Bush's China/Iraq framework, according to the AP

In what one can only hope was a rather hastily assembled (18 minutes ago!) AP headline story on Yahoo! yesterday, there was a discussion of the Bush administration’s current position on China and Iraq. It seems Bush would be concerned about the Chinese military, if China ever “turned hostile”, as he was explaining to the Australian Government. Bush said that his administration spends “a lot of time on China”. Would it be fair to wonder what the Bush administration is actually considering doing about China? What specific actions do you think the folks in the White House have in mind?

Remaining in a hopeful mood, one hopes that we glean nothing on this question from the AP reporter who did the story. Without transition, Bush is stated to have urged all countries considering pulling out their troops “to base their decision on restoring the country’s security”. Oh, that is a reference to Iraq. No need to worry that the Bush administration is promoting military options to address his concern about China turning hostile. Whew.

I imagine President Bush actually addressed China and Iraq in close succession at his press conference in Sydney. And perhaps Bush did so in a way that was somewhat confusing. But come on, the Associated Press ought to be able to find reporters and editors who can sift through the word salad and report something lucid about what the United States President has had to say at a meeting with another head of state. Right? The fact that this AP story is still on the web, largely uncorrected, is bad news indeed for the US media consumer. But do you think anybody cares, or will even notice?

OK, Iraq again - Zoloft News

With apologies to my readership (both of you), this is another (brief) post on Iraq. Hey, as somebody who tracks the wonders of the Western media, a fellow has to go with what's covered.

Today, I note the remarkable stupidity that the Western media assumes its readership brings to the morning paper. The rambling AP story about today's repeat bombing at the Shiite Askariya Mosque drove the point home again, mostly through its omissions. The bit contained lengthy descriptions that gave the clear impression of strange religious sects who battle and kill each other for no apparent reason. Because the author included no explanation of the philosophical differences, the real estate tensions, or the global context, the reader could only conclude the Shiites and Sunnis must just be savage nut-cases.

On the other hand, the same criticism could not be levelled at the US forces who are in Iraq. The story quizzically noted that many Iraqis refer to the US military presence as an "occupation" - yes, the writer actually used quotation marks, as if the meaning was lost on him. Hundreds of thousands of uninvited foreign military forces in a country. How could anybody ever see that as an "occupation"? Sheeeeesh.

Also worthy of nothing more than a brief mention was the promise from the US military in the aftermath of the 2006 bombing at the Askariya mosque to re-build it. The author dryly noted that the US has taken no steps at all to fulfill that promise, and then he moved on to the next topic. Not at all possible, I suppose, that such a broken promise looms large in the minds of the "unoccupied" people. Gracious folks indeed - thanks for taking it all in stride.*

* Credit to Family Guy's Stewie.