Petition For The Washington Post To Become A Victim Of The Print Media Crisis

These guys are the fucking worst, and with everything that they do, they get worse. You may or may not have heard awhile back about the scandal they provoked when they began to set up "salons" in which lobbyists would pay large sums of money to the paper to have direct access to members of the Post's editorial and reporting staff. This was uncovered and subjected to a collective WTF by the rest of the world before it could happen, but the mere suggestion of something like this is upsetting to say the least.

Speaking of the Post's editorial staff, they are the worst. Nearly all of the intelligent liberal members of the staff have been pushed out in favor of people like David Broder. Here is David Broder, in an editorial published last Sunday:

"The more President Obama examines our options in Afghanistan, the less he likes the choices he sees. But, as the old saying goes, to govern is to choose -- and he has stretched the internal debate to the breaking point.

"It is evident from the length of this deliberative process and from the flood of leaks that have emerged from Kabul and Washington that the perfect course of action does not exist. Given that reality, the urgent necessity is to make a decision -- whether or not it is right."

Yes, you read that right. An Op-Ed columnist for one of the nation's most respected newspapers just said that the President of the United States needs to act first and think later, and even to knowingly make a poor decision that would cost the lives of American and Afghan troops and of the latter, no doubt, civilians. It gets worse when he explains the reasoning behind this opinion.

"McChrystal came up with a new plan of battle, emphasizing protection of population centers and requiring as many as 40,000 more troops. Eikenberry, we now know, balked, giving voice to the widespread fear that Hamid Karzai, the carry-over winner of the election that the ambassador helped arrange, was too weak and corrupt to govern the country effectively, even with an enlarged American force keeping order.

"Their disagreement was echoed and amplified throughout the Obama administration. The secretaries of defense and state came down on McChrystal's side; the vice president and many on the White House political staff with Eikenberry."

Now, the argument implied by including this in the column seems to be that the military knows best about military matters. This is arguably true in theory, but effectively false. The Pentagon will always argue for increased force in situations like this. This is how they receive funding and thrive as a dominant institution. Their voice should not be the only one, or even the primary one, given consideration in matters like this.

"In all this dithering, it's easy to forget a few fundamentals. Why are we in Afghanistan? Not because of its own claim on us but because the Taliban rulers welcomed the al-Qaeda plotters who hatched the destruction of Sept. 11, 2001. The Taliban also oppressed its own people, especially women, but we sent troops because Afghanistan was the hide-out for the terrorists who attacked our country."

This is pathetic. The argument that we are in Afghanistan to liberate its women holds no water whatsoever. This is an argument that always comes after the fact, to promote the continuation of American wars in the Middle East, and is never a primary consideration, or a consideration at all, until it has to be utilized as a talking point. Also, Broder mentions al-Qaeda as a reason for the commencement and continuation of the war without the slightest acknowledgement that they are no longer operating from within Afghan borders.

"But George W. Bush said -- and Obama seemed to agree -- that withdrawal was not an option.

"That imperative is reinforced by the presence of Pakistan, a shaky nuclear-armed power across a porous mountain border. If the Taliban comes back in Afghanistan, the al-Qaeda cells already in Pakistan will operate even more freely -- and nuclear weapons could fall into the most dangerous hands.

"Given all of this, I don't see how Obama can refuse to back up the commander he picked and the strategy he is recommending. It may not work if the country truly is ungovernable. But I think we have to gamble that security will bring political progress -- as it has done in Iraq."

Note the mention of G.W.'s opinion like it holds weight. And of course, when all logic fails to serve your purposes, bring irrational fear into the equation. Broder shamelessly throws in that paragraph laced with fear-mongering of the most despicable kind, introducing the possibility of the collapse of the Pakistani government and subsequent deliverance of nuclear weapons into the eager hands of the Taliban with absolutely no proof or reason to back up this possibility.

Our press fails us once again.

Full article here.