Best of the Web Today - December 29, 2006
By JAMES TARANTO
Best of the Tube This Weekend: James Taranto joins the panel on "The Journal Editorial Report," discussing the outlook for 2007 with Paul Gigot, Dan Henninger, Steve Moore and Naomi Riley. Fox News Channel, Saturday 11 p.m. EST and Sunday 6 a.m. EST.
City to Ford: Drop Dead
"In honor of former President Gerald Ford, federal offices, courts, and post offices will be CLOSED on Tuesday, January 2. The NY Stock Exchange and NASDAQ will also be closed. However, City and state government offices, courts, and schools will be OPEN on Tuesday."--New York City Web site, Dec. 29
Hang Time
One man who probably won't be ringing in the new year Sunday night is Iraq's former dictator. ABC News reports from Washington:
Saddam Hussein will remain in U.S. custody until he is taken to his execution, which is expected to happen over the weekend, a senior U.S. defense official tells ABC News.
Even when he is taken to the gallows, the United States will be guarding him, and he will effectively be in joint U.S.-Iraqi custody.
The tight U.S. security surrounding Saddam during his final hours is meant to eliminate the risk of a last-minute attack or escape. As one official said, "We don't want to have to find him hiding in a hole again."
Earlier, the Associated Press reported, Saddam issued an odd farewell letter in which he "called on Iraqis not to hate the U.S.-led forces that invaded Iraq in 2003." Don't hate us because we're America the Beautiful!
The editorialists at the New York Times are fretting over what they call, in a headline, "The Rush to Hang Saddam Hussein":
This week, in a cursory 15-minute proceeding, an appeals court upheld that sentence and ordered that it be carried out posthaste. Most Iraqis are now so preoccupied with shielding their families from looming civil war that they seem to have little emotion left to spend on Mr. Hussein or, more important, on their own fading dreams of a new and better Iraq.
Once again, the Times editorialists don't seem to be reading the Times news pages. As the New York Sun's Daniel Freedman points out, the Times itself carried a report three weeks ago belying the claim that Iraqis are apathetic about Saddam's pending execution:
One of the most coveted jobs in Iraq does not yet exist: the executioner for Saddam Hussein. The death sentence against Mr. Hussein is still under review by an appeals court, but hundreds of people have already started lobbying the prime minister's office for the position.
Anyway, let it be noted that the New York Times, which is unhappy that Saddam is being brought to justice too quickly, has been complaining for years that the U.S. is too slow to charge detainees at Guantanamo Bay with war crimes. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Should the Press Cut and Run?
Reader Russ Vaughn makes an interesting point about the disconnect between the servicemen who fight our wars and the media that inform us about them. The latter, he argues, perpetuate "the image of our military as being made up and led by those only minimally competent":
This they do by constantly reporting the negative aspects of the war with heightened emphasis on those events which portray our military in a negative light. With such reporting, they create and perpetuate an image of an enemy far more clever and cunning than our own forces. When they do occasionally report on an American success in battle, it's done in an almost ho-hum, so whaddaya expect with our overwhelming strength and technological superiority? tone. Yet murderous attacks against hapless civilians by those with minimal fighting skills are breathlessly depicted as daring and ingenious military feats.
If there is one constant complaint coming from our troops, it is this misreporting of the war by the media, which, I feel, share the same contempt for our service members as Charles Rangel, John Kerry and so many other liberal elitists.
A small but telling example comes in the course of a Reuters report on the latest fighting in Somalia:
More than a decade ago, U.S. forces backed by Black Hawk helicopters suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of militiamen attacking from the city's maze of back alleys.
Reader Steve Tolle comments:
As an Army veteran who had a couple of buddies involved in the Black Hawk Down incident, I take a bit of umbrage at the characterization of a "humiliating defeat."
In the cold calculations of war, the numbers say otherwise. We had 18 soldiers killed and around 70 wounded while inflicting casualties on the enemy of up to 1,000 fighters killed and unknown numbers wounded. We retreated back to the main base in relatively good order while under fire the whole time. We had soldiers who came out of the fight that went back in to help their fellow soldiers. We did all of this against fighters who hid behind women and children while attacking.
We had two Special Forces soldiers win the Medal of Honor posthumously for their efforts to defend one of the downed helicopter's crew. They knew it would be two against hundreds, but went anyway because they were not going to leave any Americans behind.
It was the politicians and media, not the soldiers, which turned this battle into anything other than what it was: a group of U.S. Army soldiers, vastly outnumbered in a hostile city, fighting with bravery and skill, getting themselves out of a bad situation. I don't consider that a defeat, let alone a humiliating one.
Journalists tend not to respond well to such criticism. In his "TV Hall of Shame" for 2006, Eric Deggans, television critic for the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times, denounces "claims that journalists suppress good news from Iraq":
Statistics proving the Iraq War is the most deadly conflict in history for journalists didn't stop these boneheaded accusations from conservative pundits and war hawks. Even as first lady Laura Bush was insisting to MSNBC last week that journalists weren't reporting "good news," the Iraq Study Group report maintained the media was underreporting violence in Iraq, by not tabulating attacks that don't affect U.S. personnel. But with 126 journalists and support staff dead so far, perhaps the Ann Coulters of the world could ease up on reporters who are risking their lives.
Deggans doesn't actually dispute the contention that journalists suppress good news; he merely suggests that because war reporting is a dangerous business, it is bad form to criticize journalists. Meanwhile, Reuters treats military deaths that haven't even happened as a reason to further the propaganda of those who oppose the military's mission:
In Kansas City, they will light candles and lay out more than 80 pairs of empty combat boots. In Chicago, anti-war activists will hand out black ribbons, each bearing the name of a U.S. soldier killed in Iraq.
And in New Haven, Connecticut, opponents of the war plan to read aloud the names of 3,000 dead U.S. soldiers.
In all, organizers say some 140 demonstrations in 37 states are planned to mark the 3,000th U.S. military death in Iraq, a milestone that is likely only days away.
Can we expect a similar report anticipating, say, the 150th journalistic casualty in Iraq? We're not holding our breath. Journalists are quite proud of their own profession's sacrifices, as evidenced by the Deggans column and by this report from the Canadian Press:
The deteriorating situation in Iraq coupled with the targeted killings of reporters in several countries made 2006 the deadliest year on record for journalists, the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression report.
At least 82 journalists lost their lives as a direct result of their work--up from about 60 the previous year--with war zones proving the most dangerous locales, the group reports.
"A lot of those journalists were killed in war zones, particularly Iraq, where 39 journalists, at least, lost their lives this year," said Julie Payne, manager of the Toronto-based group.
We don't ever remember a journalist saying that war reporting just isn't worth the risk--that the networks, wire services and newspapers should cut and run from Iraq or any other war zone.
Do journalists think theirs is a more noble calling than the liberation of a country?
Where'd Harry Go Wrong?
"You know, education--if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."--John Kerry*, Oct. 30
"Prince Harry Off to Iraq"--headline, Daily Telegraph (Australia), Dec. 29
* "I'm sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did."
What Would We Do Without Experts?
"Experts say that cloning is too expensive to be used to make animals only to then grind them into hamburger or even to milk them."--New York Times, Dec. 29
'Time Is on My Side'
"A Great Century of Rolling Stones"--headline, Jewish Exponent (Philadelphia), Dec. 14
"Diapers Not the Solution for Stones"--headline, St. Petersburg Times, Dec. 28
In Search of New Worlds to Surrender To
"Planet-Hunting Satellite to Be Launched Today by French Agency"--headline, Bloomberg, Dec. 27
'I Shoulda Carried My Own Bag!'
"Porter Blamed for Missing Body"--headline, Times (Munster, Ind.), Dec. 27
Unless There's a Mind Reader Around
"Microsoft's Vista Not as Secure as Thought"--headline, San Jose Mercury News, Dec. 27
What Other Species Do Our Emails Protect?
"Protecting Polar Bears: Your E-Mails"--headline, CNN.com, Dec. 28
Why Move the Whole Country if We Can Just Send Some Emails?
"U.S. Moves to Protect Polar Bears"--headline, CBSNews.com, Dec. 27
The Guys Who Do It Work for Tips
"Male Circumcision Economical"--headline, African News Dimension, Dec. 26
That Was Hard Film!
"Edward Norton: I Broke 3 Vertebrae on Film"--headline, CNN.com, Dec. 28
Detroit's Latest Woes
"Ford Assassination Attempts Recalled"--headline, Associated Press, Dec. 27
News You Can Use
"Holidays a Time to Stay Safe"--headline, Leader-Herald (Gloversville, N.Y.), Dec. 29
Bottom Stories of the Day
o "John Doe Hearing Staying Secret"--headline, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Dec. 26
o "Branson Has No Plans to Build Bahrain Spaceport, Spokesman Says"--headline, Bloomberg, Dec. 28
o "John Edwards Runs Again for the Presidency"--headline, MSNBC.com, Dec. 28
o "CBS Doesn't Air Special Report on Ford"--headline, Associated Press, Dec. 27
o "Jesse Jackson Says Saddam Shouldn't Be Executed"--headline, Associated Press, Dec. 29
A Pioneer of Pallor
The Minneapolis Star Tribune has a "D.C. dispatch" that at first glance seems a silly but harmless puff piece about a new Democratic senator:
Sen.-elect Amy Klobuchar could be considered a pioneer on many fronts. The Minnesota Democrat is the state's first woman to be elected to the Senate. (Muriel Humphrey was appointed).
At 46, she's also the youngest of this year's incoming senators. Washington insiders, buzzing about the Generation X flavor of some of Congress' new arrivals, are taking note of names heretofore never to grace election certificates on Capitol Hill.
Among them: "Kirsten" and "Amy."
This, according to the Washington Post's Reliable Source column, which called the freshman Minnesota senator "Congress' first Amy."
But why would the Strib get so excited about the "first Amy"? Well, according to Slate, Amy is the second "whitest" girl's name in America. Could there be an insidious racial subtext here?
opinionjournal.com |
