Back to Kindergarten for the Lot of You

Whatever else the merits of the Wikileaks expose may be, one thing is for sure: it is a DISASTER for some of Pakistan's media. The huge information dump has resulted, annoyingly for our journos, in having to actually read things properly and double check facts, and far, far too much temptation to make laughing stocks of themselves.

Thanks to @sohaibgulbadan who pointed this out, here is The News' version of one on the released cables. Breathlessly, The News' reporter Umar Cheema tells us on the paper's front page:

Pakistan, a private nightmare for Obama

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

By Umar Cheema

"ISLAMABAD: US President Barack Obama considers Pakistan as his “private nightmare”, a front-line ally in the war against terrorism that could surprise the whole world waking up one morning to hear that the country had been taken over by the extremists.

A diplomatic cable leaked by Wikileaks reveals that Pakistan is one of the major causes behind the US decision of not attacking Iran, amid fears that any strike against this neighbouring Muslim country could further fuel the militancy in Pakistan. Nevertheless, the US president understands that avoiding confrontation with Iran has portrayed his country as a weak superpower.

Obama, however, believes attacking North Korea would earn less criticism and also teach a good lesson to the countries harbouring nuclear-ambition. “He described Pakistan as his ‘private nightmare,’ suggesting the world might wake up one morning ‘with everything changed’ following a potential Islamic extremist takeover,” disclosed a cable. Obama expressed concerns about Pakistan in two consecutive meetings with ranking US Senator Codel Casey and Congressman Ackerman of the House’s Foreign Relations Committee before their visit to Israel for a meeting with defence minister Ehud Barak last year.

When asked if the use of force on Iran might backfire with moderate Muslims in Pakistan, thereby exacerbating the situation, “Barak acknowledged Iran and Pakistan are interconnected, but disagreed with a causal chain.” To the contrary, Obama argued that if the United States had directly confronted North Korea in recent years, others would be less inclined to pursue nuclear weapons programmes. “By avoiding confrontation with Iran, Barak argued, the US faces a perception of weakness in the region.”

Contrary to King Abdullah’s opinion of Zardari, the UAE rulers had very positive views of former President Musharraf, disclosed a cable narrating meeting of the US diplomats with the UAE Crown Prince and Deputy Supreme Commander Mohammad bin Zayed, after the latter returned from a visit of Pakistan where he met Musharraf in 2005. First, he congratulated Washington for its decision to allow the US firm to bid for contracts to provide F-16s and other defence technology to Pakistan. “He said it was important to support Musharraf as he battled the terrorists. There was no alternative leader in sight,” said the cable. He also questioned the US suspicions that Pakistani authorities had deliberately delayed the news of the arrest of Abu Faraj al Libbi, negating the wrong perception towards Pakistan."

Here is the actual cable. The operative part reads:

"11. (C) Barak reinforced his message regarding Pakistan in both meetings. He described Pakistan as his "private nightmare," suggesting the world might wake up one morning "with everything changed" following a potential Islamic extremist takeover. When asked if the use of force on Iran might backfire with moderate Muslims in Pakistan, thereby exacerbating the situation, Barak acknowledged Iran and Pakistan are interconnected, but disagreed with a causal chain. To the contrary, he argued that if the United States had directly confronted North Korea in recent years, others would be less inclined to pursue nuclear weapons programs. By avoiding confrontation with Iran, Barak argued, the U.S. faces a perception of weakness in the region."

If you haven't figured it out yet, the person being quoted is former Israeli Prime Minister and then Defence Minister Ehud Barak, not Barrack Obama. The cable is from the US embassy in Tel Aviv.

Had Mr. Cheema and his editors at The News given it just a little bit of thought, by the way, why the hell would an American foreign mission be quoting their own president's views to the State Department? A little bit of thought though seems far from some of the reporting going on.

What You Get For Telling The Truth At The White House

Helen Thomas, the 89-year-old grande dame of the White House Press Corps, has resigned from her long-time job with the Hearst Newspapers after savage hounding by the US media. That followed her "controversial" comments on the occasion of the Jewish Heritage Day on May 27, made to a Rabbi David F. Nesenoff, in which she made the unpardonable sin of telling the fascist Israeli settlers to fuck off from Palestinian land.

Now, Thomas, it may be recalled is of Lebanese heritage and has covered all US presidents since John F. Kennedy. She was usually seated in the front rows of all White House press conferences as a mark of respect for her veteran status as a credible journalist. Of course none of that mattered when Nesenoff and his gang went to town with her comments. This is how the viral YouTube video presented it:

Keep in mind that it's Nesenoff who brings up Israel - as if Jewish Heritage Day could not be commemorated without attaching it to plaudits for Israel. And don't miss the spin put on them by RabbiLive.com: as if what Thomas said was in any way untrue or naive, that the only option for Jews persecuted under the Nazis was to go and occupy Palestinian land as some sort of God-given right, that Jewish settlers streaming in from Europe and the US now still have the right to occupy Gaza and the West Bank, that it compromised Thomas' credentials as a White House reporter in some way. The only reason what Thomas said seems shocking is because you never hear it in the American mainstream media.

But here's another video of Helen Thomas at a White House press briefing from June 1, that might give more of a clue why the pro-Zionist lobby decided it had to make an example out of Helen Thomas. This is her question after the US refused to condemn Israel for its barbaric attack on the Turkish flotilla to Gaza:

The only thing Helen Thomas was perhaps guilty of was being incautious in her remarks to a rabidly pro-Israel media. I guess when you're almost 90 you don't care so much about diplomatic niceties. But so much for 'freedom of expression' in the US media.