This scenario seems typical to me. Some people are outraged and want their outrage affirmed. Most people aren't outraged and that's the way the mainstream media cover it. Which increases the outrage of the outraged
This shame over-reaction seems extremely strong to me. I would ascribe it to a combination of liberal shame reaction and political opportunism, because of course, a really big outrage would help in the War Against Bush, which frankly seems to be the war that liberals are really interested in winning at the moment. I heard Sy Hersch on the radio, and he had what I thought was interested off-the-cuff reaction to the Abu Ghraib scandal, "It goes to show," he said, "that Americans are no better than anyone else when they fight wars."
My reaction was, "why don't you go interview some elderly Berliners who lived through WWII and ask them if it was really all the same to them whether they were conquered by American or Russian troops, if American troops are no better than anyone else?
Talk about an overreaction. If Americans are not plaster saints, if they too are capable of abuses, therefore they are no better than any other army? Even if they react to the abuses by court-martialing the offenders, instead of promoting them like some of the other guys do?
I thought it was a revealing comment. Beware of liberal journalists mugged by reality, that's all I can say. |
