Some thoughts on John Leo's "Our latest 'quagmire'"

The highly regarded and widely respected John Leo, resident conservative at U.S. News magazine, takes his smart-alecky colleagues to task in this silver-tongue, no-holds-barred delightfully delicious exposé.

Somebody had to do it, and who better to shame the bumptious, insolent egotists of elite media central than Mr. Journalistic ombudsman/connoisseur par excellance himself?

But, if I may be so bold, I'd like to add a few humble observations of my own.

The problem he describes, by my lights, goes beyond mere 'herd mentalitiy/'pack journalism' and -- it would seem -- onto something a bit more sinister.

There seems to be a method behind the (journalistic) madness, if you will.

A comparisan of how the press tended to cover Clinton's air war over Serbia three years ago, versus it's handling of the Bush administration's war on terrorism, betrays interesting patterns of dissimilarities -- which you not expect if pack journalism were the only dynamic.

The press, to put it mildly, was far more deferential, far tamer and passive during Clinton's Operation Allied Force. Indeed, the media exercised remarkably uncommon restraint during the three month long air war, ostensbily waged to put the kabosh to Serbian-led "ethnic cleansing" in Kosovo (a charge never proven, btw), summarily dismissing and/or pooh-poohing claims of civilian casusalties from Belgrade as just so much enemy propaganda. Despite the weeks and weeks of aerial bombing with little or nothing to show for, rarely would the "Q" word appear in day-to-day media accounts of the conflict.. To say press criticism was muted would be a vast understatement.

By now we all know the very antithesis has been the case with Clinton's Republican successor thus far. Taliban propaganda, rather than summarily dismissed as enemy bluster, is instead eagerly and wittingly embraced as gospel truth. Unsubstantiated claims of civilian casualities, no matter how ridiculous, far-fetched or needlessly inflamatory, are given the red-carpet treatment.

Why the difference? Why the reluctance on the part of the press to criticize Clinton's actions in Yugoslavia versus the cacophony/feeding frenzy of second-guessing and armchair generalism regarding Bush's war on terrorism?

At the risk of stating the obvious, I chalk it up to a corrosive -- and highly pervasive -- blind partisan bias among beltway "reporters". Clearly, the press anxiously yearned for Clinton to triumph over Milosevic, particularly since military victory held out the *hope* of trumping Lewinsky in the legacy department.

In contrast, the media thirsts for an Afghani quagmire -- to see Bush bogged down on an issue hitherto which has played to Republican strength: To wit, matters of war and peace - of national security.

Prior to the Northern Alliance's stunning string of battlefield victories and the collapse of the Taliban, the media had hoped the growing drumbeat of 'unsettling' "reports" of collateral damage and the dour, pessimistic ambiance in the reportage gradually would erode public support for the war and fray its resolve and determination.

In short, the press was waging an insidious 'air war' of its own, so to speak, 'carpet-bombing' the public ferociously with cynical, defeatist, gloom-and-doom 'quagmire' doubletalk in their cocerted effort to Vietnamize the war in Afghanistan.

No less than R.W. Apple, silk-stocking patrician of liberal opinion himself, drooled with euphoria in a rambling screed, pre-dating the Northern Alliance sweep, over "echoes" of Vietnam in Afghanistan.

As went Pravda West, predictably, so went much of the goose-steping liberal media echo-chamber, with gusto and relish.

Poring over the daily wire dispatches and surveying the crazy nightly cable gab-shows. a newly arrived space alien might conclude American forces had just been quashed ignominously at the hands of a jerry-built army of ramshacks on the battlefield -- in no time flat, to boot.

Then came the Seymour Hersh "bombshell", published in the November 2 issue of the lefty New Yorker magazine. Mr. Hersh claimed the 100 Delta Force troops and several hundred Army Rangers gunning for Mullah Omar's compound were humiliated into retreat by Taliban soldiers. The mission ended with 12 American soldiers injured, 3 of them seriously, so claimed the "veteran" "reporter", laying it on thicker and heavier as he went.

Hersh even quoted a senior officer who supposedly confessed to him that the Taliban "scared the crap out of everyone".

Yeah, sure.

Notwithstanding flatout denials from the Military's top brass, including Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers, a liberal media myth had been born: To wit, the invicinible Taliban.

William Kristol, McCain's always obliging little lap-dog and -- like Johnny himself -- self-promoting, darling golden boy of the beltway media, became an ad nauseam fixture on the idiot box, smirking as he chanted the stale, conventional "wisdom" of the moment, namely, that America was careening down the slope to military defeat in Afghanistan, that Bush was a gonner, another one-termer -- that is, of course, unless the White House wised up in time and began following the sage military counsel magnanmously proffered by (armchair) General William Kristol. Interestingly, his advice was for Bush to deploy a large scale number of ground troops, believing, as much of the media mistakenly did, that the Northern Alliance was not up to the task.

Even the National Review got a case of cold feet, panicking that Bush wasn't using sufficient air power. Then again, what should one expect from nervous nellies frightened by the biting wit of Ann Coulter?

Well, like they say, what a difference two weeks can make, indeed. In retrospect, Kristol looks like an even bigger buffoon than before, if that's even conceivable. The ignoramus pinheads at his Weekly Standard are retreating faster than the Taliban. Some are even now indulging in shameless revisionist audacity, claiming that, golly gee, Bush was following their advice afer all!

Er, only one itsy-bitsy problem with that: Where are the large number of ground forces, eh?

But alas! For the rabid pack of scorning Bush-haters in liberal media-land, hope springs eternal.

With *quagmire* out of window, the talk du jour now is of looming 'civil war' (which makes me wonder what Galaxy these morons have been inhabiting the last twenty years); the press is hoping efforts to cobble together a broad, ethnically diverse coalition government in Kabul will fail, throwing the country into wholesale chaos and bloody, internecine tribal warfare.

Wait a sec -- stop the presses!

Not so fast: Wasn't the media, oh, say a week ago, claiming the Taliban had not been defeated; that abandoning the capital and other key cities to the Northern Alliance was nothing more than strategic retreat (yeah! yeah! that's the ticket!); and that soon, very soon, from the caves of Afghanistan, will emerge a powerful, menancing guerilla army, to pick off American and British troops like the Soviets of yesteryear, dooming the government in Kabul?

Gee, which is it?

Here's my intrepid prediction: The sun will rise tomorrow and the presstitutes will be proven wrong, yet again.

A caretaker government will likely emerge in Kabul, pockets of Taliban resistence will be crushed, and Osama Bin Laden, folk hero of the beltway media, will be on his way to Hell, where he belongs.

My two cents...
"JohnHuang2"

Quote of the day by atafak

At the risk of stating the obvious, I chalk it up to a corrosive -- and highly pervasive -- blind partisan bias among beltway "reporters". Clearly, the press anxiously yearned for Clinton to triumph over Milosevic, particularly since military victory held out the *hope* of trumping Lewinsky in the legacy department.

Well JH!!! You summed that up quite nicely...kudos for the entire article!!!!!!!!

Thanks JH. You've hit that nail sqare on the head!

AGAIN!

Most were still busy interviewing former Soviet soldiers on the folly of fighting in Afghanistan, since the Afghans beat the Russians and the British and held up pretty well against Alexander the Great.

"To think that another superpower would repeat our mistake and get into a quagmire is incredible," a Soviet officer turned novelist moaned to The Miami Herald.

Not to sound cocky or anything, but we ARE the United States of America. Why do so many people (domestic press included) have such little faith in our abilities to conduct a successful campaign?

We are SO further ahead technologically than the Taiban & al Quaida, it's no surprise that we had them on the run. Why the Soviets or the British couldn't accomplish this is unknown to me. What I do know is that we have the means and the resources to go in and take care of things.

One of the worst offenders in the press department is ABC's John McWethy who covers the Pentagon. He was a very early attack dog at the daily briefings. Watch both what he says and his body language.

A mention of Ann Coulter and no pictures?

Aw, darn! I haven't seen an actual quagmire since Jimmy Carter was president!

Good morning and thank you for the post. May I ask that you include "Two Cents" in your search keywords? Then I can directly access your work at FR. Thanks again!

Excellent commentaries from you both. I hope this means that "quagmire" has been relegated to the same graveyard as "gravitas." What will the next mantra be?

At the risk of stating the obvious, I chalk it up to a corrosive -- and highly pervasive -- blind partisan bias among beltway "reporters".

When will the American people wake up and realize they are being fed propaganda on a daily basis? Where is the outrage?

No, that was a "malaise" not a quagmire!

Why is it that "the media" refers to a situation during a Republican administration as a "quagmire" and as a "crisis" during democrat's occupation of The White House?

Dare we say that "the media" uses this wording in their on-going attempt to manipulate public opinion?

The technology advantage may be the problem. It is one thing to bomb Afghanistan to oblivion when that country is barely removed from the 19th century. It is another thing to create an enviroment and government in that country which will not support terroristic acts against the United States in the future. We may well have exchanged the Taliban for another ruling clique that hates the US just as much. The quagmire may well be political, with no clear advantage gained by the US despite its military success.

Splendid analyses. I couldn’t agree more, but like xp38 said where’s the picture of Ann?

I suggest any mention of Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin should include a picture and the words “These ladies hit too hard for liberals, and they’re on our side!”

The presstitute award should not be given too easily, not when there are so many candidates. Let's create a scale. 1-10 points for sympathetic statements for the Taliban. 1-10 points for Anti-American sentiment. 1-10 points for still thinking the US military is weak. The liberal press is going to have to GET OVER IT with regard to the terrorists just like they had to get over it that Gore lost the election. The Taliban and their like are just boy-buggering, women-hating, religious bigots -- RagHeads who would kill countless women and children as long as they are American. These terrorists are cancer cells -- no doctor hesitates to kill cancer cells. "Poverty" is not the root-cause, it is the anti-modern current that runs through the entire culture of these people. Get Over IT. This is the HOLEY MONTH OF BOMB-adon. LET'S ROLL!!!

bttt to jh2

Outstanding article.

I'd add FR's own amen corner against the war faithfully repeating stupid journalists of their own ilk as well.

Excellent read! Now I wish he'd do one on "slippery slopes".

That's another stupid sounding over played media-phrase that's always bugged me.

Bravo bump good sir...

"Well, like they say, what a difference two weeks can make, indeed. In retrospect, Kristol looks like an even bigger buffoon than before, if that's even conceivable."

I honestly didn't think it was conceivable, however with Kristol, anything is possible. I wonder who is buying the Weekly Standard these days? Great read, John!