LAT: 'Suggestions By U.S. Politicians' That Pakistan be Attacked Has No Mention of Obama

Newsbusters.org ^ | 8/10/07 | Warner Todd Huston

[Mobile Vulgus]

The L.A. Times has morphed Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama's over-the-top campaign rhetoric that he would attack Pakistan into "suggestions by U.S. politicians that American forces unilaterally strike" that country. But, no where did the story mention Obama, nor that no Administration officials are advocating such a move. How is it that Obama's absurd gaffe has suddenly become a U.S. political policy that the Pakistanis fear is impossible to know, but the way the L.A.Times wrote the story, one would cast blame on the Bush Administration instead of Obama for this slight to Musharraf and the Pakistani government.

The story written by Laura King revolves around Musharraf's increasing security concerns and calls for him to step back from power. It also reveals the fact that Musharraf is sending prime minister Shaukat Aziz to the jirga (a traditional council) in Afghanistan instead of attending himself, a move that supposedly surprised the Bush Administration. According to the L.A.Times, one of the reasons Musarraf made this decision is because U.S. "officials" are saying we should invade his country. But the only person who said such a thing in such a public forum was Barack Obama, who's hardly in a position to be setting U.S. policy toward Pakistan. Yet, the Times acts as if the U.S. government is advocating for just such an attack which, in the way the Times writes, makes it seems as if this is a Bush gaffe.

Pakistan has been angry over official and unofficial suggestions by U.S. politicians that American forces unilaterally strike Al Qaeda figures believed to be taking shelter in Pakistan's tribal lands if Musharraf's government fails to do so.

Pakistan, which is in the midst of a major military offensive against militants in the semiautonomous border region, said any such U.S. action would violate its sovereignty.

Why no mention of Barack Obama and the scolding he has taken for his over-the-top rhetoric?

Does anyone doubt that if a Republican candidate had said something on the campaign trail that caused a foreign ally to react in such a visceral way that the L.A.Times would waste no time in linking that candidate's name to such a story, regardless if his rhetoric was "official" or not?

Don't get me wrong, I think the Pakistanis have every reason and right to be indignant at Obama's rhetoric and if we ever undertook such a strike, it would be an abrogation of that country's sovereignty -- no matter if we felt we had to do it or not. So they have every right to be upset over the comment even from just a junior Senator on the campaign trail. Obama is an "official" U.S. politician, after all. From the Pakistani view point he is not much separated from the Bush Administration.

But the L.A.Times knows better. They know that Obama does not represent at any time the official policy of either the Bush Administration or the United States. They know better than to classify Obama's comments as "official and unofficial suggestions."

Unfortunately for us, this effort by the Times to obscure Obama's place in this story, though, makes it all appear to be the "government's" fault which makes it ultimately the Bush Administration's fault. And that is, in the end, just what they want.

(read more at Newsbusters.org)

[Mobile Vulgus]

It's Bush's fault that Obama made a fool of himself... and US!

[BenLurkin]

There’s a a reason why the LAT omits mention of Obamarambo.

The entire purpose of the article is to create the illusion that he was not making a gaffe.

[econjack]

How is it that Obama's absurd gaffe has suddenly become a U.S. political policy that the Pakistanis fear is impossible to know, ...

Do you really need to ask this question? The LAT did this because it has already "elected" Obama in its own mind and it gives them a chance to deflect stupidity away from their darling to everyone else.

[rockinqsranch]

Appears his ears would actually fit in his mouth. First I’ve ever thought of Ear in Mouth.

LAT has to be one of the most Liberal of the fishwraps...easily up there with the NYT.

[Turret Gunner A20]

Why anybody buys that lying fish-wrapper I will never understand.

[Brilliant]

It just illustrates how dispicably bias the media is.

[Savage Beast]

As far as I can tell, Barak Obama is THE ONLY American politician who has advocated invading Pakistan, and his statement was obviously a gaffe that he had not thought out clearly. Anybody can tell this.

Yet this article appears to suggest that many American politicians actually advocate such foolishness and that it is under serious consideration by influential American leaders. This is a dangerous and frightening distortion of the truth!

Distortion of information--and this is an excellent example!--by news organizations, which amounts to propaganda, is dangerous. Not only does it dangerously misinform the American people; it also misinforms people of other nations.

Apparantly, whoever produced this article considered it a good idea to protect Barak Obama and other Democrats. It probably seemed like a worthy thing to do. It also probably seemed worthy to advance their empowerment and, at worst, a harmless bit of streamlining.

Assuming the best--! What it amounts to is disinformation--very dangerous disinformation.

This is why the pubilic confidence in news organizations and "journalists" is rock bottom!

[starfish923]

It's Bush's fault that Obama made a fool of himself... and US!

Whew! I thought you were going to say that it was Haliburton's fault. Of course it's Bush's fault. What else would our media say? Their chorus of Sleazywoodians and other left wing America-bashers are more predictable than spam.

[Mobile Vulgus]

...well, it might not be Haliburton’s fault... but they’re gettin’ rich over it!! Whatever it is. No, I mean it...they..they MUST be gettin’ rich? Even a little?

CHENEY DID IT!

HA!

[DGHoodini]

What else does one of honest intellect expect from the LA Times but the usual Dim & Gimmie Party lies?

[Bladerunnuh]

Obama’s state of the Union would begin with—”The prophet willing, the state of the union is sound” (ulating)

[SunkenCiv]

Note: this topic is from 8/10/07. Thanks Mobile Vulgus (and author Warner Todd Huston) -- The L.A. Times has morphed Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama's over-the-top campaign rhetoric that he would attack Pakistan into "suggestions by U.S. politicians that American forces unilaterally strike" that country. But, no where did the story mention Obama... How is it that Obama's absurd gaffe has suddenly become a U.S. political policy... the way the L.A.Times wrote the story, one would cast blame on the Bush Administration instead of Obama for this slight to Musharraf and the Pakistani government. The story written by Laura King...