A Small Dish Of Revenge

"I hate CNN."

-New Iraqi minister of defense Abdul-Qadir Muhammed Jasim

~ ~ ~

Behold the predominant Extreme Media coverage of Iraq just over the past week.

***Mourning Zarqawi

Just how left wing is the editorial page of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune? So left wing, in fact, that the editors decided to adapt a CNN interview with Michael Berg - the pacifist, Bush-hating father of Nick Berg who was beheaded by Zarqawi in May 2004 - to run as a piece of commentary on the op-ed page [last Fri]day....

The Star-Tribune [also] pulls down a wire story from Newsday for its headline coverage ("Al-Zarqawi was betrayed") and devotes its own reporting manpower (in the person of James Rosen from the paper's Washington D.C. bureau) to producing a 742-word companion piece under the headline "But What About Osama?" As the title suggests, the tone and tenor of Rosen's piece is "yeah, but..."

***The Miraculous Rehabilitation of Zarqawi

According to NewsBusters, CNN's senior editor for Arab affairs Octavia Nasr said the following about Zarqawi's death on American Morning Thursday:

"Some people say it will enrage the insurgency, others say it will hurt it pretty bad. But if you think about the different groups in Iraq, you have to think that Zarqawi's death is not going to be a big deal for them."

However, CNN didn't always feel that Zarqawi's death or capture would be so inconsequential. Just days after Saddam Hussein was found in his spider hole, Paula Zahn brought CNN national correspondent Mike Boettcher on to discuss a new threat in Iraq. Zahn began the December 15, 2003 segment:

"The capture of Saddam Hussein may lead to renewed attention on the search for Osama bin Laden and other terrorists, and next to bin Laden, there is one man emerging as a major threat. He is believed to be the leader of a group much like al Qaeda, and the U.S. wants to catch him before he strikes again."

Boettcher entered the discussion:

"The reward for his capture is only a fifth of that offered for Saddam Hussein, $5 million to Saddam's $25 million, but abu-Mus'ab al- Zarqawi, say Middle East intelligence analysts, is emerging as the most dangerous terrorist conducting operations in Iraq, the surrounding region, and perhaps the world."

Subsequent to this report, Zarqawi's reward was raised to $25 million, meaning that the importance of his capture increased fivefold. Mysteriously, CNN didn't see it that way, as in its view, the death of what it once described as "the most dangerous terrorist" in "perhaps the world" somehow became "no big deal."

At roughly the same time as Nasr was downplaying Zarqawi's death on CNN, ABC's Diane Sawyer invited perennial Bush-basher Richard Clarke on Good Morning America to solicit his opinion on the subject. As reported by NewsBusters, Sawyer asked:

"[Is] it any safer in Iraq and will the war end any sooner?"

Clarke responded:

"Well, unfortunately the answer is no. This man was a terrible man. He was a symbol of terrorism. He was the face of terrorism, the only real name we knew of an insurgent leader in Iraq. But he commanded only a few hundred people out of tens of thousands involved in the insurgency. And so, unfortunately for the loved ones of troops over in Iraq, this is not going to mean a big difference."

Sawyer incredulously concluded the segment:

"So for overall terrorism against the U.S., it's, again, not a major effect."

Yet, on November 21, 2005, Sawyer and the Good Morning America team weren't so blasé about capturing or killing Zarqawi. Quite the contrary, Sawyer began her report that morning:

"Right now intelligence officials are pouring over information trying to decide if it's possible that public enemy number one in Iraq, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, has, in fact, been killed over the weekend. ABC's chief investigative correspondent Brian Ross tells us what he learned."

Ross answered:

"If it's true it'd be major victory for the US in Iraq."

This raises a rather obvious question: how could what would have been a "major victory" if it had occurred in November 2005 not have "a major effect" when it actually transpires less than seven months later?

Regardless of the answer, it wasn't just the morning shows experiencing a convenient change of heart towards Zarqawi. A drastically similar conversion occurred on the CBS Evening News Thursday. And, in this instance, it took less than five weeks for the story to change.

Anchor Bob Schieffer invited former CIA member and current CBS News analyst Michael Scheuer on to discuss Zarqawi's death. Schieffer began the interview:

"Michael, I want to ask you, it's my understanding you believe this might actually increase danger for US troops."

Yes, you read that right: on a day when America should have been celebrating the death of one of her greatest enemies, a top CBS anchorman actually brought on a guest to discuss how this might "increase danger for US troops." Scheuer conveniently responded:

"I think that's probably the case, Bob."

Schieffer then asked his guest what the significance of Zarqawi's death was. Scheuer answered:

"Strategically it's not very important."

Yet, the Evening News didn't always feel that Zarqawi's death or capture would "increase the danger for US troops" or be strategically "not very important." Less than five weeks earlier, the Evening News did an entire story called "Task Force 145 leads hunt for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi." Schieffer began that May 2 segment:

"The toll of American military people killed in Iraq reached 2,400 today, with the death of another American soldier killed by a roadside bomb. That news came as our David Martin learned more details of an intense new campaign that American troops have launched to track down top al-Qaeda terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi."

Schieffer then handed it off to Martin, who winded the segment down by saying, "Getting Zarqawi would be a major victory," and concluded:

"If or when the end comes, he will almost certainly be replaced by another terrorist, but it is unlikely his replacement will be the equal of Zarqawi."

As such, it is infinitely clear that the media's view of Zarqawi changed virtually the moment he was killed. In fact, their response to what they had presaged in the past would be great news if it happened was instead designed to dampen the public's enthusiasm for the event, while at the same time diminish any positive the Bush Administration could gain from it here at home.

And then there are two anti-military editorial cartoons - one from Steven Benson of the Arizona Republic (formerly of the Tacoma News-Tribune, so I know his work all too well) and the other by Dan Wasserman of the Boston Globe - that are so vile and viciously al-Jazeera-esque that I refuse to fecalize my site by reproducing them.

Suffice it to say that the Extreme Media has gone utterly berserk in their frustration at the victory in the GWOT - and for the political fortunes of President Bush and the GOP - that the snuffing of "Emir" Zarqawi represents.

And that's where the President's surprise trip to Baghdad comes in:

The White House put [the White House press corps] on a bus to nowhere. Here's Wendell Goler from Fox News this morning:

GOLER: I'll tell you, the deception here near Camp David was complete. They had just loaded up a pool of reporters, a dozen or 13 or so reporters to go up - to take a bus up to Camp David, ostensibly to see the President, take pictures of him, hear from him, that bus just pulled out of the camp where - both of the press corps is covering this two-day summit, they are still headed up to Camp David. Who they're going to see up there, I don't know, because it certainly won't be the President.

RUSH: (Laughing.) I love it! And they were told on the bus, "By the way, we're taking you up there, but the President is not there. He's gone to Iraq."

Ah, the power of a second-term president. I've always wondered why re-elected presidents - sorry, re-elected Republican presidents - always oblige their detractors who dismiss and deride them as "lame ducks" by acting like lame ducks. I would think that not being term-limited, not having to face the voters again, would be liberating. Particularly for a GOP Chief Executive, since the press is going to crap on them no matter what they do. Instead of hunkering down in a timid, defensive crouch, why not exploit that freedom by flipping off the Fourth Estate in ways that will energize the party's base supporters and royally incense the opposition?

That is precisely what President Bush did. He didn't snap at them or berate them or any other direct lashing out that would have generated a fresh blizzard of Nixon comparisons; he literally out-manuevered them by shipping them up to Camp David while he jetted to Iraq to celebrate Zarqawi's blessed demise with Iraq's newly elected Prime Minister. He humiliated them by the abject and pointed reminder of where they truly rank in the Beltway food chain, in addition to basking in the success of his, yes, plan with the fellow democratic head of state of the country he liberated.

The message is clear. CNN doesn't matter. ABC, NBC, CBS, and all the cable rabble outside of Fox News do...not...matter. The New York Times, WaPo, L.A. Times, et al - Do. Not. Matter.

And they know it. And that's why the "bus to nowhere" gag is the best revenge of all - after success itself.