Subject: The "civil war" question
Dear Mr. Kurtz,
I take strong exception to the conclusions reached by your Sunday
discussion on the "civil war" question.
Your reporter listed "facts that cannot be denied" about the war in
Iraq, but her selected "facts" were carefully chosen.
Let's look at some "facts that can't be denied" that she and you
ignored:
(*) The Thanksgiving day attack on Sadr City with 5 car bombs has
nothing to do with a civil war; it was a terrorist attack,
conducted by suicide bombers who weren't even Iraqis. It's
similar to the 9/11 attacks on our WTC, and that wasn't a civil
war either.
Why didn't you ask about that "fact that can't be denied"?
(*) After the attack, al-Sadr gave a press conference in which he
blamed al-Qaeda, not the Sunnis. If there's a civil war going
on, why didn't he blame the Sunnis? Another fact that you
ignore.
(*) A couple of days later, al-Sadr announced that for two months
he's been working with Sunni leaders to create a "national front"
government bloc with Sunnis, Shiites and Christians, to challenge
the Maliki government politically.
If there were a real civil war going on, that kind activity would
be impossible. You can't simultaneously be killing people and
forming an alliance with them.
That's another "fact that can't be denied" that you ignored.
(*) You quoted Michael Ware as saying, "If this isn't a civil
war, then I'd hate to see a real civil war." What, is this guy a
moron? There's a civil war going on today in Darfur. Does this
guy have any idea what's going on in the world?
Why haven't you used the REAL civil in Darfur to challenge your
guests? Or how about the REAL civil war in Rwanda in 1994?
(*) NBC's "civil war" announcement was not just "grandstanding,"
as your guest cravenly described it. NBC's admitted intention was
to create a "Walter Cronkite moment" by giving a political
advantage to America's enemy, to cause support for the war to
"erode," so that America will lose the war, as it lost the Vietnam
war.
NBC didn't have to make a big announcement, but they did
admittedly to harm America. Why didn't you ask the NBC
representative why they want America to lose the war?
You don't think that's fair? Well why not, when all of your
guests repeatedly question the motives of the Administration in
the most offensive way possible? Why don't you ever question the
motives of your guests?
(*) A related matter: On 11/26, Jordan's King Abdullah had to
lecture George Stephanopoulos on the importance of the critical
Israeli/Palestinian problem. Abdullah had to repeat it five
times, and still Stephanopoulos didn't have a clue what he was
saying. Later, Stephanopoulos smirked and joked about what
Abdullah had said. To me, Stephanopoulos looked like an idiot, and
I'm sure he did to King Abdullah as well.
Why don't you cover that debacle on your program?
These are all questions and "facts that can't be denied," but you and
your guests are so steeped in ideology that you don't ask anything
that's the slightest bit confrontational. You're not there to be
critical of journalists; you're there to condone and excuse even the
most opprobrious behavior of journalists.
You and your reporters are very quick to identify "facts" that
support your ideology, and quick to ignore those that don't.
If you'd like more details on the above matters, I invite you to read
my web site, where more details are given, and links are provided to
the mainstream media news sources:
Al-Sadr and Sunni alliance:
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?d=ww2010.weblog&i=e061201#e061201
NBC Announcement:
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?d=ww2010.weblog&i=e061129#e061129
King Abdullah and Stephanopoulos:
http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?d=ww2010.weblog&i=e061126#e061126
I took a lot of time to write this message, and it's a valid
criticism of your program and of journalists in general. I would
appreciate a response.
Sincerely,
John J. Xenakis
