This essay is part of a (more or less) weekly feature on this blog that presents interesting stories from elsewhere in the world, particularly Africa, that are little reported in the American media. It's part of my campaign to get people to realize there is a lot going on in the world outside the US, Israel, Iraq and Iran*. (*-added on the suggestion of a reader)
Earlier this month, I wrote about the western media's skewed portrait of Africa and attempts to offer a fairer picture of a complicated and nuanced continent.
There was even a conference on the subject recently in Johannesburg.
The western media typically focuses on bad news. On local and national issues too, not just African ones. "If it bleeds, it leads," goes the saying.
When I pick up my local paper, I tend to read bad news all around. Domestic violence. Political croynism. Influx of drugs into my area. So genocide in Africa isn't out of place in this narrative of negativity.
The difference is that people have first hand experience of their town, state and country to counterbalance the negativity. I know there are bad things going on around here. But I also know many examples of good things going on. Of people helping families whose houses burned down or whose kid has a serious illness. I know of countless smaller kindnesses that occur too. My personal experience acts as a counterbalance to the media's focus on negativity.
But very few westerners have that same first hand experience when it comes to Africa. Hence, there is nothing to counterbalance the media's portrayal.
I don't think the western media consciously tries to smear Africa. Though I think there is the consideration that appealing to liberal pity and guilt is good for ratings/circulation.
I just think the media are lazy. Too lazy to tell good news in a compelling way. Covering bad news is straight forward. Just pick a random war, genocide or famine. Interview random government, rebel and/or NGO officials. Throw in the most provocoative quotes. Add water and stir.
Covering good news is a lot less formulaic. Journalists have to do a little digging.
Western journalism in Africa is very top down. It's heavily reliant on interviewing high ranking official types in capitals or major cities. Quite often, the good news stories are with ordinary people in the smaller towns and villages. These people and places aren't even on the radar screens of most western journalists.
But they are on the radar screens of the really good ones. Radio Netherlands' Eric Beauchemin is a great example of how a western journalism can do justice in reporting on Africa.
His pieces focus not on the presidents and ministers and rebel leaders. They focus on simple, ordinary Africans. The AIDS orphan who, at 12 years old, has to care and provide for her younger siblings. Gay and women's rights activists fighting for fair treatment by government and scoiety. These people may be victims of injustice but they are not lazy and they do not passively accept their fate.
This is how excellent journalism is practiced. Take a broader issue and show how ordinary people deal with it. It takes a little more effort than just getting a quote or two from the information minister and the opposition leader.
Objectivity doesn't simply mean telling the truth. It means telling the whole truth.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Friday, September 29, 2006
I am a terrorist
The National Intelligence Estimate made headlines because of its blindingly self-evident conclusion that the Iraq aggression was worsening the threat of terrorism.
One of the lesser reported parts of the report was to equate those who question the globalization with terrorists. According to The Progressive:
"Anti-U.S. and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical ideologies," the document states. "This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt terrorist methods to attack U.S. interests."
I do not oppose globalization whole hog. I think it has many good aspects. It allows activists from all over the world to communicate with each other. It allows people in a small upstate NY town to eat Thai food and easily obtain books by African authors.
It has its well-documented flaws too. You can't make omelettes without breaking eggs. Except the eggs are the lives of ordinary, hard-working people.
This doesn't necessarily mean you should throw out the baby with the bath water. I still think globalization is a good thing overall, unlike many of my fellow progressives. But I also think its pernicious effects on ordinary people ought to be dealt with by the government, since it was the government that imposed this system on the ordinary people in the first place. If the government's role is to protect only corporate interests, then let it be funded by only corporate taxes, let me keep my personal income taxes.
What I most object to is how globalization has been presented as a fundamentalist religion where you must agree with it 100 percent. If you have the audacity to point out that it has some negative effects on ordinary people or worse yet, dare suggest that such problems ought to be addressed by the government or otherwise mitigated, you're labelled a heretic and burned at the stake.
Well, you used to be a heretic if you recognized such nuance. Now, you're a terrorist.
Such is 'progress' in Bush's America.
I've long believed the Bush administration is completely out of control. Not because they're wrong on the issues. Lots of administrations get it wrong on the issues. Being part of democracy means that your guys aren't going to be in power all the time.
Any administration tends toward consolidating as much power as it can, Republican or Democrat. But usually, Congress steps in to try to limit that power. When it doesn't, that's when the disastrous problems occur. Lyndon Johnson did the same thing under a Democratic Congress and that's what sent us headlong into the Vietnam nightmare.
For several years following 9/11, Congress abdicated this constitutional responsibility. It offered no checks and balances against the excesses and abuses of power. So by the time Congress realized that maybe this abdication wasn't a good idea, the trend had been set and the Bush administration was used to acting like an absolute monarch. The Pandora's Box had already been opened.
As a result, you now have those who question globalization being talked about in the same breath as Osama bin Laden. It reminds me of how only a month after 9/11, one of the president's advisors said Congress ought to pass a tax cut for the rich in order to send a message to the terrorists. Again, talk about being completely out of control.
Mostly, I blame the Bush administration itself for this since they're the ones perpetrating the abuses of power. But I also place a lot of blame on Congress, both Democratic and Republican members who acted as a blind rubber stamp for so many years.
Democracy only works when someone has the guts to stand up and point out flaws in what the government wants to do. This is called self-correction and it's essential for a properly functioning democracy. It's why democracies work better in the long-term than dictatorships. Until recently, no one (except those evil, troop hating, terrorist loving, Saddam embracing, America-hating anti-war types) had the guts to say the emperor had no clothes.
But I suppose this is probably yet another thing we can find a way to scapegoat someone completely irrelevant. It must be the fault of celebrities. Or the UN. Or the Dixie Chicks. Or the French.
One of the lesser reported parts of the report was to equate those who question the globalization with terrorists. According to The Progressive:
"Anti-U.S. and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical ideologies," the document states. "This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt terrorist methods to attack U.S. interests."
I do not oppose globalization whole hog. I think it has many good aspects. It allows activists from all over the world to communicate with each other. It allows people in a small upstate NY town to eat Thai food and easily obtain books by African authors.
It has its well-documented flaws too. You can't make omelettes without breaking eggs. Except the eggs are the lives of ordinary, hard-working people.
This doesn't necessarily mean you should throw out the baby with the bath water. I still think globalization is a good thing overall, unlike many of my fellow progressives. But I also think its pernicious effects on ordinary people ought to be dealt with by the government, since it was the government that imposed this system on the ordinary people in the first place. If the government's role is to protect only corporate interests, then let it be funded by only corporate taxes, let me keep my personal income taxes.
What I most object to is how globalization has been presented as a fundamentalist religion where you must agree with it 100 percent. If you have the audacity to point out that it has some negative effects on ordinary people or worse yet, dare suggest that such problems ought to be addressed by the government or otherwise mitigated, you're labelled a heretic and burned at the stake.
Well, you used to be a heretic if you recognized such nuance. Now, you're a terrorist.
Such is 'progress' in Bush's America.
I've long believed the Bush administration is completely out of control. Not because they're wrong on the issues. Lots of administrations get it wrong on the issues. Being part of democracy means that your guys aren't going to be in power all the time.
Any administration tends toward consolidating as much power as it can, Republican or Democrat. But usually, Congress steps in to try to limit that power. When it doesn't, that's when the disastrous problems occur. Lyndon Johnson did the same thing under a Democratic Congress and that's what sent us headlong into the Vietnam nightmare.
For several years following 9/11, Congress abdicated this constitutional responsibility. It offered no checks and balances against the excesses and abuses of power. So by the time Congress realized that maybe this abdication wasn't a good idea, the trend had been set and the Bush administration was used to acting like an absolute monarch. The Pandora's Box had already been opened.
As a result, you now have those who question globalization being talked about in the same breath as Osama bin Laden. It reminds me of how only a month after 9/11, one of the president's advisors said Congress ought to pass a tax cut for the rich in order to send a message to the terrorists. Again, talk about being completely out of control.
Mostly, I blame the Bush administration itself for this since they're the ones perpetrating the abuses of power. But I also place a lot of blame on Congress, both Democratic and Republican members who acted as a blind rubber stamp for so many years.
Democracy only works when someone has the guts to stand up and point out flaws in what the government wants to do. This is called self-correction and it's essential for a properly functioning democracy. It's why democracies work better in the long-term than dictatorships. Until recently, no one (except those evil, troop hating, terrorist loving, Saddam embracing, America-hating anti-war types) had the guts to say the emperor had no clothes.
But I suppose this is probably yet another thing we can find a way to scapegoat someone completely irrelevant. It must be the fault of celebrities. Or the UN. Or the Dixie Chicks. Or the French.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Candidate debates: the puppets and the puppeteers
Earlier this week, John Faso and Eliot Spitzer held a debate. But contrary to popular belief, these are not the only two men running for governor. Green Party candidate Malachy McCourt is also running (or as he would say, standing) for the office. I believe a couple of other smaller party candidates are also on the ballot, though you'd never know it by relying on the mainstream media. Heck, I wouldn't even know McCourt's running if not for friends.
One of the rituals of the corporate media is to intone in their most pompous, self-important voice, "We don't make news. We just report it." However, if the facts are that half a dozen or more people run for most major offices, why does the media almost always report on only two of them?
The local Post-Star has mentioned candidate McCourt only in relation to his recent visit to Glens Falls (watch this space later in the week for a recap). I'm not sure the paper has ever mentioned the other smaller party candidates. They mention Republican Faso and Democrat Spitzer nearly every day. Every Sunday, they run an AP piece which basically give Faso and Spitzer a blank check to say whatever they want on a chosen topic. The wire service can't be bothered to cc: McCourt and the others with their email?
The news media may not consciously manipulate its coverage in order to preserve of the market share of the two major parties, but that's the undisputed effect. If they gave something resembling equal coverage to all candidates, I guarantee the vote of the smaller party candidates would go up. To report objectively means not just to tell the truth, but to tell the WHOLE truth.
But the "We don't make news. We just report it" media unilaterally decides who is a viable candidate instead of just reporting all the candidates' positions and letting the voters decide who's viable. That might require a little more journalism and leave less space for big, cheesy graphics but it's the right thing to do.
These exclusionary debates are pointless partly because not all the candidates are present. If you went to the supermarket and saw six kinds of sliced bread but two of them were heavily featured by the store and those two were the only ones with nutritional information on them, guess which two would sell the most?
The media outlets who broadcast these debates could easily require all candidates be present but they know that in some cases, the major party candidates would get their panties in a twist and boycott, thus depriving the stations of the ratings' drawers. But if the stations stuck to their guns, the major party candidates would come around eventually because they want free exposure too. Instead, the stations stick to the principles, which is ratings not civics.
A great example of this came during the Democratic primary season. Jonathan Tasini was the only challenger to US Sen. Hillary Clinton. NY1 refused to sponsor a Tasini-Clinton debate despite the fact that Tasini was at 14 percent in the polls because the anti-war insurgent hadn't raised enough money, according to the Time-Warner channel. Not surprisingly, Sen. Clinton wouldn't debate him in any other forum.
NY1 DID sponsor a debate between Spitzer and primary challenger Tom Suozzi, despite the fact that Suozzi was only at 8 percent in the polls at the time. Suozzi had raised a lot more money than Tasini so he was considered 'viable,' even though Tasini was higher in the polls despite having less cash. Maybe NY1 only will sponsor candidates with enough money to buy commercial time on... NY1. I don't like to be unduly cynical when the facts lead quite clearly in that direction.... Is it a coincidence that giant media conglomerates are among the most voiciferous opponents of public financing of campaigns and of other campaign funding restrictions?
But these debates are pointless for another reason as well. They are not spontaneous exchanges of information, but glorified commercials. The major party candidates insist it be that way and the mainstream media is complicit in this as well. The questions are tightly controlled to ensure that the two campaigns can advance their themes.
If a media outlet dares ask a truly provocative question, they are shot down by corporate media organizers, who know which side their bread is buttered on. For the recent Faso-Spitzer 'debate,' The Ithaca Journal submitted a trio of very relevant questions, but they were rejected by the debate's corporate media sponsor... none other than the infamous NY1.
The questions related to the 9/11 Commission, mental health housing and clean elections. Three very important topics for the next governor. The two candidates managed to find time to spar about the state comptroller who wasn't even on the stage but couldn't take about mental health programs or the hugely important issue of government accountability.
Thank you NY1! I feel so much more informed now. I'm surprised you didn't ask them about Anna Nicole's son!
To its credit, The Ithaca Journal withdrew from the faux debate. It opined that Maybe Spitzer or Faso will decide that questions from regular people deserve answers. We'd be happy to publish them.
But given Adirondack Almanack's recent piece, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Green Party candidate Howie Hawkins, Sen. Clinton's most prominent anti-war opponent, has also been excluded from the 'debate' between her and the GOP's pro-war John Spencer. So have all the other smaller party candidates, most of whom are anti-war.
You might as well check out Hawkins' website since the corporate media is hellbent on ignoring the Ralph Nader-endorsed candidate as well as everyone else who's outside the two corporate-controlled parties.
One of the rituals of the corporate media is to intone in their most pompous, self-important voice, "We don't make news. We just report it." However, if the facts are that half a dozen or more people run for most major offices, why does the media almost always report on only two of them?
The local Post-Star has mentioned candidate McCourt only in relation to his recent visit to Glens Falls (watch this space later in the week for a recap). I'm not sure the paper has ever mentioned the other smaller party candidates. They mention Republican Faso and Democrat Spitzer nearly every day. Every Sunday, they run an AP piece which basically give Faso and Spitzer a blank check to say whatever they want on a chosen topic. The wire service can't be bothered to cc: McCourt and the others with their email?
The news media may not consciously manipulate its coverage in order to preserve of the market share of the two major parties, but that's the undisputed effect. If they gave something resembling equal coverage to all candidates, I guarantee the vote of the smaller party candidates would go up. To report objectively means not just to tell the truth, but to tell the WHOLE truth.
But the "We don't make news. We just report it" media unilaterally decides who is a viable candidate instead of just reporting all the candidates' positions and letting the voters decide who's viable. That might require a little more journalism and leave less space for big, cheesy graphics but it's the right thing to do.
These exclusionary debates are pointless partly because not all the candidates are present. If you went to the supermarket and saw six kinds of sliced bread but two of them were heavily featured by the store and those two were the only ones with nutritional information on them, guess which two would sell the most?
The media outlets who broadcast these debates could easily require all candidates be present but they know that in some cases, the major party candidates would get their panties in a twist and boycott, thus depriving the stations of the ratings' drawers. But if the stations stuck to their guns, the major party candidates would come around eventually because they want free exposure too. Instead, the stations stick to the principles, which is ratings not civics.
A great example of this came during the Democratic primary season. Jonathan Tasini was the only challenger to US Sen. Hillary Clinton. NY1 refused to sponsor a Tasini-Clinton debate despite the fact that Tasini was at 14 percent in the polls because the anti-war insurgent hadn't raised enough money, according to the Time-Warner channel. Not surprisingly, Sen. Clinton wouldn't debate him in any other forum.
NY1 DID sponsor a debate between Spitzer and primary challenger Tom Suozzi, despite the fact that Suozzi was only at 8 percent in the polls at the time. Suozzi had raised a lot more money than Tasini so he was considered 'viable,' even though Tasini was higher in the polls despite having less cash. Maybe NY1 only will sponsor candidates with enough money to buy commercial time on... NY1. I don't like to be unduly cynical when the facts lead quite clearly in that direction.... Is it a coincidence that giant media conglomerates are among the most voiciferous opponents of public financing of campaigns and of other campaign funding restrictions?
But these debates are pointless for another reason as well. They are not spontaneous exchanges of information, but glorified commercials. The major party candidates insist it be that way and the mainstream media is complicit in this as well. The questions are tightly controlled to ensure that the two campaigns can advance their themes.
If a media outlet dares ask a truly provocative question, they are shot down by corporate media organizers, who know which side their bread is buttered on. For the recent Faso-Spitzer 'debate,' The Ithaca Journal submitted a trio of very relevant questions, but they were rejected by the debate's corporate media sponsor... none other than the infamous NY1.
The questions related to the 9/11 Commission, mental health housing and clean elections. Three very important topics for the next governor. The two candidates managed to find time to spar about the state comptroller who wasn't even on the stage but couldn't take about mental health programs or the hugely important issue of government accountability.
Thank you NY1! I feel so much more informed now. I'm surprised you didn't ask them about Anna Nicole's son!
To its credit, The Ithaca Journal withdrew from the faux debate. It opined that Maybe Spitzer or Faso will decide that questions from regular people deserve answers. We'd be happy to publish them.
But given Adirondack Almanack's recent piece, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Green Party candidate Howie Hawkins, Sen. Clinton's most prominent anti-war opponent, has also been excluded from the 'debate' between her and the GOP's pro-war John Spencer. So have all the other smaller party candidates, most of whom are anti-war.
You might as well check out Hawkins' website since the corporate media is hellbent on ignoring the Ralph Nader-endorsed candidate as well as everyone else who's outside the two corporate-controlled parties.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
New York's dysfunctional courts: a must read
It's now well-known that New York has the most dysfunctional legislature in the nation. But The New York Times has run a provocative and disturbing series which suggest that New York's judiciary might be even worse!
One example cited was a woman the northern town of Malone a mother of four, she went to court in that North Country village seeking an order of protection against her husband, who the police said had choked her, kicked her in the stomach and threatened to kill her. The justice, Donald R. Roberts, a former state trooper with a high school diploma, not only refused, according to state officials, but later told the court clerk, "Every woman needs a good pounding every now and then."
The Times noted that while [o]fficially a part of the state court system, yet financed by the towns and villages, the justice courts are essentially unsupervised by either. State court officials know little about the justices, and cannot reliably say how many cases they handle or how many are appealed. Even the agency charged with disciplining them, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, is not equipped to fully police their vast numbers.
I've never been a fan of New York's system of electing judges. Imagine you're accused of child molestation, basically the worst crime in society's eyes. Child molestation is the Salem of our time: accusation equals guilt. Maybe not in the law's eyes, but certainly in society's eyes.
But if judges are elected, then society's eyes suddenly matter. If you're falsely accused of this or some other high profile heinous crime, would you want your life and liberty to be put in the hands of someone who's putting his own fate before the fickle voters in two months?
And New York's judges are subject not just to elections, but partisan elections. You run for a judgeship as a Democrat or Republican or Conservative, etc. The municipal or county party leadership has a role in whether you even get nominated. Judges should first and foremost jurists, not someone who owes his job to partisan hacks.
The series makes for chilling reading. Part one can be accessed here. Links to parts two and three are accessible there.
One example cited was a woman the northern town of Malone a mother of four, she went to court in that North Country village seeking an order of protection against her husband, who the police said had choked her, kicked her in the stomach and threatened to kill her. The justice, Donald R. Roberts, a former state trooper with a high school diploma, not only refused, according to state officials, but later told the court clerk, "Every woman needs a good pounding every now and then."
The Times noted that while [o]fficially a part of the state court system, yet financed by the towns and villages, the justice courts are essentially unsupervised by either. State court officials know little about the justices, and cannot reliably say how many cases they handle or how many are appealed. Even the agency charged with disciplining them, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, is not equipped to fully police their vast numbers.
I've never been a fan of New York's system of electing judges. Imagine you're accused of child molestation, basically the worst crime in society's eyes. Child molestation is the Salem of our time: accusation equals guilt. Maybe not in the law's eyes, but certainly in society's eyes.
But if judges are elected, then society's eyes suddenly matter. If you're falsely accused of this or some other high profile heinous crime, would you want your life and liberty to be put in the hands of someone who's putting his own fate before the fickle voters in two months?
And New York's judges are subject not just to elections, but partisan elections. You run for a judgeship as a Democrat or Republican or Conservative, etc. The municipal or county party leadership has a role in whether you even get nominated. Judges should first and foremost jurists, not someone who owes his job to partisan hacks.
The series makes for chilling reading. Part one can be accessed here. Links to parts two and three are accessible there.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Outrage for sale
I wrote earlier about the Pope's comments quoting a 14th century emperor that caused outrage in the Muslim world. As well as the deafening silence in the Islamic world about the genocide of Muslims by Muslims in Darfur.
While some of the Muslim anger is understandable to a certain extent, anti-Islamic bigotry and hatred is real, if not as prominent as some think. But the hysteria around quotatations and cartoons seems a hideous overreaction by people looking to be offended. To what extent is this accidental and to what extent meticulously manufactured is an important question.
While some of the Muslim anger is understandable to a certain extent, anti-Islamic bigotry and hatred is real, if not as prominent as some think. But the hysteria around quotatations and cartoons seems a hideous overreaction by people looking to be offended. To what extent is this accidental and to what extent meticulously manufactured is an important question.
Monday, September 25, 2006
Not quite getting the concept
"You get what you pay for," is a fairly well-known saying. But it seems to elude leaders of one upstate New York town.
The Post-Star reports that three firms have bid to replace the Hadlock Pond dam that was breached in Fort Ann last year. The dam failed only weeks after it was built and the town 'leadership' engaged in a studious coverup of their role in the fiasco.
Apparently, all three bids were higher than the town was initially willing to pay.
The paper reported: "I don't understand why they're so high," said state Sen. Elizabeth Little, R-Queensbury. "The lowest bid was $3.2 million and that seems ridiculous. It only cost $1.8 million to build the dam the last time."
Of course, that $1.8 million got the town a structure that didn't even last a month before its collapse caused millions of dollars of damage. So the town might be advised to spend a little more money and build a dam that will actually last.
The Post-Star reports that three firms have bid to replace the Hadlock Pond dam that was breached in Fort Ann last year. The dam failed only weeks after it was built and the town 'leadership' engaged in a studious coverup of their role in the fiasco.
Apparently, all three bids were higher than the town was initially willing to pay.
The paper reported: "I don't understand why they're so high," said state Sen. Elizabeth Little, R-Queensbury. "The lowest bid was $3.2 million and that seems ridiculous. It only cost $1.8 million to build the dam the last time."
Of course, that $1.8 million got the town a structure that didn't even last a month before its collapse caused millions of dollars of damage. So the town might be advised to spend a little more money and build a dam that will actually last.
Biofuel and northern NY
North Country Public Radio ran a really good series on biofuel and its potential impact on the Adirondacks and northern New York.
-Biodiesel
-Alternatives to corn-based ethanol
-Solid fuel
NCPR has also done a number of interesting stories on the wind power debate taking place in much of northern New York.
-Biodiesel
-Alternatives to corn-based ethanol
-Solid fuel
NCPR has also done a number of interesting stories on the wind power debate taking place in much of northern New York.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Iraq disaster has worsened terror threat: intelligence agencies
Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse...
It's now been well-established that the three main excuses presented for the aggression against Iraq have been thoroughly discredited.
Even some who conceded that fact contended that at least staying in Iraq is now necessary to confront terror.
This observation that the Iraq aggression would make the threat of terrorism was is hardly new. For people with a modicum of common sense and a rudimentary understanding of world (not just US) history, this was blindingly self-evident before the aggression was launched.
Yet, official sources, the best and the brightest if you will, are finally starting to realize this.
No, this observation was not made by the Dixie Chicks, Hollywood actors, Michael Moore or whoever the irrelevant strawman of the day is.
It was made by US intelligence agencies. They issued a report which, The New York Times reports, asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.
The paper added: In early 2005, the National Intelligence Council released a study concluding that Iraq had become the primary training ground for the next generation of terrorists, and that veterans of the Iraq war might ultimately overtake Al Qaeda’s current leadership in the constellation of the global jihad leadership.
Of course, President Bush's ardent defense of a mythical right to torture hasn't helped either. Even his former secretary of state has said that the president's love affair with torture has caused the rest of the world 'to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.'
It's now been well-established that the three main excuses presented for the aggression against Iraq have been thoroughly discredited.
Even some who conceded that fact contended that at least staying in Iraq is now necessary to confront terror.
This observation that the Iraq aggression would make the threat of terrorism was is hardly new. For people with a modicum of common sense and a rudimentary understanding of world (not just US) history, this was blindingly self-evident before the aggression was launched.
Yet, official sources, the best and the brightest if you will, are finally starting to realize this.
No, this observation was not made by the Dixie Chicks, Hollywood actors, Michael Moore or whoever the irrelevant strawman of the day is.
It was made by US intelligence agencies. They issued a report which, The New York Times reports, asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.
The paper added: In early 2005, the National Intelligence Council released a study concluding that Iraq had become the primary training ground for the next generation of terrorists, and that veterans of the Iraq war might ultimately overtake Al Qaeda’s current leadership in the constellation of the global jihad leadership.
Of course, President Bush's ardent defense of a mythical right to torture hasn't helped either. Even his former secretary of state has said that the president's love affair with torture has caused the rest of the world 'to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)