What if - W.I.

W.I. the national media saw the war on terror from a different perspective? As if the Muslim extremists were real and wanted to carry out their stated desires to eliminate Israel and us in the West. W.I. the journalists saw their children at risk? W.I. they called our troops “freedom fighters” instead of “insurgents?” Wasn’t that our stated objective after 9/11? Wasn’t that the mood of the country and George Bush? Almost 80% of Americans saw Saddam Hussein as part of the axis of evil (along with Iran and North Korea). The fact is, we easily toppled Saddam, but then things got tougher. We all hoped America would be perceived as liberators; however, we were not. Even now at home we are not. But what if the press still thought our motives were pure? Which, I believe, they are. Does anyone really think Democrats or Republicans really want an extended conflict in Iraq? Don’t you think everyone in America, especially George Bush, would like to succeed in Iraq and bring our troops home?

So what could be the motive of the press for discarding patriotism to show us all the warts and trauma of the war without much of the success? And more importantly, when the straight news turns to editorializing about the news, we are much more likely to hear criticism of our leaders and their handling of the war. I believe the reason is three fold:

First, it is easy. The simple thing, no matter in sports or in news, is to criticize the play calling. This is the most natural of human tendencies. Unfortunately, it is unprofessional and borders on treasonous behavior since the media’s unpatriotic dialog emboldens the enemy. Joe Lieberman is a Democrat, but I know he is a man of character and conviction because he stood up for what he thought was right in Iraq even though it did not follow his party’s position.

Second, standing in lockstep and encouraging others editorially (through the news) doesn’t sell newspapers. To make money in today’s media world, you need to be provocative. The successful organization can’t just report, they must create sides and be balanced by reporting all sides. Unfortunately, the sides are biased and the bias is rarely disclosed.

Third, according to all analysis, it is relatively undisputed that major news organizations (FOX excluded) would rather be called progressive versus conservative.

As a result of these three media failings, you, me and most importantly, the heroes dying in Iraq for freedom could fail against terror just because the media thinks the current leadership is wrong. An exhaustible amount of energy is being expended across party lines, while it could be focused on fighting our determined enemies. These enemies gain hope and strength from our division.

W.I. the terrorists around the world could see a different America? An America that stands up like Joe Lieberman and Zel Miller and say: “We as a diverse nation of Republicans and Democrats stand up against terrorism in any form we see, anywhere around the world. We believe everyone’s right to be free is worth taking the risk of spilling our own blood. We will continue our pursuit of this freedom for Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon. We will unleash the cause for freedom against Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba if necessary. We do this not to aggravate the world or to implant our economic or religious beliefs on others, but to embrace freedom from tyranny and terror.”

If this was the message from America to the terrorist leaders and press, we could win the war against terror. Bully nations will not stand against righteous power. On the contrary, when 60% of us don’t support our foreign policy, and our leaders are undermined for political gain, our enemies are emboldened and will ultimately take us down. This is what Joe Lieberman can see and the rest of us should realize. I hold the press and media mostly responsible for this failure to see beyond their own profits and political interests to perhaps the greatest disservice ever to our beloved country. W.I. we fail against terrorism?