How is it that the press is now more free in Iraq than in America?
LAGAUCHE IS RIGHT
Home | About Me | Contact Me
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
This is my online presence. My views are not considered mainstream by some, but they are researched and I will attempt to put them in context with existing facts. Criticism or accolades are always welcome. However, please respond in a cerebral manner. Any idiot can rant and rave without making a point.
Saturday, October 4, 2003
JOURNALISTS BECOME MORE AGGRESSIVE
When George Bush claimed victory on May 1 with a staged jet fighter landing on a U.S. military vessel, the press coverage was comprehensive, at times nauseating. The conquering hero was actually a National Guard member in the Vietnam era who was AWOL for months. Daddy got him off the hook on that one. Shortly after the landing, Bush, when questioned about ongoing occurrences in Iraq told the journalists to talk about another issue. He said, "That's over. Let's get to the next step."
Some journalists did not buy Bush's explanation and knew there were many questions to be answered before going to the next step. Since that time, much of the journalistic community has been relentless in pursuing that truth about Iraq.
This was not always so. During Desert Storm, the journalists were kept away from the action. They were interviewing each other for nightly newscasts. The result was an appalling lack of real coverage of an event that sent a country back to a "pre-industrial era." In addition, the embargo years received little press attention.
About a year after the end of hostilities in Desert Storm, I interviewed Ramsey Clark, the former U.S. Attorney General who has taken up the cause of world peace and anti-imperialism. He told me, "The press has totally defaulted. It began with Grenada." His reference to Grenada was about the U.S. government's blackout of press coverage of the invasion of that island by U.S. forces in 1983. Clark added, "They (the press) complained for a while, but they soon forgot."
About the press coverage for Desert Storm, Clark stated, "The press led the American people to celebrate a slaughter." He was aghast at the press leaving Iraq on the day before the U.S. attack began. Clark said, "The morning of January 15, 1991 was the saddest moment for American journalism. There, at the cashier's desk (at the Al Rashid Hotel in Baghdad), checking out were the journalists. Here you have the press, whose duty it was to cover the facts for the public, checking out. It's like a fireman saying, 'Hell, that's a big fire. I'm not going in there.'"
Something happened that made certain journalists become relentless in recent times about believing U.S. government propaganda. Probably, they felt so humiliated by the acquiesence of their colleagues of the last decade that they now are coming to the forefront.
If you read the American and international press today, you will find daily investigative reports, primarily about Iraq, but also about big business and the environment, that are knocking George Bush all over the podium. He comes out with a lie, and the next day the lie has been exposed worldwide. Believe me, although his demeanor is cavalier at the current time, Bush is beginning to pay the price for deception.
Bush is not the only person in the administration who has been "outed" by astute journalism. Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condeleeza Rice have been nailed for distorting the truth.
On September 29, many newspapers worldwide, including The Mirror of the United Kingdowm, carried an article written by Australian journalist John Pilger concerning the two government lackies who were publicly pushing for war. We all remember Powell addressing the U.N. stating that Iraq was making WMDs right under the noses of the world. He showed pictures and made grave predictions of doom if Saddam was not stopped. We also remember the international press in Baghdad visiting these areas and showing pictures of tootbrush factories and mushroom-canning factories, not manufacturers of Doomsday weapons. Who can forget Rice saying that it would be too late when we see a mushroom over New York City? She was not making reference to the canning factory in Baghdad, but the "imminent" Iraqi nuclear threat.
Through some fine investigating reporting, Pilger came across quotes from these two just a little over a year prior to their running with the Bush ball to promote war. In Cairo, on February 24, 2001, Powell said, "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."
Two months later, Rice also described a weak and militarily defenseless Iraq. She stated, "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country. We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."
The article is lengthy and Pilger interviewed many people. He spoke to John Bolton, the Undersecretary of State and asked about civilian casualties and what country America may attack next. Bolton told him, "You must be a member of the Communist Party."
During his investigation, Pilger talked to an unidentified CIA analyst. About the whole scenario, the anonymous CIA official said, It was 95 per cent charade."
This information was so devastating in Britain, that the country's ITV1 network ran a feature television report by Pilger on September 28 called "Breaking the Silence: Truth aand Lies in the War on Terror." Unfortunately, the American public did not have the option to view the program.
Certain portions of the media have awaken from a decade-long lull in reporting the truth about the destruction of Iraq. Even before the last invasion the press was full of great reports. At that time, many Americans did not see the reports, or they denied their accuracy. Even today, some Americans are in denial. Just two weeks ago, a poll showed that 70% of the American public believe that Saddam Hussein was the mastermind behing the 9/11 attacks on the United States. However, that figure is lower than it might have been a couple of months ago. The international community is totally aware of the reality of the attack against Iraq. Little by little, the American public is now begrudgingly thinking it was conned. We can thank the bulldog-like relentless actions of a portion of the press for that. Fortunately, things are different from the time I interviewed Ramsey Clark.
3:32 pm pdt
http://home.earthlink.net/~lekkerspikkels/
