In the world there is really only one reality. Yet the world is so diverse that
individual perception is the catalyst for how the world is portrayed while events transpire and are documented for historical
This is the main reason why an over-whelming majority of Americans believe the
media has a liberal bias. Along with the fact that many media representatives openly admit to being Democrats even though
a smaller number are willing to acknowledge that they are liberal, they show their true political orientation in the events
they choose to cover and the way they present those stories.
Such is the case with the magnanimously historic event of the Iraqi election.
Media elitists are beside themselves because they are torn over this milestone.
On the one hand they are against the war that they still deem an illegal war for oil based on their own fallacious charges
about the ‘lies of non-existent WMD’ and since they’ve paid so much lip service to that mischaracterization
they cannot change their story now.
On the other hand they see Democracy rapidly spreading on the world’s stage
in a war torn region that has probably endured more death, destruction, chaos, torment, persecution, barbarism, and culture
of hatred the world has ever known. Slowly, but surely, Middle Eastern countries are coming out from under the oppressive
isolationism of dictatorships or at the least are starting to cooperate with Western countries more openly, especially concerning
the war on terror.
The way media elitists report on this issue makes the two seem diametric and that
is exactly the reaction they hope to garner from people, so the presentation of their exposition follows that mindset.
According to media patois, finding smaller amounts of chemical and biological
weapons than was expected means ‘no WMD was in Iraq’; saying we don’t want the ‘smoking gun to be
a mushroom cloud’ means you were testifying to Iraq’s nuclear capability; not getting support from Germany, Russia,
or France means you took ‘unilateral’ military action; not yet having captured bin Laden and turning our focus
from Afghanistan to Iraq, even though Afghanistan is now a sovereign country free of dictatorship and recently had a successful
election, means we failed there; and since only fourteen of eighteen provinces in Iraq are free of insurgent attacks leading
up to that election, American troops are in a ‘quagmire’.
The mainstream media poster child John Kerry called it the ‘wrong war in
the wrong place at the wrong time’ during our election and because the vast majority of the media subscribes to leftist
mimicry, they now view the Iraqi election as the ‘wrong election in the wrong country at the wrong time’.
If the war is wrong and was started over oil and the ‘lies about non-existent
WMD’, how are they now supposed to report the positive aspect of a growing Iraqi Democracy that will be even more justified
after the election? Therein exists the dilemma that conflicts them.
These people can barely find one shred of positive news to report about Afghanistan,
as they gave scant coverage to their election and as long as the media can focus on the turmoil in Iraq, they can continue
to ignore Afghanistan.
Neither can you find many press reports of the fact that even though, in their
words, no WMD was found in Iraq so the war is the President’s Vietnam, the military action scared Gaddafi badly enough
that he gave up his WMD program which included nuclear weapons... remember the mushroom cloud?... that even the IAEA asserted
didn’t exist in Libya!
Reporters from Knight Ridder found Iraqis who think the election will be illegitimate
because, "America will definitely have a hand in this election. It [America] didn’t come all this way across the continents
to offer Iraqis Democracy." And the media isn’t trying to dissuade that sentiment, yet in the same interview the Iraqis
say they will vote anyway.
Of course media elitists will never elucidate for the Iraqis that just the fact
that they now have the ability to freely decide whether or not to take part in an open election is the hallmark of Democracy.
Probably because media elitists don’t understand that themselves.
Also barely reported was a poll that showed a possible election day turnout of
more than sixty percent, yet the media is constantly wondering if that would be enough to give the election ‘legitimacy’.
Also, Iraqis will vote at 5220 polling centers to elect 275 representatives, provincial legislatures in 18 provinces, and
a regional parliament in Kurdish-ruled northern Iraq.
On ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings, they were surprised as
they reported, "It has been true since the beginning of the occupation," you see how they assert ‘occupation’
and not ‘liberation’, "where there is tangible improvement in the quality of life people are more optimistic."
They just can’t understand how that can be!
So the election coverage in Iraq is now wall to wall death and destruction. The
terrorists, sorry, insurgents there are getting more positive press coverage than the candidates. Why, the insurgents are
fighting for their cause against the imperialistic Americans who are doing little more than forcing unwanted Democracy down
the throats of Iraqis who were better off before the American occupation when they were oppressed. Or as Peter Jennings said,
"When Saddam Hussein was in power, this [insurgent attacks] never would have happened."
Democracy is coming to Iraq and no amount of insurgent bombing or media whining
is going to stop it. What happens after the election is up to the Iraqis, just as it is in Afghanistan and the election itself
is a testament that Democracy has arrived there. Will Media elitists be able to find anything positive to report then or will
it still be the wrong election in the wrong place at the wrong time for them?
Lee P Butler