John Dickerson’s article in Slate, Scare Them Back, inspired me to take a look at some of my past entries. First, though, since I know most of you are too lazy to click that and come back here, I’ll give a quick summary. Basically, he says that Democrats should counter the Republican fear-mongering strategy with their own fear-mongering: Republicans are encouraging more terrorists. In my opinion, that strategy won’t work. I’ll delve more into that, but first, I want to show what I wrote before.

Shortly after the 2004 elections, I wrote this: Advice to Democrats after Kerry Loss. I said terror decided the election. I said, “Democrats, if you want to win, you have to convince the general American public that you understand that radical Islam (called Islamofascism in some circles) is a threat to America, and the world.”

I hammered the point again in 2005 with this entry, Populism is Dead. I said, “Defeating terror is more important than defeating the Republicans.” I said, “Memorize this, Democratic Party: 9/11 was an overt act of war.”

If they had taken my advice, they would be poised to sweep the Senate and House, instead of victory being in question. Alright, perhaps not, but my point is still relevant another year later. Democrats have not convinced America that they take the War on Islamofascism seriously.

It’s pretty obvious why. All you have to do is delve into the Fray and find this gem: Why this obsession with the War on Terror?. I’ll reprint it in its entirety.

If you’d stop for a minute to really think about it, there’s nothing Bush or anybody else, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green or any other hue, can do to stop a small group of committed, resourceful terrorists from blowing themselves and any number of American persons, places or things into millions of small pieces. Nothing. The lack of terrorist attacks since 9/11 is more testimony to the lack of effort on the part of the terrorists than to anything we have done or could do.

Of course if we did that, we’d stay up nights, worried that the next breath might just be our last. At least the Republicans give some of us what we need: a false sense of security that works just as well as the real deal … until the Big One comes along. Republicans know that if we stop thinking that all terrorists look like Mohammed Atta and start considering the fact that they could just as well look like Timothy McVeigh, the panic would be palpable.

Perhaps we should start an Epicurean Party: Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we may die. Even good, fundamentalist Christians should be attracted to a platform that follows the Master’s teaching not to give thought for the morrow, for who knows when the hour comes for one to die?

Yes, let’s bury our heads in the sand. Let us go our merry little way and pretend that there aren’t extremists out there who want to wipe Israel off the map and America too. Let’s pretend 9/11 was just some isolated event, not an overt act of war.

If we are not vigilant, the odds of dying go way up. If Iran gets a nuke, the odds of dying go way up. If Islamofascists ignite regional or wider war, your odds of dying go up. Your hour of death will come much sooner.

Still, there’s a kernel of truth in Dickerson’s article: “Still, if Democrats don’t aggressively ask whether the Republican policies are inspiring a greater number of people to devote their lives to killing Americans than would otherwise be the case, we’ll miss a chance to have the kind of messy, realism-filled public debate we somehow continue to skirt.” We really need to have this messy, realism-filled public debate. That’s why I feel that we’re failing in Iraq.

However, my opinion is that the main reason why we aren’t having this debate is that there are still people out there who are not convinced of the very real threat of Islamofascism. (Disagree that this is the main reason? Please comment, I’d like to see other opinions on why we haven’t had the messy, realism-filled public debate. Bush is a close second reason, in my analysis.) Five years after 9/11 we’re still trying to convince people that terrorism is a threat. 9/11 was an overt act of war. The Democratic Party still hasn’t convinced the American people that they understand that.

When you’re presented a choice between someone who understands the existential threat posed to us and someone who doesn’t, you’ll pick the first choice. Yet, it’s a false dilemma. Bush understands the fact that there is a threat, but he does not understand the threat. He utterly failed in the execution of the War in Iraq.

Democrats, if you want to win, ignore Dickerson’s advice. First, you need to hammer home the point that you understand that there is a war on terror. Say it over and over and over without inserting the word “but” and you will convince the American people. Also, vehemently attack members of your own party who don’t understand the threat. At the same time, paint Bush as an incompetent who “executed” the war poorly. Stress execution. Many Republicans will agree with you on this point. Be above the fray and say that we need a real debate about the nature of the war and the way it is executed. Why didn’t we have an economic plan for Iraq? Don’t stress world community. Stress realism. Say that we need to either do what it takes to win in Iraq or pull-out. Be specific and be smart.

That’s my plan, but not all of it is critical. The main point is convince the American people that you’re serious about Islamofascism. I’ll repeat the most important part: Say that you understand that there is a war on Islamofascism over and over and over without inserting the word “but”. Vehemently attack members of your own party who don’t understand the threat.

One more time: Say that you understand that there is a war on Islamofascism over and over and over without inserting the word “but”. Vehemently attack members of your own party who don’t understand the threat.

I’m begging you to do this. Defeating the Islamofascists over the long haul is way more important than partisanship. We need you. We need a united America to defeat them.

Buried in an otherwise uninteresting article about Castro, I found this interesting little tidbit:

Russian President Vladimir Putin joined those sending greetings to the Cuban leader on his birthday and wished him a speedy recovery.

The Kremlin said Putin also promised that Russia and Cuba would continue to be ”active partners.” Putin’s government has sought to revive relations with the island, which had weakened following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Russia is trying to reestablish ties with a brutal dictator — an anti-American brutal dictator. Hm.

No wish for a speedy recovery from me, Fidel.

I’m expanding my inquiry into the media’s participation in producing Hezbollah propaganda. This is old, but worth a read: The News We (CNN) Kept To Ourselves. It’s not about the current situation in Lebanon, but it could be relevant. Here we see how intimidation kept journalists from reporting certain stories. When Saddam was in power, their reporting could also put the lives of innocent Iraqis in danger. I hinted at intimidation in my first exploration of this topic, but it wasn’t pivotal to my argument.

How much are journalists being intimidated in Lebanon by Hezbollah? Of course, they didn’t intimidate Hajj into altering pictures of Beirut. That he did on his own accord. So, how much of a role does this intimidation playing? How is it altering their news coverage? I believe it is a component.

On to the second angle… Has anyone watched South Park? I love the show. I was watching “The Passion of the Jew” episode with Mel Gibson the other night. In it, Cartman watches “The Passion of the Christ,” and starts a Mel Gibson fan club. He dresses up as Hitler and hints at a “final solution,” but the adults in the club are completely oblivious, even when they start chanting in German. In South Park, people often fall for the stupidest things. So, I was just wondering if the media was just so unsavvy that they can’t recognize when they’re helping Israel be destroyed. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was the case for some of them. “Goodness, all these Jews can do is murder civilians; I better help Hezbollah.”

While we’re on this topic, I have a few other things to say. First, here’s more media manipulation from Hezbollah. A supposed member of the Lebanese Red Cross cares so much about saving lives that he exploits a dead child for PR. Here’s the YouTube video which I will embed later. The weblog where I found that video claims that jihadi manuals have entire sections on media manipulation.

Still, I’m having trouble believing that it’s all just slick PR on Hezbollah’s part. I mean, they’re using the Lebanese people as human shields. Then, people die, and supposedly, the survivors are driven into the arms of Hezbollah. Does this sick chain of events make sense? Methinks that there is already Hezbollah sympathizing going on.

Finally, here’s one more article that’s a must-read: Hezbollah’s deadly hold on heartland.

The surgeon led a group of journalists over what remained: mangled debris, shredded walls and a roof punched through by an Israeli shell.

“Look what they did to this place,” Dr. Fatah said, shaking his head. “Why in the world would the Israelis target a hospital?”

The probable answer was found a few hours later in a field nearby. Hidden in the tall grass were the burned remnants of a rocket-launcher.

Confronted with the evidence, Dr. Fatah admitted his hospital could have been used as a site from which to fire rockets into Israel.

This excerpt shows exactly what I’m talking about. This guy is obviously a Hezbollah collaborator. He’s trying to manipulate the media into showing how Israel is killing “civilians” for no reason. His hospital was used as a site to launch rockets. Guess where these rockets land? In Israeli civilian centers! GAH! He’s helping Hezbollah try to kill innocent Israelis, by launching rockets from a hospital.

Also, the article indicates that the Lebanese Red Cross found rocket launcher shreds (in or surrounding… I can’t tell) the area of Qana. I’ll do a search later for that in the NY Times, etc.

I’m rambling and going off-topic now, but I’m just so angry. Hezbollah’s actions are just so obvious to me! Why would CNN let Hezbollah direct one of their segments? Are they that stupid? Are they being intimidated? Or is something more sinister happening? A combination? None of the above?

I do know one thing. Hezbollah is murdering Israelis, launching rockets only into civilian centers, and is using the Lebanese people as human shields. That’s disgusting. If you’re producing Hezbollah propaganda… I’m not even going to finish that thought.

Another concurring voice in the “this is not the end of the world for Democrats” category: Michael Tomasky on Slate. He notes that there are 8 Democratic Senate incumbents up for reelection who voted for the war in Iraq. Only one, Lieberman, has faced a serious challenge. One, Tomasky says, is not a trend. I agree.

Prediction: Conventional Wisdom will soon shift to this camp. There will also be a downplaying of the role of the liberal blogosphere. (Note: If this prediction is wrong, I will completely ignore the fact that I made this prediction. If this prediction is right, expect me to loudly trumpet that I was right and link to the offending headline.)

UPDATE: Then again, to add flames to the fire, I found this statistic from Rasmussen Reports very interesting: “Half (52%) of Lamont voters believe Bush should be impeached and removed from office. Just 15% of Lieberman voters share that view.”

Everyone is… okay, some people who are interested in politics are… all atwitter at the loss of Joe Lieberman. (I think the SF Chronicle had it as the lead story.) The incumbent senator was defeated in the Democratic primary by Ned Lamont, a political newcomer and anti-war candidate backed by the far-left blogosphere (among other supporters). What does this mean for Democrats? What does this mean for elections in the future? Jacob Weisburg seems to think that it spells doom for the Democratic party, that Connecticut’s embrace of Lamont shows that Democrats are ready to repeat their anti-war obsession with Vietnam, alienate mainstream voters, and ultimately lose elections. Many Republicans are busy spinning it the same way. While I agree that many Democrats do not understand the War on Terror (or, even better, the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism), that’s not what I want to discuss, and I will leave it for a later date.

You know I think? I don’t think Lieberman’s loss is a bellwether of any sort. Weisburg admits Lieberman can be “cloying and sanctimonious.” That’s a perfectly good reason to not vote for him. Besides, here’s an election you probably did not hear about. Another incumbent was knocked off, but it was a Republican candidate. Yet, you don’t see everyone pushing the narrative of the Republicans being forced to the right by crazies.

I feel alone, though. Do you agree? Apparently, Kevin Drum believes the landslide defeat of Cynthia McKinney, who thinks George Bush was behind 9/11, shows that Democrats, in general, haven’t gone over the edge.

I don’t live in Connecticut, so I have no idea why they didn’t vote for Lieberman. Nonetheless, my best guess is that this probably means not that much for the general midterm elections and the next elections in 2008. The liberal blogosphere is not the wave of the future, but just another interest group/constituency that you gotta listen to.

Lloyd, as always, makes an interesting point, so I’ve decided to quote his comment in full from my last entry:

It’s clear that the end result of CNN’s broadcast has been pro-Hezbollah propaganda. However, the real question in terms of the very serious claim of treason is: did CNN willfully and premeditatedly produce the spot?

If the other media outfits (NBC, CBS, the euros) ended up conveying pretty much the same propaganda, the claim of treason is much less a slam-dunk than you make it out to be.

This is much more directly interpreted as a brilliant piece of media manipulation by Hezbollah than an outright act of treason by a given media outlet.

None of which should surprise you, or anyone else. In the war of ideas, the so-called ‘objective’ media are as much weapons as anything else–wittingly or otherwise.

Has CNN willingly and premeditatedly produced the spot? I don’t think that the CNN, as an organization, told their correspondents to go in and produce Hezbollah propaganda.

Here’s a good piece if you want more information: CNN’s Robertson Now Admits: Hezbollah ‘Had Control’ of His Anti-Israel Piece. (A decidedly biased source, but it has lots of quotes from the primary source.) I think it’s interesting that Hezbollah is providing guided tours of the area and the media is falling for it hook, line, and sinker. Or are they? They can’t be that dumb… I mean, the CNN correspondent did later admit that you’ve got to take it with a grain of salt. Yet, from what I gathered from the piece online, it didn’t seem as if any of that was explicitly communicated to the viewer. Should the benefit of the doubt be given? Are they that stupid, or is something more sinister going on? Or is there something in between? However, even if mere anti-Israel bias is translating into pure Hezbollah propaganda, I think someone should be held accountable. Hezbollah has done almost nothing but lob missiles into civilian areas. My eyes are open for more propaganda.

And here’s some more: Reuters admits altering Beirut photo. A photographer photoshopped an image of Beirut to make it look more damaged. Then, the plot thickens: “Adnan Hajj, the photographer who sent the altered image, was also the Reuters photographer behind many of the images from Qana — which have also been the subject of suspicions for being staged.”

There you go. More Hezbollah propaganda, and there’s no doubt this is just the tip of the iceburg. That photo is why I think that the media is more than unwitting dupes. Is there an anti-Israel bias? Probably. Do they want the state of Israel wiped of the map? Probably not, I hope. But they are directly enabling those who want to murder Israeli civilians until the state of Israel is no more. I’ll back off my claim of treason, but they’re treading dangerous waters.

I was re-reading my entry from yesterday, Beyond Bias, looking for some sign of overreaction. Instincts told me that I must’ve not seen something. But nope, upon re-reading the entry, I don’t see any reason to update my opinion — unless the quotes attributed to Nic Robertson turn out to be fake, of course, but that appears highly unlikely. My accusation still stands: CNN has done something traitorous, namely, producing propaganda for Hezbollah.

It is true that CNN has produced propaganda for Hezbollah, unless those quotes are false. I understand if you take issue with my assessment of treason, but I can’t see it any other way. Why would you let a terrorist organization direct your cameras? What else can you call it but treason when someone makes propaganda for a group that killed 241 American servicemen on October 23, 1983?

How can you tell the difference between a Hezbollah fighter and a civilian? I’ve always wondered how the civilian counts were ascertained in Lebanon when Hezbollah terrorists don’t wear uniforms. Looks like I’ve found the answer: Certain segments of the media simply take the word of Hezbollah.

Normally, this type of statement could be characterized as a right wing Pavlovian foaming at the mouth upon hearing the word media. However, in this case, the accusation is — very unfortunately — absolutely true. Lately, I’ve been loathe to criticize the media since I feel that a lot of the “proof” of media bias is the product of cherry-picking. This disturbing article, The media aims its missiles, has forced me to speak out and to call a spade a spade: Certain segments of the media have turned into propaganda arms of Hezbollah and their Islamofascist allies. (Note: Link found via Sullivan.)

Wait a second! This is from the Jerusalem Post. How do we know it’s not propaganda from the other side? Well, let us ignore the framing and look at the irrefutable facts. Following are two paragraphs from the article, which I’ve highlighted in blue:

CNN “senior international correspondent” Nic Robertson admitted that his anti-Israel report from Beirut on July 18 about civilian casualties in Lebanon, was stage-managed from start to finish by Hizbullah. He revealed that his story was heavily influenced by Hizbullah’s “press officer” and that Hizbullah has “very, very sophisticated and slick media operations.”

When pressed a few days later about his reporting on the CNN program “Reliable Sources,” Robertson acknowledged that Hizbullah militants had instructed the CNN camera team where and what to film. Hizbullah “had control of the situation,” Robertson said. “They designated the places that we went to, and we certainly didn’t have time to go into the houses or lift up the rubble to see what was underneath.”

There’s no way to spin this. Hezbollah “instructed the CNN camera team where and what to film” and that’s a fact. When you allow a terrorist organization to direct your news footage (and present it as objective news), it is no longer media bias: It is propaganda.

In the second page of the article, a quote from Robertson confirms my suspicions about civilian casualties in Lebanon: “We didn’t have enough time to see if perhaps there was somebody there who was, you know, a taxi driver by day, and a Hizbullah fighter by night.”

Even more disturbing is that the article reveals that the problem is not limited to CNN: “NBC’s Richard Engel, CBS’s Elizabeth Palmer, and a host of European and other networks, were also taken around the damaged areas by Hizbullah minders. Palmer commented on her report that ‘Hizbullah is also determined that outsiders will only see what it wants them to see.'”

How determined is Hezbollah? Physical intimidation is part of their modus operandi: “[Hezbollah] has a copy of every journalist’s passport, and they’ve already hassled a number of us and threatened one.” Yet, instead of fighting for the truth, it appears that the media has acquiesced to Hezbollah.

I must take this one step further. This isn’t merely propaganda against Israel. Before 9/11, Hezbollah held the distinction of being the terrorist organization that had killed the most Americans. Hezbollah is not only Israel’s enemy, but America’s enemy. When you get right down to it, CNN and its ilk is producing propaganda for the enemy. There is only one word for it: Treason.

It is not with glee that I report these traitorous activities. For me, the extent of this is very surprising and extremely disturbing. I don’t want to call CNN treasonous, but their activities have forced me to. Treason is not a word one should toss around lightly and I have only used it very reluctantly.

If we do happen to find ourselves in WWIII, I predict that China and Russia will be fighting against the US. I’m willing to put money on it. I’ll remind you of these events: Painting a Web of Anti-American Alliances. I wrote that back in April and it seems even more relevant at this point in time.

In 2008, we need to put aside politics and elect a man who can lead us militarily.

Also, it would be nice to have closer ties with Brazil, which is already an ethanol-based economy. We can’t fight a war without oil. How long will that strategic reserve last? If we do have a wider war, Hugo Chavez may try to pull something down there.

Now, I’m not saying we will enter a wider war. However, we should do everything we can to prepare in case that wretched day comes — because if it does come, it will come sooner than any of us will imagine.