Dodging An Inconvenient Story
Why does the media refuse to acknowledge that the resurgence of the Taliban and Al Qaeda has its roots in the Bush Administration’s encouragement of the North Waziristan treaties months ago?
We have been mentioning for months (here, here, and here to name a few) the story by McClatchy/Knight-Ridder’s Jonathan Landay back at the beginning of September, in which he said the Bush Administration encouraged the Musharraf government to cut deals with the North Waziristan tribal leaders, thereby allowing more free passage for Al Qaeda and the Taliban. As predicted by terrorism and diplomatic experts in the region at that time, such treaties led to the strengthening of both Al Qaeda and the Taliban, confirmed by our own intelligence community this week.
Yet in the stories about the Cheney visit to Pakistan this week and the Musharraf pushback, did any of stories mention that the White House has its fingerprints on this resurgence?
Walter Pincus’s story today ignored it, even though I emailed him the Landay story months ago. And nary a word of this fact entered into a Page One story by Michael Abramowitz and Griff White yesterday, which managed to stenograph the White House spin perfectly.
David Sanger’s analysis today ignored it, even though I emailed him the Landay story months ago.
As I noted months ago, this isn’t the first time that Sanger or the Post have ignored this story.
As a result, the narrative this week, accepted by the media, is that the Bush Administration is concerned at the lack of commitment by the Musharraf government to fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban, when in fact the Bush Administration is itself partly responsible for the resurgence of both.
Perhaps Carl Levin or Jay Rockefeller can make an issue of this, so that the media will have an excuse to pay attention.