Libya and Media Incompetence: Sodom and Gomorrah Search for an Honest, Competent AP Reporter Remains Futile

Let me give yu two headlines about events in Libya from the incompetents of the AP, as featured on AT&T/Yaahoo--headlines which appeared yesterday and today consecutively (Headlines in chronological order, with commntary after each headline):


1. "Rebel fighters mount fierce (lol) attackon Gadhafi bastion"


Let me translate the above headline for you, since I am not an incompetent AP reporter. First, Libyan rebels hae NEVER mounted a "fierce" attack, except in very relative terms. What is really happening is that "rebel fighters" are making exploratory advances to see if NATO has SOFTENED up the oppositioin to the point that the rebeels can basically walk in unopposed. You may well wonder that "attacks' are still taking place, since similar headlines have declared Gadhafi forces on the verge of total rout for WEEKS (AFTER the rebels walked into Tripoli). There is almost NEVER a competent mainstream media story on Libya. And this is NOTT really because of agenda--at least not mainly Sure, part of the euphoric nature of the stories is to try to give Obama a "boost" by declaring a "victory" for his policy in Libya But the sheer incompetence of the stories cannot be totally explwined by that fact.


2. "Gadhafi loyalists hold off Libyan new attack"


Again, translation is in order. What happened was that the "fierce" attack (exploratory advance) met some opposition, and "fighters" were going to DIE if they actually pressed home a eral military attack. So NATO was called in, hoping that "Gadhafi loyalists' would eventually find it impossible to mount any real opposition (as, of course, happpened in places like Tripoli, where Gadhafi forces faced the additonal obstacle of a mainly HOSTILE local population--a t least the activist part of that population. The AP, of course, should be ashamed of headlines like this on connsecutive days, but today's "journalist" has not shame. Among other things, he or she is so bone deep stupid that they don't even recognize their own absurdity when they see it.


There are other contradictions in this second headline (beyond the conflict with the previous day's descripton of a "fierce" attack underway, with the implication that the "Gadhafi bastion" wa on the verge of being taken). "Libyan new atttack", and not "new rebel attack" Should the despicable AP not make up its mind. Are these people "rebels" anymore, or are they the present "government" of Libya? Are not Gadhafi "loyalists" now the "ebels"? I know. It may get confusing to suddenly start caling the "rebels" the government of Libya, since they have been the "rebels" for months. However, that is my point. Should you not be at least CONSISTENT in your terminology? The incompetent AP is not.


Now it is a GOOD thing that Gadhafi is o longer in control in Libya, and unlikely to regain control. I thought Obama had a chance to accomplish that the FIRST TIME that the "rebles" approached Tripoli and seemed ready to walk rigt in. Instead, Obama "led from behind", as usual, and did not even call for Gadhafi's ouster, by name, until eveerybody else and his brootther had already done so. Then Obama was unwilling to POLITICALLY face the DEFAT of the rebels that was about to take place--plus, Frace and Germnay were unwilling to accept the situation. Therefore, we got the NATO military intervention at a time which virtually guaranteed the six months of war that resulted--a war that is still not apparently, totally over. I consider Obama's "policy" in Libyya to be a disaster.


However, ti is still a GOOD thing that Gadhafi is essentailly gone, if a stake has not yet been driven in his heart. One of the things that griped me most about critics of the iraq war is that they refused to acknowledge that it ws a GOOD thing to get rid of that MADMAN, Saddam Husseing. But, as this blog has stated, these are the wrost hypocrites who have ever walked the Earth, on two legs or four. You could still criticize the Iraqq war and admit that it was on the plus side to get rid of a MAD KILLER. And, whatever else can be said of tht other madman, Gadhafi, he was clearly LESS of a threat i n the regoion than Saddam Husseing. You might remember that Saddam actually ATTACKED Kuwait, and threatened Saudi Arabia. You might remember that we actually went to wAR with Saddam Hussein over that. Saddam Hussein was an obvious ENEMY of the United States. While that can be said of Gadhafi, it is also true that Gadhafi was no real threat to his neeighbors, or to our interests in the region. The ONLY reason that media, and other, hpocrites are willing to say that it is a GOOD thing to get rid of a mad killer when it is Gadhafi, and not when it is Saddam, is HYPOCRISY. Bush was President then, and Obama is President now. I say the same thing both times. I crriticized the WAY that Bush handled the Iraq war (same sppech for years), and I am criticizing the WAY that Obama has handled Libya (not very incisive to say that Obama gives the same speech, since he has given essentiall the same speech--"you need to LOVE me"--for at least 3 years. Oh, and its "fully paid for"--as if we are not borrowing more than 40 cents out of every dollar the Federal Government spends, and as if REPUBLICANS were not talking like we need to borrow more. (Yes, I am on the verge of calling the Tea Party movment a FAILURE in terms of its actual influence on public policy, especailly as regards the debt and deficit.)


What about Libya? What the incompetents of the media are not doing is reporting on whether Libya is heading the disastrous way of the French Revolution, or has a chance of something like the American Revolution. In short, there is litttle reporting on whether there are SANE leaders appearing in Libya ready, wiling and able to gude it toward being a functioioning democratic republic. (or at least a functioining, non-terrorist country). Those things are much MORE important than these "mop up" details on the military front, although the "mop up" details may gell you some things about how well the rebels are starting to run the country.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Should I warn again of the bad typing? Nah. This is a situation of "buyer bewarte"--and you are not paying anything to be frustated by my non-proofread typing anyway. Nor am I receiving anything for frustrating you, other than whateever perverse joy I get out of it.