Why Believe The Biased Associated Press?
By Don White
There’s news today from the Associated Press that Pakistan has arrested the person suspected of plotting the Mumbai atrocities two weeks ago.
How do we know that this isn’t more of Pakistan’s propaganda, an attempt to mask over the fact that the Pakistani government actually perpetrated the massacre of Indians in Mumbai? If that is true, what was their motive? We understand the animosity between these two nuclear powers. One would expect more restraint between two countries that could destroy millions with the slip of the lip.
And if not true and it is strictly terrorist-inspired, what did Pakistan hope to gain? What did they gain, other than the disruption of the world’s largest democracy and it’s financial center? Who gave the order to attack? Is this the work of Ben Laden? Is he controlling the Pakistani government and siphoning away millions of US aid dollars to continue his world terrorist activities?
We don’t know the answers. All we have to go on is the reputation of the Associated Press. But during the past American elections, the liberal press—and that includes Publico and the AP—have soiled their own linen with their lies, biased comment, and unprofessional reportage that favored Obama over McCain in volume of favorable stories by a proven 6-to1 margin. A bias that many Americans believe swayed the vote in Obama’s favor, something the liberal press calculated and wanted, leading us to believe that the days of free elections in America are over.
For years the AP was a news gathering agency that prided itself on its independence, its reportorial excellence, accuracy, and integrity. But today, there are many in America and abroad who believe the AP—just like the New York Times and the Washington Post—is guilty of news manipulation.
We all watched a lot of television during the elections. One panel consisted of an AP reporter, a fellow from the Times, a pollster—who have become so political how can you believe their results?—and a woman from Politico. The topic was Hillary Clinton and her chances of becoming Secretary of State. Above all the rest, the AP and Politico panelists were adamant that Clinton “had a lot of foreign policy experience.” What experience? She’s been a president’s wife and has attended state dinners. So what? Besides that, she was a junior senator from New York with no accomplishments or experience in foreign affairs except lying about being shot at while exiting a helicopter in Iraq.
Hillary Clinton may or may not make an adequate secretary of state. My guess is that she will be the equal of Madaline Albright, who was born in Czechoslovakia, whose family converted from Judaism to save their lives. Most of her relatives were killed by the Nazis. She was grossly mismatched when as a representative of the Clinton’s Administration she dealt with foreign emissaries. In fact, at times she was a disaster. Yes, Hillary Clinton can do that well, but she is no Condoliizza Rice and there will be many Hillary missteps. So many that I believe the Obama presidency will eventually ask her to step down, especially if by then he views her as an impediment to four more years in office.
The story of the arrest of the suspected Mumbai plotter was by Associated Press Writer Munir Ahmad.
There’s a story coming out of Islamabad, Pakistan today giving hope to those of us who want Pakistan to do something to end this stalemate between that country and India over the attacks in Mumbai. An alleged mastermind was arrested, but I believe this is sheer propaganda from Pakistan and that if the Associated Press had an ounce of integrity they, too, would call it just that. The Mumbai attack has sharply raised tensions between South Asia’s two nuclear-armed powers.
But let’s be fair. Let’s see how the arrest of this alleged mastermind of the attacks pans out over the next several weeks. Officials said the raid of an alleged militant camp on the outskirts of Pakistani Kashmir’s main city was the first known response to demands by India and the United States that Pakistan targets the alleged perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks.
It’s always the fault of citizens of Kashmir, isn’t it? Pakistan has carried on a long battle with India over that area. Since 1947, this former princely state became a disputed territory, now administered by three countries: India, Pakistan, and the People’s Republic of China.
The AP report said troops “grabbed Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi among at least 12 people taken Sunday in the raid on the riverbank camp run by the banned group Laskhar-e-Taiba in Pakistani Kashmir.” The government propaganda, which the AP bought without doing their own investigation, said there was a brief gunfight in the camp near Muzaffarabad before the militants were subdued. One tip-off: Muslin terrorists won’t allow themselves to be captured. If it was a brief gun battle, and it was a Muslim perp, you just know he would have died rather than allowing himself to be captured.
The officials — one from the intelligence agencies and one from a government agency — spoke on condition of anonymity because they were “not authorized to speak to the media.” That’s the usual line, and in this case for Pakistan it heightens their efforts to legitimize this non-event. Yes, they may have captured someone, but it is an innocent person chosen to take the fall for the government.
Now we get the Indian side, which we hope is more reliable: “Indian officials say the sole Mumbai attacker captured alive has told them that Lakhvi recruited him for the mission and that Lakhvi and another militant, Yusuf Muzammil, planned the operation”, a seige where 171 people died, including six Americans.
Keep looking at this page, as we plan to see what further action is taken, if any. We believe that this so-called “military operation” was staged to pacify India.