[Originally posted 30 March 2006]
H
|
oward Kaloogian, a Californian candidate for Congress, boldly
charges that newspapers are misrepresenting the situation in Iraq—that things
there are much more peaceful than represented. “…each day the news media finds
[sic] any violence occurring in the country and screams and shouts about it—in
part because many journalists are opposed to the U.S. effort to fight
terrorism.” In proof he shows a picture of a peaceful street scene, complete
with western tourists, billboards, and a taxi, captioned “We took this photo of
downtown Baghdad while we were in Iraq. Iraq (including Baghdad) is much more
calm and stable than what many people believe it to be.” (House Candidate Draws
Fire for Web Photo - Yahoo! News)
The trouble is, the picture that was supposed to be of Baghdad
was actually taken in a suburb of Istanbul. This is somewhat akin to claiming
that all is quiet on the streets of Paris and showing as proof a street scene
taken in Helsinki.
The utter contempt this shows for the facts is breathtaking in
its scope. The amazing thing is that the candidate thought he could get away
with it.
It's not even a good fake—nothing is right about it for Iraq.
The signs aren’t even in Arabic script.
When it was called to the candidate’s attention, did he apologize?
Well, yes, sort of. “It was wrong,” he is quoted as saying. “We’re sorry.” Who
he’s apologizing to and for what isn’t clear however. He’s not sorry about
misleading the American people, apparently, since he reasserts his original
claims the fake picture was intended to bolster. He’s not apologizing for the
hypocrisy of blaming news media for the lying that he himself was in fact
doing.
In explanation of the lie he was caught in he says that “the
military asked us to use our discretion and put things on the Internet that
were nondescriptive … (because) if we posted something that was easily identifiable,
it could be a target.” This somehow justifies claiming that Istanbul was
somehow Baghdad? Does Kaloogian think that all foreign cities are one and the
same? Or that his readers will think that? If the one is justified by military
necessity in some manner, then why not simply take a picture of downtown San
Francisco and label it Baghdad? The idiocy of this is beyond belief, and
several light years past justification.
Or then there’s his other explanation—the old I’m-not-lying-just-stupid
defense so beloved by former president Ronald Reagan. It was just an “innocent
mix-up”; that pictures from a stop in Istanbul got confused with those taken in
Baghdad and apparently nobody in his self-described “Truth Tour” had the wit to
tell the difference.
If he and his buddies are really that downright dumb, they
should be listening to what their betters have to say rather than trying to
instruct the American people from the depths of their vast ignorance.
And if he is as he appears to be—just another goddamn
right-wing lying whore—then he should get the hell out of politics and take up
something more in his line. Insurance fraud, perhaps.
[The original linked source no longer exists; as an alternate here is an editorial by Brian Whitaker that gives the basic information]
No comments:
Post a Comment