A senior reporter for CNN slammed Fox News for suggesting that he and other reporters who were given a tour of Muammar Gaddafi's compound in Libya were used as human shields by the Libyan government.
Fox News' defense correspondent, Jennifer Griffin, reported on Monday that the British army had been due to fire seven missiles at Gaddafi's compound. But the attack was held off, she said, because Libya had brought journalists from CNN, Reuters, the AP, the Times of London and other news outlets to the compound for what, in the government's words, was a press tour. According to Griffin, the actual reason for bringing the journalists to the compound was to "effectively use them as human shields."
Speaking to Fox News' John Roberts, Griffin said that Fox News had kept its correspondent in the region, Steve Harrigan, away from the tour because the network was "concerned they could be used as human shields."
In an interview with Wolf Blitzer later on Monday, CNN's senior international correspondent, Nic Robertson, who was one of the reporters on the tour, lashed out at Fox News. He called the report "outrageous and absolutely hypocritical," and said that, when you come to somewhere like Libya, you expect lies and deceit from the dictatorship here. You don't expect it from the other journalists."
He said that Fox News had in fact sent a non-editorial, non-technical member of its team to the tour. And he had harsh words for Harrigan himself. "If they had actually been there, Steve Harrigan the correspondent here is somebody I have known for many years, I see him more times at breakfast than I see him out on trips with government officials here," he said. "...We very rarely see the Fox News team..if I sound angry, it's because I am."
Watch:
Watch Griffin's report:
Once again, when "The Daily Show" goes on vacation, it's a good indication that some big news is about to break.
Two weeks ago before the show was dark, Jon Stewart points out that the biggest problem spots in the world were "Wisconsin and the set of "Two And A Half Men." Since then, Japan is in chaos, we're firing missiles at Libya and Knut the beloved Polar Bear is dead, probably "because he killed himself after watching the news," Stewart said.
On the show's return Tuesday night, Stewart unleashed all his criticisms of one of those developments: the U.S. launching air attacks on Libya along with other countries. While missiles are being fired with the hopes of stopping Muammar Gaddafi from hurting his own people, it definitely feels like we're at war again. Stewart had to ask, "Don't we already have two wars?"
"You know wars aren't kids... Where you don't have to pay attention to the youngest one because the older two will take care of it."
Stewart's other complaint, aside from the fact that "Operation Odyssey Dawn" sounds like a YES album, is that we constantly hear our government say that we are out of money. How can we afford to bomb another country? Haven't we been hearing for weeks thatWisconsin teachers will lose their jobs because there isn't enough money? Stewart saw hypocrisy:
"You can't simultaneously fire teachers and Tomahawk missiles."
Watch the full clip below to hear the rest of Stewart's thoughts on Libya, and click over to the "Daily Show" website to hear Aasif Mandvi's report on the subject.
WATCH:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Odyssey Dawn | ||||
| ||||
More than even Afghanistan and Iraq, the profile of 21st Century conflict is represented by Libya. A civil war involving the overthrow of a dictator by indigenous forces, in a nation rich with oil, in which the oil-consuming Atlantic nations intervene militarily to prevent the dictator from slaughtering his own people. Meanwhile, those same nations are not intervening on behalf of indigenous uprisings in Bahrain, which also has oil, and Yemen. These latter two countries have been much more helpful to us than Libya has.
There is every indication that some Libyans rising up against Gaddafi are also anti-American, possibly to the point of supporting terrorism. We don't know whether this is true in Libya or elsewhere because we had not developed intelligence on the Arab "street." Sound confusing? It should.
Conflict in this century will make 20th Century nation-state wars against imperialists, fascists, and communists look simple by comparison. Good guys versus bad guys. But what principles do we use to decide on intervention where neither side threatens us, where both sides or all sides may be unpleasant guys, where one side or both sides don't wear uniforms, and where clear moral authority is not possessed by anyone? This new century of conflict is going to be much more gray and plaid than black and white.
It is to be hoped that we don't simply decide to use military force by the toss of a coin. That would be a prescription for willy-nilly arbitrariness honored by no one. So far, the only positive development in the Libyan arena is the rare leadership shown by Britain and France. They seem to have forced our hand. But that is not all bad. I have believed for quite some time that other democratic nations had to step up on peacemaking and peacekeeping. We can't and shouldn't try to do it all. Let's hope this new spirit of shared responsibility expands.
Even so, we are all going to need a new set of consistent and defensible principles on when and how to intervene in the affairs of other nations.
Visit Senator Hart's blog at Matters of Principle.
No comments:
Post a Comment