Spinning for John McCain: WAPO Lends "Credibility" to Charles Black

Never let an opportunity to war- and fear-monger pass.  That's been the apparent motto at major "news" outlets in the wake of 9-11.  Why stop now?  

This week, the Washington Post once again demonstrated just how complicit it is the the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld deceptions on the "necessity"  of (endless) war and the fear mongering about "terror."  They carry water for the McCain (false) claim of superiority on the terrorism issue.

Jonathan Weisman and Anne E. Kornblut ("Ring of Truth to Black's Terror Comments?")suggest that there's truth in Charles Black's despicable claim that a terrorist attack would benefit John McCain.  Give the headline writer his or her dues as well.  The headline is as despicable as it is outrageous.
By design, readers are given an up-front biased impression that such an hypothetical event would advantage McCain and that a vote for Obama would make us less safe.  The opposite is true, but who cares when there's a propaganda message to relay?  Here's the first paragraph:

Sen. Barack Obama and his surrogates continued to criticize Charles R. Black Jr., a top adviser to Sen. John McCain, on Tuesday for saying a terrorist attack before the November election would help the presumptive Republican nominee. But behind their protests lay a question that has dogged Democrats since Sept. 11, 2001: Was Black speaking the truth?

Read their lopsidedly pro-McCain spin here If there are any readers left by the end of the article, there are a few bones thrown to look "fair" and "balanced." But the attempt to damage Obama was already done.  I doubt this attempt will be successful.  But the attempt was made anyway to use reporters of a major newspaper to impart a partisan message.  

Weisman and Kornblut wait until page two of the article to finally include this statement:

"If something like an October surprise would happen, it would remind people about many of the Bush administration failures, that Osama bin Laden is on the loose, that al-Qaeda is stronger, that we've not been successful in pursuing foreign policy objectives," said former congressman Timothy J. Roemer (D-Ind.), another former 9/11 Commission member and an Obama homeland security adviser. "And I think those are strikes in favor of our argument for change."

But the authors also condescendingly state that Obama is merely building his profile.  And what, exactly by way of profile does John McCain have?  His forty-plus-years-ago Viet Nam heroism, while laudable,  has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with running a country or having good judgment.  He rubber stamped the worst excesses of this administration.  John McCain's flip-flops and hypocrisies take pages to enumerate and document(stay tuned).  And McCain never levels with Americans that in may instances insurgents are quiet for now because they are, as in al Anbar province, being paid (with our money).  We continue to hear examples of McCain's poor grasp of issues (he doesn't really know much about economics), conflation of factions in Iraq (doesn't seem to know Shiite from Sunni or Al Qaeda from local insurgents), and he sees no problem with unlimited war and dozens of permanent bases in Iraq.  Where is WAPO on this story?  Will they once again create a teflon caricature of John McCain and trot it out right through November?

The good news is that Americans are finally waking up to the cry-wolf alarms of GWB and John McCain.  Most Americans know that Barack Obama will be a strong leader, who uses the very same Pentagon and and Homeland Security departments that the current (or any future) Republican presidents use.  They know that he's a smart, strong and moral leader who will keep us safe.  They know he'll rebuild alliances with friendly nations and work constructively to solve vexing problems with others.  They know that a wrecked economy (legacy of GWB and McCain) hurts our nation's security too.  They also know that Obama will use better judgment than either John McCain or George W. Bush.  

The bad news is that we have a major newspaper, which with a few exceptions, is increasingly a propaganda arm of the White House.  Media reform has never been more urgent.

The fact is that the Bush administration failed us on 9-11. While it is unclear that anyone could have prevented 9-11, it is clear that George W. Bush didn't even try.  Ignoring warnings, George W. Bush went on protracted vacation.

Presumably, he is trying now.  But playing the fear card for political points is no way to fight a war on "terror."  Indeed, one begins to wonder just who is terrorizing whom.  And despite everyone's best efforts, should there be another terrorist attack on US soil, our government would have failed us again.  In what parallel universe does Charles Black imply that Republican failure on the terrorism front is evidence of its own success?  And they'll do what WAPO has only too willingly done of late--relish pushing the panic button so voters will do the bidding of contractors WAPO loves (and gets revenue from).

Charles Black is in apparent hiding.  McCain supposedly repudiated Black's statement.  Tellingly, McCain has not fired Black.  No need, John McCain has said as much on other occasions and plays the fear card himself.  GWB must be very proud!  No need (to fire Black), also, because WAPO is doing his work for him.

Still, we can count on a miserable few months in which Bush and McCain try to trump up evidence, incite fear and ramp us up to another conflict.  It's the stuff of nightmares.  Fortunately, Barack Obama will lead us from this nightmare and afford real protection against terrorism.  And he won't try to terrorize us himself.  God knows, we've had enough of that.  But you can bet that Anne E. Kornblut and Jonathan Weisman will be at the ready to twist and contort the issues, as they have done in this article.

So my question: Are you ready for some rapid response?  Both now and beyond Election Day 2008, the need is great.  Onward...

Comments