Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don't

As the uprisings in the Mideast moves into Libya, no one seems to think it's important to mention that Qaddafi was a bitter enemy of the United States, and indeed, of the West, and that he received no support from the American military.

In talking about the uprisings, all the reporting seems to accept unanimity, a feeling of a universal yearning. There are stray quotes about differences between the rulers, but every news purveyor never misses the chance to talk about the ill effects of American support for dictators -- from the Associated Press to Al Jazeera. (I confess that I don't bother with Fox News. They almost never say anything that makes sense.)

Please, do not confuse what I just said. I do not advocate support of dictators. The history of conquests (not just by westerners) and colonizers (also not just by westerners) is long and involved. But the short story is that there is really no easy exit from the mess.

So as we watch the violence in Libya, it just occurs to me that maybe the United States government isn't the epitome of evil, that it is not all powerful, and that it has really no more ability to predict the future than an ambitious reporter. Just a thought.

I kept up with the main story through the day, and some of the competition as well. Reuters remains impressively quick with developments, certainly faster than the Times. One thing the wires have been discussing are the rumors of Qaddafi's exit, possibly to Venezuela. The Times is temperate and not jumping to conclusions on that detail.

Qaddafi’s Grip Falters as His Forces Take On Protesters

A story about Bahrain explores the role of the United States, and is a fascinating read. Like most news stories, it is basically a "he said, she said" account. But from the beginning, the story has chosen sides.

For better or worse, the United States has a big military base in Bahrain. The story asserts that the military has messed things up: "The United States military undermined efforts to improve relations with Bahrain’s Shiite majority and understated abuses by the Sunni royal family."

Since the American military doesn't run Bahrain, it has to figure out how to get along, which means to choose sides. An opposition leader would like American help: "The United States should assertively emphasize the Bahrain Shiites should get their rights." But the story also points out, "The royal family has long worried that Bahrain’s Shiites could be agents of Iran."

The story quotes a former American official, Gwenyth Todd, who very well may be right, but I'd like the story a lot better if it didn't choose sides.

Dim View of U.S. Posture Toward Bahraini Shiites Is Described

---

Senile in the White House

The news media rarely gives a president a break any more. For most of my adult lifetime, the White House has been the enemy, with one exception that has always astounded me. I never got how Ronald Reagan was the Great Communicator.

The story is about Reagan's son's memoir, which is being promoted now. There's a line in it raising the question of whether Reagan's Alzheimer's might have started while he was president.

I certainly don't know about Reagan's medical condition, but this story surely reminds me of the kinder, gentler coverage he got than anyone else I know about first hand.

In fact, Reagan is often given credit for prescience in his jingoistic Soviet policy, which people claim bankrupted the Soviets an led to the collapse of their empire. In 20 years, what will they say about the West's policy in the Mideast?

When Alzheimer’s Waited Outside the Oval Office

---

Speaking of Publishing

If one of you readers from another country wouldn't mind, please file criminal charges against me in some other country, because then the New York Times will write it up.

A bi-weekly column on the law, "Sidebar", writes of a convoluted case brought in France by an Israeli writer against a German for a short review of her book on an American web site. It's a kind of libel case, but I don't know French law.

Weird man, huh?

Expert comment was sought. A law professor pointed out that the writer did more damage to her own reputation than the man who wrote the review.

I would point out that the article with an Amazon link to allow the curious to buy the book is an advertisement you can't buy with mere money.

From a Book Review to a Criminal Trial in France

---