Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jack Cashill has a long history of being on the wrong side of history on numerous things, and now we can add the Russian war on Ukraine to that list. He began his Feb. 8 WorldNetDaily column complaining that Ukraine is made to look good in the media and the aggressor, Russia, is made to look bad:
Approaching the first anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has his hands full dealing with the aftermath of a major corruption scandal.
On Tuesday, Zelensky called for an end to "rumors or any other pseudo-information" that could weaken the nation's resolve in its war against Russia.
The problem is that, from the beginning, the reporting on this war has been nothing but rumors and pseudo-information. A year in, I confess to having no idea who is winning or how the war can continue on Ukrainian soil given all the victories or pseudo-victories Ukraine has purportedly won.
[...]
A year in to the Russian-Ukraine war, I confess to not having seen any real battle footage at all. What I have seen are grim photos of alleged Russian strikes on apartment buildings, schools, hospitals and the like.
On watching this footage, I have asked myself, "Why are the Russians targeting apartment buildings and hospitals?" The answer is they are not.
The Russians could flatten Ukraine tomorrow if they chose. These buildings were likely collateral damage. I wasn't watching news, I realized. What I was watching was war propaganda.
Just because Russia is obliterating all civilian targets doesn't mean they're not targeting civilians -- all you have to do is hit the occasional hospital or apartment building to put the fear in civilians. Cashill conveniently ignored that many observers believe Russia is, in fact, targeting civilians and that it's more than just "collateral damage."
Cashill then basically complained that Ukrainians are better at war propaganda than Russia is:
In the later coverage of Vietnam, as well as in much of the coverage of the war in Iraq, our media were running propaganda for our enemies.
American viewers heard all they needed to hear about My Lai or Abu Ghraib. There is no Ukrainian equivalent.
In Ukraine, virtually all the video coverage has been propaganda on behalf of Ukraine. To test my thesis, I entered "Ukraine War video footage" in YouTube.
Of the 32 stories that appeared on the first page, 31 had Ukraine beating the Russians and not just beating them, but destroying, crushing, encircling, ambushing, shocking them.
Consider this recent headline from US News: "Horrible Footage! Ukrainian elite troops eradicate Wagner Groups troop like rats in a Bakhmut trench." Yikes!
Finally, Cashill complained that Democrats were making Russia look bad to get Donald Trump:
What is surprising is America's tag-teaming with Ukraine. In 2014, when pro-Russians nationalists seized the region, and Russia seized the Crimea, the Obama-Biden administration did nothing.
At the time, the administration was courting Russian help to seal the Iranian deal. Their hands were tied.
It was not until 2016, when the Democrats chose to frame Donald Trump, that they realized they had to frame Russia to make the conceit work.
If Russia were not evil, Russia collusion would be no big deal. So, with the media's mindless assistance, the Democrats turned Russia into our main enemy.
Russia was restrained during the four years of the Trump presidency. But President Biden, even if he were cognizant, could no more have negotiated a settlement with Vladimir Putin than he could have reconciled with Trump. His base would not allow him.
The result was a war Ukraine could never win in any meaningful way, and Russia could not allow itself to lose.
It was not hard to "frame" Trump when his campaign and its officials met dozens of times with Russian operatives and that Russia clearly interefered with U.S. elections to benefit Trump (which also involved hacking Democratic National Committee emails, which Cashill still falsely wants you to think was done by Seth Rich). And Cashill offers no evidence that anything Biden might have done would have stopped Putin from invading Ukraine, so desperate was he to have a show of force in the reason. It appears that Cashill is joining Putin in being mad that Ukraine fought back to try and preserve their country.
By siding with an aggressor like Putin and being mad at Ukraine for fighting back to the point that Putin is losing simply by not having the decisive victory he was presumably expecting, Cashill is yet again on the wrong side of history.
