A good article. It sounds like the Arab press is a lot like ours.
Coverage tends to mirror ideology. The quality regional press like Asharq al Awsat and Al Hayat, edited in London and printed throughout the Middle East, are the most balanced. More ideological papers with narrow readerships reflect the sentiments of their financial backers and tend to cater to the nationalistic, political and emotional views of their audiences. ...
Like their audience, the Arab world's newspapers are angry, nuanced, multifaceted, passionate and argumentative. The complexity of imagery reflects several trends. Arab and Western satellite television, FM radio and the Internet have vastly expanded the range of news and views available to the average Arab. Any credible newspaper that hopes to compete with these comprehensive sources of information must provide more complete and balanced fare, or it will quickly be discredited as biased and unreliable. Arabs are increasingly tired of being lied to and presented with only half of reality, and their press is starting to reflect this.
The top three Republicans in Congress sharply criticized Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on Thursday for saying that the United States, like Iraq, needs a regime change. Kerry would not back down....
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, released a statement calling Kerry's words "desperate and inappropriate."
"America before New Hampshire," DeLay said.
...DeLay's spokesman Jonathan Grella said, "His service to our country was admirable, but his words now are shamelessly political."
Here's what DeLay had to say just a few short years ago about another American military intervention. These guys have such contempt for the American people, it makes me sick. They clearly know that most people don't pay enough attention to catch them in their hypocrisy.
“Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult speech for me to give, because I normally, and I still do, support our military and the fine work that they are doing. But I cannot support a failed foreign policy. … But before we get deeper embroiled into this Balkan quagmire, I think that an assessment has to be made of the Kosovo policy so far. President Clinton has never explained to the American people why he was involving the U.S. military in a civil war in a sovereign nation, other than to say it is for humanitarian reasons, a new military/foreign policy precedent. … Was it worth it to stay in Vietnam to save face? What good has been accomplished so far? Absolutely nothing.” [Congressional Record, “Removal of United States Armed Forces from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,” 4/28/99]
The deployment of U.S. military forces in Kosovo is “just another bad idea in a foreign policy without a focus.” [Editorial, Saint Paul Pioneer Press (Minnesota), 3/17/99]
“America needs to quickly change directions and leave behind this chilling comedy of errors that has defined our foreign policy.” [Copley News Service, 3/22/99]
Commenting on the rejection of a bill that would have authorized force in the Balkans, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-TX) said, “The President is not supported by the House, and the military is supported by the House.” [USA Today, 4/30/99]
Then-House Majority Whip Tom Delay (R-TX) criticized Clinton’s policies in Kosovo and said, “The president said that if we did nothing, there would be a instability in the region. There would be a flood of refugees, Kosovars would die, and the credibility of NATO would be undermined. Well, Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode.”
[CNN, “Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer, 5/2/99]
I could go on and on. Read them for yourself
here.
"What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States."
And on Ashcroft:
''One of the reasons why I am running for president of the United States is that I look forward with pleasure and zeal for the opportunity to appoint an attorney general of the United States who believes and reads and abides by the Constitution.''
"The Bush administration's budget policies will take a toll on the poor, the young, and others in need of support from their government."
The budget passed by the House is particularly gruesome. It mugs the poor and the helpless while giving unstintingly to the rich. This blueprint for domestic disaster has even moderate Republicans running for cover.
The House plan offers the well-to-do $1.4 trillion in tax cuts, while demanding billions of dollars in cuts from programs that provide food stamps, school lunches, health care for the poor and the disabled, temporary assistance to needy families — even veterans' benefits and student loans.
Thursday, April 3, 2003
