Soldier-blogger Greyhawk is correct when he calls two years of gentry media reporting from or about Iraq "journalistic malpractice." For those of us following the first substantive chance for Lebanese independence in sixteen years, news has been remarkably commensurate with the in-country reality. Exceptions exist, though none have been so close to the skewed Iraq template as an Associated Press report by one Katherine Shrader entitled "Hezbollah Grows as Lebanon Political Force." Shrader omits, dilutes context and essentially plays pamphleteer for a terrorist organization. An earnest fisking is in order.

Shrader's lede is her thesis:

Hezbollah, a terrorist group in the eyes of the United States, stands as a political force in Lebanon that could emerge even stronger in parliamentary elections in April and May, and that presents a conundrum for the Bush administration.

The level head wonders — how? Through the course of the article Shrader doesn't offer any evidence how Hezbollah could grow stronger without the overwhelming physical presence of Syrian troops, Bashar Assad's spy networks, or uninterrupted supply lines from Tehran and Damascus. But she certainly tries to persuade those of us disinclined to believe Islamist scorpions thrive in pluralist daylight; and makes to hearten those who would happily entertain the prospect. She interprets the White House's statements on Hezbollah typically:

[T]he president this week subtly raised the possibility that the Shiite group could be viewed as something other than a terrorist organization.

"We view Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. I would hope that Hezbollah would prove that they are not by laying down arms and not threatening peace," Bush said in a carefully crafted statement framing a new approach to the organization.

But it's not a new approach; terrorist organization or not, Hezbollah has not yet found itself in Washington's military sights. Given that the White House is speaking quite literally — insofar as when men abandon terrorism they cease to be terrorists — and has not made any concessions, the request for Hezbollah's disarmament is much more an invitation to a peaceful end.

To her credit, Shrader introduces a scholar-diplomat who argues against her premise. Even if she fights him all the way down the page:

David Walker, president of the Middle East Institute, sees it as almost inevitable that Hezbollah someday will be taken off the State Department list of terror groups. Hezbollah has been on since the list's inception in 1997. He said he believes the desire to be participants in a new, more democratic environment will require the group to give first loyalty to the people it represents, who don't want constant warfare. "The Lebanese are becoming more and more nationalistic, and that doesn't work to the advantage of a political faction that depends on outsiders," mainly Iran and Syria, said Walker, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Egypt.

Hezbollah's politically savvy leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah has rebuffed Bush's suggestions. "We are ready to remain until the end of time a terrorist organization in Bush's view, but we are not ready to give up protection of our country, our people, their blood and their honor," Nasrallah said this week on Hezbollah's television station.

Yes, "their people." What has Shrader to say of demonstrations in Beirut, an activity dominated by the Cedar Revolution's democrats, only recently joined by Hezbollah, who with Syrian workers and Palestinian ringers could scrounge together a coarse mob about one-third the size of the Cedars' one-month tribute to former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri?

Inside the country, massive street demonstrations converged on downtown Beirut, including a surprisingly large pro-Syria gathering organized by Hezbollah.

Surprise, as in, "you'd think emptying villages would produce more of a crowd"? With nothing to say about the March 14th demonstration, Shrader changes course to sharpen her point:

Internationally, the European Union has also rejected recent calls to add Hezbollah to its terror list, as some diplomats worry about changing policy toward the group at such a sensitive time.

But she's in fact pruned here. Shrader should have known that on Thursday, March 10th, three blocs in the European parliament made motions to condemn Hezbollah as a terrorist group; none were approved, but the parliament stated that it "calls on Syria not to tolerate any form of terrorism, including support for the operations of Hezbollah and other armed groups." One week later, Thursday, March 17th, EU broadcast regulators severed the Continent's connection to Hezbollah's satellite propaganda. Said a supporter on taking action in a "sensitive time":

Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom welcomed the European Union's decision Thursday. "This is an important step in the struggle against terror," he said.

Shrader's aversion to publicly available information continues:

The White House also recognizes that members of the next government may be enemies of the United States. "Maybe someone will run for office and say, 'Vote for me, I look forward to blowing up America,'" Bush said Wednesday when asked about Hezbollah.

Let's pause to reflect on the novelty of a press sophisticate missing President Bush's dry humor. Now let's continue, and examine what the president said in full:

I like the idea of people running for office. It's a positive effect when you run for office, you know. Maybe someone will run for office and say, "Vote for me, I look forward to blowing up America." I don't know. I don't know if that'll be their platform or not. But it's — I don't think so. I think people generally run for office say, "Vote for me; I'm looking forward to fixing your potholes or making sure you got bread on the table."

But Hezbollah is on the terrorist list for a reason, and [it] remains on the terrorist list for a reason. Our position's not changed on Hezbollah.

Bush need only imply the success of liberals in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is what he did here, though at the risk of abbreviation from reporters like Shrader. Mercifully, Shrader gives us Walker again:

Walker said Nasrallah has to straddle a complicated problem: There are those who believe he will lose support if he gives up his military and his confrontation with Israel, and yet the Lebanese people are tired of violence after 15 years after civil war.

"Hezbollah is more popular in Lebanon today, but that popularity is fragile," he said.

Hezbollah has thrived, of course, in civil disorder and the two-decade Syrian pall. Near Eastern Sturmabteilungen, what will the terrorists do without Damascus right beside? Walker's speculation is refined by yet another qualifer to Shrader's floating thesis:

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State David Satterfield told Lebanese television this month that the Lebanese people will get to speak for themselves regarding Hezbollah.

And we know what the Lebanese are already saying.

HEZBOLLAH DONE RIGHT: First, Amir Taheri bills himself as a commentator and not, like Shrader, a reporter. Second, regardless of Taheri's politics he provides, with thorough analysis, a more objective assessment of Hezbollah's threat to Lebanese pluralism: armed and ruthless but like any authoritarian group conflicted in its loyalty, and only narrowly supported.