CenterFeud

Obi-wan Lieberman

"If you strike me down, I will only become stronger." Barry Casselman has some thoughts on why a Lieberman defeat in today's primary will probably be good for Lieberman's stature -- and how it will force the Democratic party to make some hard choices:

In the worst case scenario, Mr. Lieberman could lose the November election. In that case, he becomes a profile in courage - as John F. Kennedy wrote about the bravest senators in history, and a martyr to Democratic Party extremism. He would replace Arthur Vandenberg as the modern symbol of American foreign policy bipartisanship, one of the nation's greatest political traditions. He would no longer be the footnote in political history as the first Jewish nominee for vice president; he would be remembered as well for something more important, a rare figure of guts and honesty in the history of the Senate. For a man at his age, this is not a small outcome.

More likely, Mr. Lieberman will be re-elected to the Senate as an independent. Although many of his colleagues, as well as former President Clinton, support him and have campaigned for him in the primary, most have indicated they will not support him if he loses the primary. This would result in Mr. Lieberman being a genuine independent in the Senate, beholden to no party and no set of ideas but his own.

The new Senate, by all accounts, is likely to be close to a tie. As a man free to go where his conscience leads him, Mr. Lieberman would often be pivotal vote. The new Sen. Lieberman would be able to speak out as he had not before. Remember, this man ran seriously for president in 2004. He did not come close to winning, but he is not without big ideas and goals.

The newest chemistry for an independent Sen. Lieberman would be his instant leadership nationwide of the political center. He was chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, an intellectually important but politically weak centrist organization. His new role would be of another political order.

Independent and centrist parties, already just beginning to spring up here and there in the country, would have someone to rally behind and speak for them. The chemistry of the 2008 election could be profoundly altered. I suspect it would not help the Democrats.

I think Casselman's second scenario is the most likely -- that Lamont will triumph in today's primary, and that Lieberman will flatten him in the general election in November, emerging as the new standard-bearer for independent centrists.

Reuters admits to faked photo of Beirut

First RatherGate, now ReutersGate. From Pajamas Media, whose co-founder Charles Johnson (of LGF fame) was instrumental in bringing both media scandals to light:

In an apology that should cast serious doubt on much of the credibility of the news service itself, Reuters has acknowledged that its war photography from Beirut had been altered and is officially withdrawing the photograph. In a carefully worded statement Reuters admitted that “photo editing software was improperly used on this image. A corrected version will immediately follow this advisory. We are sorry for any inconvience.”

Inconvenience? This display of media manipulation during wartime was uncovered by Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs who previously uncovered the forged memos of Rathergate. In the past, Reuters has often been accused of bias by the blogosphere, which the news agency has denied.

This clumsily doctored photo, which included cloned portions to "enhance" the smoke and destroyed buildings, is only the tip of a much larger iceberg, in which media outlets continue to live in denial regarding their role in the skillful propaganda war being waged by jihadist groups like Hezbollah, Hamas and Al-Qaeda. A recent example was CNN reporter Nic Robertson, who led his viewing audience through what he later admitted was a carefully staged Hezbollah propaganda piece.

No one is questioning the media's right to cover the destruction in Lebanon, and to provide the critical Lebanese perspective of the damage that is being wrought by Israel's attacks. But it is irresponsible to hand a megaphone to Hezbollah, or to report without establishing the motives of the people supplying the information. Part of Hezbollah's war-fighting strategy is to milk every possible casualty for its propaganda potential, and there is growing skepticism that some (certainly by no means all!) of the images of dead Lebanese civilans are manufactured or manipulated for consumption of both Arab and Western media. This technique of staging and manuipulating media imagery has been honed to an art form by Palestinian propagandists and was exposed in a 60-minutes segment titled "Pallywood".

It is certainly fair to point out that Israel's attacks are damaging civilian infrstructure and causing suffering and strife among the population, but not without noting that the airports, roads and bridges in question are targeted because they would otherwise be used by Syria and Iran to resupply Hezbollah.

It is also fair to say that Israel censors some of the reporting coming from its side of the border, but not without pointing out that such censorship is common in wartime, even among democracies, and is done to prevent disclosure of operational details that would damage the war effort and result in the loss of life -- and that Hezbollah exercises its own form of "censorship" by threatening the safety of those who might report less-than-favorably.

And it is fair to report the number of Lebanese civilans killed in the conflict, but not without mentioning that such casualties could be lessened if those civilans heeded the leaflets Israel drops as advance warning (not to mention that some of those casualties may in fact be Hezbollah fighters dressed as civilans). And, as has been noted elsewhere (but not repeated often enough in news reports), Israel regards civilan deaths as a tragic failure, while Hezbollah regards them as a victory.

All of the above factor into our understanding of the story and consequences of a victory by either Israel or Hezbollah (and by extension, its masters Syria and Iran). It is bad enough that the media reports the daily airstrikes and battles without supplying critical context; for it to rely on "journalists" who supply crudely doctored photos and act as shills for terrorist propaganda is unconscionable.