In war, it's not painted as a pretty picture. It is ugly and sad. It is the survive of the fittest. It is us versus them. There will be collateral damage. In the Obama Abu Ghraib moment, the media is keeping silent while we interpret the meaning of the pictures. With the Abu Ghraib incident under Bush, the media condemned that actions committed by the military to terrorist and criminals. Here, these pictures of the military posing with dead civilians are brushed under the rug by the media. Meanwhile, the White House is hoping the Japan nuclear fallout and going to war with Libya will quell any mention to Obama's Abu Ghraib moment. It seems the Obama presidency is starting to unravel. It is perfect timing for the 2012 presidential elections.
(HotAir) When the Abu Ghraib scandal broke in 2003, the mainstream media and liberal blogosphere couldn’t find enough column inches to express adequately their shock and revulsion. The New York Times alone published 56 stories on the hideous revelation that members of the U.S. Army Reserve had tortured prisoners of war and posed for “trophy pictures”—inexcusable acts that the Times placed squarely at the feet of then-president George W. Bush.
Nor could left-leaning sources conceal their delight when President-elect Barack Obama boldly proclaimed:
[U]nder my administration the United States does not torture. We will abide by the Geneva Conventions. We will uphold our highest ideals.
What a difference a president makes. Until you flash forward to today’s bombshell, dropped by the British newspaper The Guardian, noting that members of a self-styled U.S. Army “kill team” posed for photos not with tortured prisoners but with corpses. Of civilians. Whom they had killed.
No comments:
Post a Comment