Achtung Bubba
Refugee
Flipping through the morning news shows, I noticed that the FOX News Channel's morning show "FOX and Friends" had an extended interview with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. From what I saw, they did not arrest Kissinger for his apparent war crimes that many here believe he is guilty of.
I missed the first part of the extended interview, but I gather that they didn't even accuse him of war crimes; it seems that the subject never came up.
Now, granted this *was* FOX News, and we all know that network is ultra-conservative (well, ultra-conservative compared to other news agencies, middle-of-the-road compared to the rest of the nation; seriously, would a conservative network hire Geraldo?), but I've never heard ANYONE in the U.S. Government or the mainstream press level the charge of "war criminal" against Kissinger.
I've heard the accusation from LITERALLY no one in the mainstream press, including such slanted and opposing publications as National Review and the New Republic. The former had a lot to say about Clinton, Filegate, Whitewater, etc.; the latter about Reagan and Iran-Contra. The fact that, as far as I know, NEITHER of them revile Kissinger as a war criminal, mass murderer, and serial killer is telling.
(And I'm not counting "mediachannel.org" as mainstream press. Why? Because I've NEVER heard of them.)
Why has the media been so silent?
Are they unaware of the events? It certainly doesn't seem so. They report the events; they just don't go insane with indignation as a result.
Is it some vast conspiracy? Probably not. The press has certainly seemed more than capable of bringing down corruption (see also: Watergate), criticize horrible military decisions (MacNamara), and criticize members of the government for something as minor as divorce (Gingrich).
Hell, Kissinger was NIXON's Secretary of State, and the press still has nothing but respect for the man.
(And I'd like to note that those who believe in a vast conspiracy to explain the press's liberal slant subscribe to a much more plausible theory than one that has a mostly liberal press uniformly protecting a conservative former Secretary of State; and those guys are still laughed off the arena of ideas - and rightly so.)
Oh, and we have among the most free press in the world, one in which alternative news sources (namely, those that have the circulation and credibility of a guy handing out flyers outside the local Starbucks) can accuse a former high-ranking government official of acts similar to the worst acts of the Third Reich. That alone is a great indication that our press' hands aren't tied.
So, why has the press missed this boat?
Well... while there are moments Occam's Razor falls apart (particularly the argument that there is no God because there is no definitive proof of God), I think it can apply as a guideline - as a rule of thumb - when it comes to human behavior.
Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation is typically the most accurate. By that theory, the most likely explanation for the press' inaction is this:
The press ignores the story because there is no story.
Though I'm still astounded by the fact, there are those who say they believe that Ronald Reagan created the HIV virus to kill inner-city blacks. A serious accusation to be sure, but one that has gotten no traction whatsoever, mostly because it is simply not based in any kind of reality.
I believe that the Kissinger war crimes story is in the same category of "shocking, but bulls**t." At the very least, while we should look at the press and everything else with a critical eye, we also need to temper a tendency some have to believe the worst with an overriding sense of reason.
It's silly to think of this country and its leaders as perfect, but thinking of this country as purely corrupt is at least as misguided. Either way, it may be a bit much to use superlatives of any form, but "greatest" and "worst" isn't as bad as "perfect" and "perfectly corrupt". After all, SOME countries must be in the running for "greatest on Earth" and SOME must be contenders for worst.
And I think any reasonable analysis of the state of the world indicates that the U.S. is either the greatest nation on Earth, or near to it. It takes a deluded mind to count it among the worst.
Seriously, I think some in this forum will believe absolutely ANYTHING if it conforms to their view of the United States, a view that sees the nation as at LEAST as bad as Iraq, Soviet Russia, and Nazi Germany.
I think those who seriously compare the U.S. Government to Hitler's regime are horribly misguided or mentally demaged.
I missed the first part of the extended interview, but I gather that they didn't even accuse him of war crimes; it seems that the subject never came up.
Now, granted this *was* FOX News, and we all know that network is ultra-conservative (well, ultra-conservative compared to other news agencies, middle-of-the-road compared to the rest of the nation; seriously, would a conservative network hire Geraldo?), but I've never heard ANYONE in the U.S. Government or the mainstream press level the charge of "war criminal" against Kissinger.
I've heard the accusation from LITERALLY no one in the mainstream press, including such slanted and opposing publications as National Review and the New Republic. The former had a lot to say about Clinton, Filegate, Whitewater, etc.; the latter about Reagan and Iran-Contra. The fact that, as far as I know, NEITHER of them revile Kissinger as a war criminal, mass murderer, and serial killer is telling.
(And I'm not counting "mediachannel.org" as mainstream press. Why? Because I've NEVER heard of them.)
Why has the media been so silent?
Are they unaware of the events? It certainly doesn't seem so. They report the events; they just don't go insane with indignation as a result.
Is it some vast conspiracy? Probably not. The press has certainly seemed more than capable of bringing down corruption (see also: Watergate), criticize horrible military decisions (MacNamara), and criticize members of the government for something as minor as divorce (Gingrich).
Hell, Kissinger was NIXON's Secretary of State, and the press still has nothing but respect for the man.
(And I'd like to note that those who believe in a vast conspiracy to explain the press's liberal slant subscribe to a much more plausible theory than one that has a mostly liberal press uniformly protecting a conservative former Secretary of State; and those guys are still laughed off the arena of ideas - and rightly so.)
Oh, and we have among the most free press in the world, one in which alternative news sources (namely, those that have the circulation and credibility of a guy handing out flyers outside the local Starbucks) can accuse a former high-ranking government official of acts similar to the worst acts of the Third Reich. That alone is a great indication that our press' hands aren't tied.
So, why has the press missed this boat?
Well... while there are moments Occam's Razor falls apart (particularly the argument that there is no God because there is no definitive proof of God), I think it can apply as a guideline - as a rule of thumb - when it comes to human behavior.
Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation is typically the most accurate. By that theory, the most likely explanation for the press' inaction is this:
The press ignores the story because there is no story.
Though I'm still astounded by the fact, there are those who say they believe that Ronald Reagan created the HIV virus to kill inner-city blacks. A serious accusation to be sure, but one that has gotten no traction whatsoever, mostly because it is simply not based in any kind of reality.
I believe that the Kissinger war crimes story is in the same category of "shocking, but bulls**t." At the very least, while we should look at the press and everything else with a critical eye, we also need to temper a tendency some have to believe the worst with an overriding sense of reason.
It's silly to think of this country and its leaders as perfect, but thinking of this country as purely corrupt is at least as misguided. Either way, it may be a bit much to use superlatives of any form, but "greatest" and "worst" isn't as bad as "perfect" and "perfectly corrupt". After all, SOME countries must be in the running for "greatest on Earth" and SOME must be contenders for worst.
And I think any reasonable analysis of the state of the world indicates that the U.S. is either the greatest nation on Earth, or near to it. It takes a deluded mind to count it among the worst.
Seriously, I think some in this forum will believe absolutely ANYTHING if it conforms to their view of the United States, a view that sees the nation as at LEAST as bad as Iraq, Soviet Russia, and Nazi Germany.
I think those who seriously compare the U.S. Government to Hitler's regime are horribly misguided or mentally demaged.