Jeremy Scahill is a Tool

Rigid ideologies suck. If I haven't made it abundantly clear in earlier posts, I hate ideological thinking. What do I mean by this? Ideological thinking is when a person clings so tightly to their preconceived worldview that they shape all situations to this paradigm even if facts say otherwise. Inconvenient facts are ignored. Convenient facts are exaggerated and given undo prominence.

Investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill is a perfect case of this type of thinking. Although I found his book on Blackwater and private military contracting (Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army) insightful and important, his views on U.S. foreign policy, especially when it comes to Afghanistan and Pakistan (or Af-Pak for short), conform to a familiar anti-imperialist ideology.

In Scahill's mind, almost everything the U.S. engages in abroad is evil and imperialistic: Facts be damned!

And facts have readily been damned by Scahill when it comes to Af-Pak, as we can see from his June 5th appearance on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher. The full clips of his time on the show can be found here, here, here, and here.

What follows are the statements I take issue with. I'll be clear here, however. There are legitimate arguments and viewpoints that can come out against the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan and policies toward and within Pakistan. Yet, Scahill's viewpoints on this matter are simply untrue. This is what infuriates me more than anything: not the position in and of itself but rather how that position is sustained and defended.

So let's get started!

Scahill said "Bombings in Pakistan with these drones are indiscriminately killing civilians. Civilians are dying in Afghanistan on a regular basis."

Now we'll deal with the drone issue later. But here's a question: civilians are dying in Afghanistan on a regular basis because of whom? The very language Scahill uses is dishonest. The passive voice here implies the U.S. is primarily to blame for civilian deaths.

So here's the truth. The U.S. is responsible for a large number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan and that number has been rising. HOWEVER, the majority of civilian deaths in the country, according to a recent UN report, are from the Taliban and that number is also rising. Now people like Scahill may argue, after sniffing massive amounts of glue, that once the U.S. occupation ends, Afghan civilians will have it much better. Bullshit. With the U.S. gone, fighting would still continue between the Taliban and various other factions within the country, including OTHER outside actors (yes Scahill, the U.S. isn't the only "meddler" in Afghanistan). That's not to mention the widespread systemic violence of the Taliban factions themselves, especially towards women and religious and ethnic minorities.

Later in the show Scahill goes on to make another ideological statement, this time about Iraq:

I actually hold the Bush administration responsible for releasing the hounds of hell on the Iraqi population because there certainly weren’t people being killed in those number under Saddam Hussein’s regime. He was most brutal when the United States was supporting him.”

Scahill attributes any human rights violation, violence or crimes internationally to the United States. When the U.S. supported Hussein, it was their fault. When they didn’t support him, it was their fault. Now the Bush administration does hold large responsibility for its mishandling of post-Saddam Iraq--but so does various ethno-religious factions within Iraq, so does Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. But they aren't the evil U.S., so I guess Scahill doesn't care about those actors.

Perhaps Scahill's most imbecilic statement during the show was on Afghanistan once again, "quoting" a Soviet general who served in the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the '80s:

He called it the biggest mistake of his life. And said if we had it to be over again we wouldn’t have sent one troop. We would’ve helped support the Afghan people.

Ah yes, Scahill, those humanitarian Soviets. I’m sure the Red Army’s main concern was helping the Afghan people during their war in Afghanistan. Give me a break. And this sad excuse for a journalist can’t even draw key differences between the U.S. presence and mission in Afghanistan and the Soviets’ presence and mission there.

And Scahill uses the all-too-repeated "Graveyard of Empires" argument here. That is, he implies that any type of military or outside presence within Afghanistan is inevitably doomed, and draws from history to support this idea.

But let's turn to a real journalist, Peter Bergen, to debunk this historicist idea:

Objections to Obama’s ramp-up in Afghanistan begin with the observation that Afghanistan has long been the "graveyard of empires"—as went the disastrous British expedition there in 1842 and the Soviet invasion in 1979, so too the current American occupation is doomed to follow. In fact, any number of empire builders, from Alexander the Great to the Mogul emperor Babur in the sixteenth century to the British in the Second Afghan War three decades after their infamous defeat, have won military victories in Afghanistan. The graveyard of empires metaphor belongs in the graveyard of clichés.
The Soviets, of course, spent almost a decade waging war in Afghanistan, only to retreat ignominiously in 1989, an important factor in their own empire’s consignment to history’s dustbin. But today’s American-led intervention in Afghanistan is quite different from the Communist occupation. The Soviet army killed more than a million Afghans and forced some five million more to flee the country, creating what was then the world’s largest refugee population. The Soviets also sowed millions of mines (including some that resembled toys), making Afghanistan one of the most heavily mined countries in the world. And Soviet soldiers were a largely unprofessional rabble of conscripts who drank heavily, used drugs, and consistently engaged in looting. The Soviets’ strategy, tactics, and behavior were, in short, the exact opposite of those used in successful counterinsurgency campaigns.
Unsurprisingly, the brutal Soviet occupation provoked a countrywide insurrection that drew from a wide array of ethnic groups—Tajiks, Uzbeks, Pashtuns, and Hazaras—and every class in Afghan society, from mullahs to urban professionals to peasants. By contrast, the insurgents in Afghanistan today are overwhelmingly rural Pashtuns with negligible support in urban areas and among other ethnic groups.”

The final piece of bullshit that stood out to me in this panel discussion was Scahill's statements on a "colonial fortress in Islamabad [the capital of Pakistan]" that "is going to be the point of operations going into Afghanistan."

From the phrase "point of operations" one would deduce that this embassy will be involved in military operations. Well guess what. It's not. Scahill is either lying or ignorant (the bolding is mine):

The US is embarking on a $1 billion crash program to expand its diplomatic presence in Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan, another sign that the Obama administration is making a costly, long-term commitment to war-torn South Asia, US officials said Wednesday.

...

Senior State Department officials said the expanded diplomatic presence is needed to replace overcrowded, dilapidated and unsafe facilities and to support a "surge" of civilian officials into Afghanistan and Pakistan ordered by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Scahill also appeared on Bill Moyer's show, Bill Moyer's Journal, on PBS where he continued to spew his misinformation:



During this interview, Scahill stated:

I think that the fact is that, when you are killing civilians, in what is perceived to be an indiscriminate way certainly by the people of Pakistan you're going to give rise to more people that want to attack the United States. They view themselves as fighting a defensive war. But never are the statistics cited that come out of Pakistan. 687 people are documented to have been killed. That the Pakistani authorities say are civilians since 2006. In the first 99 days of this year over 100 people were killed.

Now the fact that the U.S. drone attacks have killed a disconcerting number of Pakistani civilians is indisputable. But what is disputable, what is downright false are Scahill's implications that 1) the Pakistani people are united in their opposition to the Predator drone strikes in their country and 2) the Pakistani government is also strongly opposed to the drone strikes.

Here are some facts for Mr. Scahill...

The Aryana Institute for Regional Research and Advocacy recently conducted a poll (if their website is down you can find an article on the poll here) within the Federally Administrated Tribal Areas (FATA) and Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP) in Pakistan and found....guess what...

A slight majority of those polled supported the drone strikes, found them accurate and wished the Pakistani government to act against the Taliban insurgency and Al Qaeda elements within their countries:

-- Do you see drone attacks bringing about fear and terror in the common people? (Yes 45%, No 55%)

-- Do you think the drones are accurate in their strikes? (Yes 52%, No 48%)

-- Do you think anti-American feelings in the area increased due to drone attacks recently? (Yes 42%, No 58%)

-- Should Pakistan military carry out targeted strikes at the militant organisations? (Yes 70%, No 30%)

-- Do the militant organisations get damaged due to drone attacks? (Yes 60%, No 40%)

Note: THIS IS NOT A DEFENSE OF PREDATOR DRONE STRIKES IN PAKISTAN! Frankly, I'm conflicted on the issue. The reason behind me bringing this up is to demonstrate that the issue is not as simple as Scahill makes it seem. The Pakistani people are neither overwhelming united for or against the use of Predator Drone strikes against Taliben and Al Qaeda targets.

And where does the Pakistani government stand on all this? They want the U.S. to stop performing drone strikes within their sovereign territory, damnit....so that they can carry the drone strikes out themselves, under the primary control of the Pakistani government:

Pakistan's president has called on America to provide his country with an arsenal of drones and missiles to target militants blamed for a wave of violence rather than carrying out independent operations that violate the nation's sovereignty.

If you think civilian casualties are too high now, while the drone strike are under the U.S.'s purview, you'd hate to see how high those numbers would fly if the Pakistani military got their hands on the operations. As one can observe from the Pakistani military's actions in Swat Valley, they aren't the best at counterinsurgency, protecting civilians, preparing for displaced peoples and minimizing collateral damage.

What I fear is missed in Scahill's analysis of Af-Pak is his almost casual dismissal of the brutality and oppression of the Taliban movement and the effect this has and may have upon millions of innocent men, women and children; on Shia and Hazaras; on Christians and Tajiks.

I leave you with a reminder: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqNTXdjljnY&feature=ytn%3Amptnews

Sarah Palin's horrible basketball analogy

Now since the moment Sarah Palin first graced my television set it has been readily apparent that the woman had little grasp, knowledge or even interest in basic international affairs, domestic issues or the workings of government in general. But who knew that this former high school basketball player was ignorant about basketball as well?

This reality came to me during Palin's most recent speech, wherein she said she would not seek a second term as governor of Alaska (very sad, I know). During this speech she said the following:

Let me go back to a comfortable analogy for me - sports... basketball. I use it because you're naive if you don't see the national full-court press picking away right now: A good point guard drives through a full court press, protecting the ball, keeping her eye on the basket... and she knows exactly when to pass the ball so that the team can WIN. And I'm doing that - keeping our eye on the ball that represents sound priorities - smaller government, energy independence, national security, freedom! And I know when it's time to pass the ball - for victory.

Now as someone who eats, drinks and breaths basketball, one of my biggest pet peeves is when the game is somehow desecrated (yeah I know this is subjective but I really like basketball). Whenever I see a movie or TV show with a basketball scene that's not true to the game, with obviously shitty players hitting ugly jumpers and dribbling around nonexistent defenses, I flip. And this awful basketball analogy is no different.

So let me rant on this...

First of all, a good point guard does not "drive through a full court press." Full court presses are not beaten by one player dribbling through them. They're beaten with ball movement, passes from the sides to the middle of the court. A shitty point guard will try to dribble through a press and usually end up getting trapped and turning the ball over (unless the press is really, really badly executed...and I mean bad).

A weak man press can sometimes be beat by the dribble. If a good ball handler gets inbounded the ball, the rest of the team can clear out (bringing their defenders with them) to the other side of the court, essentially taking the press with them. But this rarely happens in good man presses. Good coaches usually keep one more player in the backcourt (who does not follow his man who clears out). This freelance defender then helps trap the ballhandler. Thus, the best way, again, to beat this press is through quick ball movement (passing) down the floor.

And then Palin says a good point guard keeps her eye on the basket during a full court press. Actually, a good point guard keeps her eye on where her teammates are and where the openings are on the press. It's not like you're going to nail a cross court shot during a full court press. Why would you keep your eye on the basket?

But wait, then the female Forrest Gump says "and I'm doing that - keeping our eye on the ball that represents sound priorities - smaller government, energy independence, national security, freedom!" Keeping our eye on the ball? A point guard should never keep their eye on the ball. They should keep their head up and eyes active. Oh god, I'll stop already.

Palin you ruin everything. Now basketball?! Ah!

Thus ends my basketball rant.

Hitchens and the Burka

Christopher Hitchens is at it again--allowing his hatred of religion to cloud his judgment and contradict basic liberal principles. In almost all of his books, columns and media appearances, Hitchens claims to hold dear the liberal principles of the Enlightenment--individual liberty, limited government, etc.

Yet, in a recent column in the New York Daily News, Hitchens comes out in support of France's flirtation with banning the wearing of burkas in public schools:

But that observation - if you will excuse the expression - brings us to another and even more powerful objection to this mode of dress. It is quite plainly designed by men for the subjugation of women. One cannot be absolutely sure that no woman has ever donned it voluntarily, but one can certainly say that, in countries where women can choose not to wear it, then not wearing it is the choice they generally make.

This disposes right away of the phony argument that religious attire is worn as a matter of "right." It is almost exactly the other way around: The imposition of burkas or even head scarfs on women - just like the compulsory growing of beards for men - is the symbol of a denial of rights and the inflicting of a tyrannical code that obliterates personal liberty.

Now I agree that the burka has often been a tool to subjugate women, something that has been forced upon them. And thus I find repulsive governments that make the wearing of the burka mandatory. However, it would be equally wrong to prevent women from choosing to wear the thing. And I don't understand why anyone would choose to do so, but some people do. What right does the government have to invalidate and infringe upon this choice?

Hitchens argues:

Think of the things that we all have to do now, like submitting to humiliating searches at airports, or showing our ID to people who have no "probable cause" for demanding it. Can we turn up at airport security wearing a bag over our heads? Can we produce a photograph that shows only our eyes through a slit? Of course not. Nor can anyone in a Muslim country (though of course in Saudi Arabia an unchaperoned women cannot turn up at the airport anyway).

Yes Hitch, often times security and individual liberty conflict with each other and a choice must be made for security in place of individual liberty. But I fail to see how school girls wearing burkas directly and negatively affects anyone's security.

Pakistan's Problems are Far From Gone

While it may not be getting major play in the mainstream media right now, Pakistan still faces an array of challenges, even after the military has beat back the Taliban offensive. Foreign Policy Magazine has two good recent pieces on this state's uncertain future, including:

Shuja Nawaz on the continuing battle between the government and Taliban and secessionist elements in the country:

ather than melting away, the Taliban began snatching up territory closer and closer to the Pakistani heartland, and outrage among locals and the larger Pakistani population pushed the administration and the Army to react. Their tactic of choice was a full-fledged assault. The Army now has close to 150,000 troops in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), Swat, and Malakand. In Swat alone, there are at least two full divisions from the eastern frontier and an additional four brigades cobbled together from divisions usually stationed near the Indian border. In addition, there is a full brigade of commandos in the Peochar Valley, and nine wings of the Frontier Corps. The total troop commitment in Swat is about 52,000. The military is taking losses daily. The militants, meanwhile, have taken the battle to the center of Pakistan, attacking offices of the Inter-Services Intelligence in Lahore in May and other softer targets, such as the Pearl Continental Hotel in Peshawar last week.

And Samina Ahmed on Pakistan's internally displaced people (IDP) problem:

The IDP situation matters for more than its very real status as a humanitarian crisis. Between 80 and 90 percent of the IDPs are not in the camps; they are bunking with overstretched relatives and friends who receive no outside aid whatsoever. If the international community responds to their needs, these IDPs could present a potentially powerful constituency of civil opposition to extremism. They fled their homes because they reject the militants' worldview. If and when peace returns, they, as a resident living in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas told Crisis Group, will be the robust civil society that is so badly needed in the conflict zones.

CNN: Get REAL Experts! (Pretty Please)

So I'll preface this by acknowledging that Christian Amanpour had an excellent special on Iran last night. Both her and Fareed Zakaria continue to be at the top of their game...

BUT...

I happened to see a clip of a recent episode of Larry King Live hosted by Wolf Blitzer. The show included a panel made up of Democratic strategist James Carville, conservative analyst and former Treasurer of the United States Bay Buchanan, political analyst and media mogul Arianna Huffington, and former Nixon speech writer and actor Ben Stein. And they discussed among other things: healthcare reform, Iran and O.J. Simpson. Yes....O.J. Simpson. How timely.

So I'll be brief(well briefer than usual). I'm sick of seeing the same people brought on as analysts for topics they're not really qualified to talk about--namely, Iran. As you can see from part two of the videos, none of the "analysts" seem to have any real clue or unique insights into what's happening in Iran right now (none of them have a background in Iranian history, politics, etc....or even Middle Eastern history, politics, etc.). And after hearing Ben Stein talk about North Korea, it's clear that he must have been sniffing dangerous amounts of industrial glue and consuming exorbitant amounts of shrooms over the past few weeks. I'm not saying CNN shouldn't have these characters on every once and a while to get their perspective. They're intelligent people. But seriously--the amount of air time these people get is ridiculous.

And please, let the O.J. story go. I know it got you big ratings back in the early 90s. We all understand--he got away with murder. Crazy stuff. But can we please use the power of 24-hour news to focus on something current and relevant to the world around us?

Old School Conservatives to Neocons: Chillax

It's been nice to see that not all conservatives are freaking out over President Obama's supposed "inaction" towards Iran and "lack of support" for the Iranian protesters. Many old school conservatives (I guess that's what I'll call them) have not only come out to compliment Obama's current strategy towards Iran, but have also chided the whacky neocons for their unreasonable criticisms of the president's actions.

Including:

George Will



Henry Kissinger



Peggy Noonan

To refuse to see all this as progress, or potential progress, is perverse to the point of wicked. To insist the American president, in the first days of the rebellion, insert the American government into the drama was shortsighted and mischievous. The ayatollahs were only too eager to demonize the demonstrators as mindless lackeys of the Great Satan Cowboy Uncle Sam, or whatever they call us this week. John McCain and others went quite crazy insisting President Obama declare whose side America was on, as if the world doesn't know whose side America is on. "In the cause of freedom, America cannot be neutral," said Rep. Mike Pence. Who says it's neutral?

This was Aggressive Political Solipsism at work: Always exploit events to show you love freedom more than the other guy, always make someone else's delicate drama your excuse for a thumping curtain speech.

Ah sanity.

Christopher Hitchen's religion

As much as British intellectual Christopher Hitchen's enjoys rallying against religion, he doesn't appear to be free of the very religious thinking he sets out to criticize. OK, so maybe "religion" is too strong a word, or not quite right--dogma and rigid ideology probably work better.

But whatever you want to call it, Hitchen's worldview, analysis and decision-making seem completely enslaved to his anti-religious tunnel vision. Everything he addresses seems to be compounded through this Manichean perspective as you can see from the video below where he and CNBC blowhard Larry Kudlow talk about President Obama's response to the current turmoil in Iran:



Ok Hitch, I understand: you don't like religion. Congrats. I'm not traditionally religious myself. But I do understand that there's such a thing as nuance--that there's grey, not just black and white. What good would it accomplish if the United States railed against the Iranian regime, put its full (open) support with the protesters, and (as Hitchens suggests) refused to recognize Iran as an Islamic Republic--perhaps even openly denigrating that title's connotations? Well, you'll probably help delegitimize the protesters' movement by making it appear (to those in Iran who are "on the fence" in the conflict) that the movement is a western ploy filled with western puppets. It would further, if we were to bash the "Islamic Republic" title, alienate those in Iran who may be unhappy with the current leadership yet still want to retain an Islamic identity for the nation and government, but perhaps support larger societal and governmental liberalization.

If you want a progressive revolution in Iranian society there needs to be a broad base of support against the current regime and its ideology. How can you foment this through insulting and alienating groups of people in Iranian society who have the potential to be strong, effective members of this revolutionary base? It's a simple answer: you can't.

And Chris, I gotcha: you don't like Islam. I myself don't understand organized religion. But you shouldn't let it shape your every decision to the point of dogmatism. Dogma, by its very nature, cuts off certain facts, often time critical facts. This is Hitchen's very problem with religion and dogmatic thinking in religion. So why does he apply this type of reasoning to Iran (and many other cases of international relations)? Open hypocrisy or just sheer dogmatic ignorance? Take your pick.

Cable News and Iran

When I was in DC from August 2008 to May 2009, I was without cable TV--and thus, without cable news. Therefore I had to go to print media and the web for my news and news analysis.

I didn't know how good I had it.

Now, back in Philly, I've returned to cable news (occasionally) and what I've seen has been horrendous. Case and point: cable news' coverage of recent events in Iran.

To be fair, I don't really watch FOX or MSNBC news much if at all, mainly because I don't consider them credible news outlets. They're more like partisan entertainment, political circle jerks. FOX, for a long time, has been a mouthpiece for the Republican party (and not even any real type of coherent conservative ideology). Seeing FOX's rise in the ratings, MSNBC had a genius "idea" and decided to buck the whole "traditional" objective and fair reporting method (so old-fashioned) and become the yin to FOX's yang. The network has now transformed into the liberal/Democrat version of FOX--again, with no real clear, coherent liberal ideology. It's all, on both sides, partisanship at its worst: defend your man/woman (not necessarily ideas) no matter what they do. Beating the other party is key, not the truth--not objective analysis. Of course, there are exceptions: for example Shepard Smith on FOX and Rachel Maddow on MSNBC are decent reporters/commentators.

This leaves CNN. While the network has decided to take the highroad and stick to a relatively objective and fair narrative, the blunt truth is that their coverage of news still sucks. It's still based more towards entertainment (style over substance) and is framed in an ineffective, irrelevant right-left paradigm that does little justice to the reality of most of the stories the network covers.

Recent events in Iran--the rigged election, the street protests, the brutal government backlash--are a perfect example. One segment I watched on CNN focused on how recent events in Iran would affect the Obama administration. OK, so that might be a somewhat relevant question to American politics. But seriously, that question should be low on the totem poll. There are so many more important questions to ask about what's happening in Iran (some that, *GASP*, don't pertain specifically to America or American politics).

But the worst is what came later. It was enough to cause my brain cells to begin to engage in mass suicide. Yet I continued to watch. It was like a car crash or a naked Larry King. It's horrifying, but for some reason you just can't seem to look away.

Take a gander, if you dare, below:



Now if you managed to get through that without a) driving sharp objects into your eyes and ears so you no longer had to see or hear that travesty of news b) going to the hospital to treat the bloody knuckles you suffered from beating your computer screen in or c) having your brain simply stop functioning after it came to the realization that it could no longer exist in a world where this was taken seriously as news reporting, then congratulations.

So what's wrong with this segment? Where do I start?

First let's take the analysts...oh sorry...I mean "analysts." You may ask: are either of them Iran experts? Nope. How about Middle East experts? Nope. Well Jesus Herbert Christ, are they at least International Affairs experts? Nope, sorry. Then what the hell are they?! They're radio hosts. Yes, FUCKING RADIO HOSTS!!! So are they qualified at all to speak about the intricacies of Iranian politics and society?! Hell, are they even qualified to talk about the ins and outs of U.S. foreign policy in general?! NO THEY AREN'T, CNN!!! THEY'RE JUST TWO LOUD, ILL-EDUCATED TOOLBAGS!!! Their focus is not on objective analysis; it's on partisanship--beating the otherside, proving the otherside wrong. I hate to break it to these guys, but what's going on in Iran has little to do with whether Democrats or Republicans are right or wrong.

The second thing that drove me crazy about this segment was the pure idiocy of the liberal radio show host Warren Ballentine. If you don't quite remember it or your brain has tried to block it out because it was too traumatic, here's a sample:

I think the White House shouldn't say anything and the reason being because of what happened in 2000 when Bush stole the election.

...

When you look at what's going on in Iran right now, who are we to judge Iran? I'm proud of the people of Iran for standing up and going to the street because that's what we should've been doing in 2000 and 2004. Unfortunately our country doesn't have the fortitude to stand up when our country is doing wrong.

...

How are we as Americans going to be telling somebody else what they need to be doing when we had the same situation here and we didn't stand up and say anything? It's very hypocritical.

Alright, Mr. Ballentine, you are a moron. Last time I checked the recent news item was about the rigged election and subsequent mass protest reprisals in Iran. The breaking news is not "U.S. elections rigged in 2000 and 2004!" THIS ISN'T ABOUT AMERICAN POLITICS!!!! AHHHH!!!

And although I may agree with Ballentine that the U.S. should take an initial "soft" response to events in Iran, his reasoning for taking this approach is idiotic. It's like he took a page out of the Sarah Palin political analysis and debate handbook. Of course the U.S. government (and people) can condemn tyranny, corruption and human rights abuses by the Iranian government. Saying that the corruption and human rights abuses (although they have and do exist) in United States are on par with that of Iran are just ridiculous. It may score Ballentine viewers and increase his ratings but it does little justice to reality.

But Ballentine isn't all to blame for this haranguing. The CNN anchor actually set him up for the (irrelevant) subject!!! And why?! Because someone on twitter or in an email to CNN brought up the point! CNN anchors, here's a bit of news for you: YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE GODDAMN REPORTERS!!! START ACTING LIKE IT!!! WHO THE FUCK CARES WHAT SOME PRICK ON A LAPTOP IN HIS MOM'S BASEMENT HAS TO SAY ABOUT THE IRANIAN ELECTION?!

Perhaps the worst of this all is that this segment had me feeling sympathetic to, if not outright agreeing with, the turd monkey Ben Ferguson. CNN actually made him seem like a reasonable guy!!! If you don't know who Ferguson is just look him up on youtube. You won't be disappointed. Here's a quote from a past CNN interview with Rick Sanchez:

The people [Barack Obama] has surrounded himself with are very anti-Israel and have said some very radical things.

Now if you want some real coverage of what's going on in Iran hit the print media outlets (NY Times, Washington Post, etc.). Try Andrew Sullivan's blog "The Daily Dish" which has done a phenomenal job at giving as accurate a view of what's going on, on the ground level as possible. Foreign policy magazine and the Christian Science Monitor are good sources as well.

And to be fair to CNN, there is one show on their network that continues to do an excellent job at international relations reporting and analysis, especially recently on Iran. And that is Fareed Zakaria GPS.