Amid mounting revelations of Bush administration lies concerning its reasons for going to war against Iraq, a chorus of media pundits has rallied to the president's defense by responding, "So what?"
These commentators argue that the "16 words" in the State of the Union address citing intelligence allegedly proving that Iraq tried to buy uranium in Africa were no big deal?-despite the fact that this bogus claim played a major role in the administration's attempt to terrorize the public with a nonexistent Iraqi nuclear threat. Or, they assert, the issue of government deception pales beside various ex post facto rationalizations for the war?-Saddam Hussein's repression, the "liberation" of the Iraqi people, etc.
One of the most repugnant examples of this second line of defense is to be found?-as it often is?-in the writings of the chief foreign columnist of the New York Times, Thomas Friedman. In a July 16 column entitled "Winning the Real War," Friedman hails the formation of an Iraqi "governing council," handpicked by the US colonial administrator L. Paul Bremer, as the real "liberation" of Iraq, and "the most important day in its modern history."
After chiding the media for failing to celebrate this supposed historical milestone, focusing instead on the unfolding controversy over Bush's lie about African uranium, Friedman writes: "... it is a disturbing thought that the Bush team could get itself so tied up defending its phony reasons for going to war?-the notion that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction that were undeterrable and could threaten us, or that he had links with Al Qaeda?-that it could get distracted from fulfilling the real and valid reason for the war: to install a decent, tolerant, pluralistic, multireligious government in Iraq..."
Friedman glibly acknowledges that Bush lied to the American people, but he sees nothing wrong with that. In essence, he is advising the White House to abandon yesterday's lies and concentrate on today's. Concede the false claims about weapons of mass destruction, and instead promote what is a brutal colonial occupation aimed at securing US control over strategic oil reserves as a crusade for "democracy" and "pluralism."
Never mind that the majority of the Iraqi people regard the new council in much the same way the Norwegians viewed the Quisling regime set up under Nazi occupation. Some 10,000 Iraqis poured into the streets of Najaf Sunday, confronting US Marines, demanding the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and denouncing the council as a collection of "lackeys." Those participating were overwhelmingly Shiite, making it impossible for the US government and media to attribute the anti-American protest to remnants of the old regime or Baathist conspirators.
Acknowledging the popular hostility to Iraq's "liberators," Friedman responds with a modest proposal for another bloodbath: "These areas need to be reinvaded and then showered with reconstruction funds," he writes.
The World Socialist Web Site has frequently commented on Friedman, not because his columns marshal intellectual arguments that merit serious debate. Rather, he personifies the corruption of the mass media to the point where it functions as an enthusiastic accomplice in the criminal enterprises of US imperialism.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jul2003/frie-j22.shtml
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace