By: Erik Rush
Fortunately, my wife and I talk a lot. If I have to explain why this is fortunate, that’s unfortunate. Every now and then, my wife will say: “Part of me wants to do [this], but part of me wants to do [that]. Still another part of me wants to [do something altogether different].” To which I usually respond: “Gee, honey – you sure got a lotta parts.” Some decisions are difficult to make; when several choices are available it can exacerbate the difficulty of the process. Indecision is a – well, it’s a much greater challenge.
I’ll give credit where credit it due once again to the good friend with whom I often pour timely political silage into this bizarre philosophical shredder we constructed. A recent email he sent began like this: “Since our kindler, gentler language today calls a border jumping felon an illegal ‘immigrant’, I’ve decided that we need new, more politically correct terminology across law enforcement. For example, bank robbery will now be known as ‘illegal borrowing’. Grand theft auto: Illegal chauffeuring. Breaking and entering: Illegal visiting. Rape: Illegal dating.” And so on.
Twisted cat that I am, of course I quickly glommed onto the train of thought. I personally thought that “unlawful entry” might be a more apt politically-correct (albeit egregiously insensitive) term for rape, but I was more interested in extrapolation than excess at the time.
So here are some more: Sodomy could come to be known as an “unlawful cavity search”, genocide as “unlawful land clearance”, murder as “unauthorized alteration of being” (or “unauthorized termination” for the atheists), and arson would become an “illegal fireworks display”.
But wait! What about the U.S. Marines who allegedly killed two dozen unarmed Iraqi civilians in Haditha, Iraq in November of 2005? They’ve already been tried and convicted by the media (which fuels the proliferation of PC thought with the equivalent of philosophical nitromethane), which will likely result in the same occurring in the court of public opinion as well as courts-martial. Whether crimes were committed or not, the American press sounds more and more like Al-Jazeera every day. Intelligent analysis suggests that they are bent on national suicide, given the assumptions that have already been made.
Three releases from June 3, 2006 alone:
US commanders knew Haditha deaths from gunfire: Reuters
GIs at Ishaqi cleared; Haditha probe open: Associated Press
Haditha killings recall Vietnam’s My Lai: Associated Press
From the first AP headline story: “In Haditha, the Marines, enraged by the loss of a comrade, stormed into nearby homes in the area and allegedly shot occupants dead as well as several men in a taxi that arrived at the scene of the blast, according to U.S. lawmakers briefed by military officials.” Re-read the sentence and it’s evident how many layers of communication through which said information had already been “whispered down the lane.” Regarding Ishaqi (the site of another alleged massacre on March 15, 2006), the evidence in support of U.S. troops was so overwhelming that Western news agencies covering the story had to admit with disappointment that there had been no massacre there, although the fringe and Arabic press is trying to keep the story alive.
So, again: Where are the “unlawful multiple weapons discharge” accusations, particularly given that our soldiers are a) in combat, b) fighting against non-uniformed combatants, and c) being directed by a seemingly irresolute chain of command? Where was the solidarity? Why was the incident at Haditha a “massacre” from Day One?
We are at war with an enemy that uses tactics for which no one in America was initially prepared. They routinely kill their own, and have demonstrated a value for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that is diametrically opposed to that which we hold dear. Yet the press hasn’t once proposed the idea that they might indeed be capable of staging a “massacre” in order to discredit American troops and demoralize Americans in general.
The media’s pathological double standard is obvious to the astute: Those with whom they sympathize can do no wrong; those with whom they do not sympathize (or for whom they hold their trademark veiled contempt) can do no right. Simple, absolute, and immature. The oxymoron of “liberal tolerance.”
Unfortunately, too many of us are just not that astute, and it’s no longer a force-feeding of propaganda. Probably a third of voting Americans simply tilt their heads back and wait like baby birds with their beaks open for the lies to fall in. This is why they will allow U.S. soldiers to get thrown under the bus, but do not call for the summary execution of unregenerate child predators.
The press, so eager (almost sexually aroused, if you ask me) to make any comparison to Vietnam possible, overlooks the most obvious one: That they were largely responsible for swaying public opinion regarding that engagement and the subsequent betrayal of our soldiers by the government and finally, many Americans.
If the Haditha Marines are a proverbial cancer within the military, they should be cut out and thrown away – but they would only be part of a more comprehensive malignancy requiring post-surgical whole-body irradiation to kill off the disease entirely – and that definitely includes a substantial portion of the mainstream press.
Erik Rush is a New York-born Black columnist and author who writes “The Culture Shark,”a weekly column of political fare. He is also a Staff Writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets. An archive containing links to just about everything he’s written is at http://www.erikrush.com.