writes contains a vicious slam against the Bush administration, Republicans, or conservatives. And, oh yeah, he often writes dismissive, caustic columns ridiculing the notion that the media has a liberal bias, all from his position as the final arbiter of media opinion for the Pioneer Press. Talk about a conflict of interest.

I also notice Lambert just got a new picture taken for his column (you’ll have to pick up a copy of the paper to see it). Besides the fact he’s gained about 40 pounds since his last picture was taken, I noticed that he’s literally sneering in the picture. Caustically laughing it up about something he feels superior to. Not sure how the photographer was able to inspire that reaction. My guess is he asked Lambert to think about the Pioneer Press readership.

Getting back to the Nightline controversy and the question of whether their program Friday was an attempt to erode support for the war effort. I saw the eminent Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis interviewed on the Charlie Rose Show last Wednesday. He wasn’t addressing Nightline specifically, but he talked about how people in the Middle East misinterpret the culture of the United States, and that of an open, liberal democracy in general. Regarding the media portrayals emphasis on the deaths of our soldiers and the political opposition’s attacks on the Commander-in-Chief, they don’t shrug it off as a product of media bias and partisan political warfare. They take it at face value as the truth about the state of the country’s resolve. Observers in the Middle East see it as a sign of weakness for our leadership and more evidence of our lack of commitment to defeat the terrorists and Baathists in Iraq.

According to Lewis, two historical events are driving Iraqi opinion of America’s commitment to the cause. First, the 1991 Gulf war, where we encouraged a popular uprising, particularly among the Shiites, against Saddam Hussein. Then we pulled our own troops out within weeks of the war’s ending, leaving those who did take up arms to be slaughtered by the Baathist thugs. Those who would be naturally inclined to helping us now are hesitant to do so, because if we leave early again, they again would be subject to similar slaughter. Victor Davis Hanson expressed the same view on NRO this week:

Americans believe that freedom and consensual government — far from being the exclusive domain of the West — are ideals central to the human condition and the shared aspirations of all born into this world. That is the great hope we embrace now in Iraq, that as we rout those who advocate fundamentalism and intolerance, millions of others will gain confidence and join the struggle for democratic change. But until then, even as we speak, millions, sometimes in fear and silence, are watching our present efforts. They are uncertain of the outcome. They wait to pledge their allegiance to the victor, hoping, but not yet convinced, that we can defeat those who would impose tyranny and intolerance on any who would seek to reform and escape from their present misery.

The second historical event Lewis pointed to was Somalia. Whereas the 1991 Gulf War is a lesson for those who might support us, Somalia is the lesson for those who would oppose us. Simply stated, the lesson they took is: kill enough Americans, make it gruesome enough and get the right amount of publicity for it, and we’ll leave.

I’m certain this is how our pull out of Fallujah is being publicized in the fevered slums and rats nests our enemies inhabit throughout Iraq. It is giving them hope that their strategy is working and that the USA is returning to its recent risk averse habits.

Whether it was ABC News’s intent or not, the Nightline program on Friday night was exactly the type of publicity our opponents in Iraq want to see. By showing the war dead, out of context with the importance of the larger mission, you start to erode the country’s resolve. You also get guys like Brian Lambert starting to talk about showing the “cost of war”. Of course, his unsaid, yet obvious, conclusion is that this war costs too much. Rebuilding Iraq isn’t worth 700 American dead (and counting). The more Lambert and ABC News can say that to the American people, the more they can erode support for continuing this war.

I suspect their primary goal is more personal than that, specifically getting people to turn against President Bush in hopes of getting a Democrat elected as President. And if they succeed in that, I shudder to think what kind of message that will send to our potential supporters and certain opponents in Iraq. Electing as the Commander-in-Chief a man at the forefront of eroding the resolve of his countrymen during our last great national trial.