Back in May when ABC News openly justified the media's refusal to cover the Iraq War, I thought it couldn't get worse. Then, a few months later, I saw that it could, as the Washington Post began trying to intimidate Democratic politicians and prevent them from standing up to voice opposition to the war. I figured that was rock bottom, but in recent days, we've seen that yes, the braindead insulated elitists in the Beltway media have found an even lower road to take than even this.
In the last 48 hours, we've seen the "objective" mainstream media now openly attacking people who oppose the Iraq War. Mind you, these aren't the editorialists or the opinion pundits, these are the people who are supposed to be telling the objective truth -- and instead they are literally attacking war critics.
Take MSNBC's Nora O'Donnell. In an interview with former FBI agent Coleen Rowley (now a candidate for Congress), O'Donnell claimed that Rowley "had decided to align [herself] with anti-war extremists" because Rowley visited Cindy Sheehan's supporters in Crawford. Or, take the Washington Post's Mike Allen. He said those who oppose the war are "PETA, hippies, Naderites" -- again, a blatant effort to paint those who oppose the war as fringe, even though polls show a majority of Americans oppose the war.
These nauseating examples need to be put into a context. They follow the media's open pushing of the Iraq War before the invasion and refusal to question what they knew were pre-war lies. They also come as polls show Americans oppose the war, want an exit strategy, and believe the entire mess is endangering U.S. national security. And they come even as Iraq War veterans themselves say they understand that criticism of the war is not criticism of U.S. troops.
All of that should lead any honest person to conclude one thing: other than a few truth-telling reporters, the Beltway media -- spurred on by the elitist, bipartisan foreign policy establishment that doesn't want to admit it was wrong -- actually wants the war to continue, no matter how many American casualties mount, no matter what the ramifications for U.S. national security, no matter what the consequencs for our country over the long-term.
Think about it: The reporters who cover politics are comfortably insulated from the war -- the violence and death of American soldiers to them is an interesting talking point on the Washington cocktail party circuit, nothing more. And besides, they cynically look at it all as a spectacle that makes for good TV -- rather than a national security crisis, and a human disaster.
I'm not sure what's next from the media -- although we've already gotten a taste. Some local television stations are actually refusing to air anti-war groups' ads, moving this media problem from one of gross dishonesty, into one of actually gagging people and infringing upon the First Amendment. Will it ever end? Stay tuned, I guess.