posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 05:07 AM
I'm an Irish citizen myself and I'm finding some of the opinions offered by the US citizens here genuinely distressing, I had assumed that the
majority of Americans were liberal-minded and more aware of the world around them, that the Christian right just shouted louder than everybody else.
Apparently not, apparently the media cleansing by CBS, CNN, Fox et al has been extremely effective, the people are being kept completely
ill-informed... I have seen some of the "reporting" being done from the war zones by US reporters, most recently a report by Dan Rather from Baghdad
showing how everything's just fine, everything's super. Showing American marines assisting with irrigation and just generally being best buddies
with the "liberated". This is contrary to everything that is actually happening on the ground there. Over 80% of Iraqis disagree with the
occupation, they want these marines gone.
In Ireland and the UK interviews like this with statesmen are not just commonplace, they are the expected norm. Carole Coleman was simply cutting
through his b.s. rhetoric for several reasons -
1. Because he is simply trying to waste time and finish the interview without running out of script
2. Because she had valid questions the Irish people want answers to, and finally
3. We have heard it all before, he was saying absolutely nothing new, word for word the same as before. That your "journalists" are afraid to do
this does not take away from Ms Coleman's legitimacy, in fact it lends extra legitimacy to her questions, which need to be asked by someone.
There are too many quotes from people which I would like to counter that I wouldn't have room so I'll just be general about them. More than one
person paraphrased bush's assertion that the people involved in the Abu Ghraib abuses were "bad apples". That would be nice to believe, wouldn't
it? However when you have a document signed by the secretary of defence, donald rumsfeld authorising these abuses it becomes a little harder. rumsfeld
AUTHORISED the use of dogs, of nudity, of sleep deprivation, of many types of humiliation banned under the Geneva Convention and by your own torture
laws. He signed a document saying that these methods could be used after the administration's lawyers had twisted the Geneva Convention and all
international laws horribly beyond recoginition to suit their own ends. It's not torture unless pain is the intended result? Extracting information
is an admirable and just cause so. It's not torture unless it results in organ failure or death? Those prisoners are just pussies for whinging about
a little smacking about then. And just on a side note, consider this - you've been naked for 3 days, you've been allowed to sleep fitfully for 4
hours out of the last 24, you can't remember the last time you were warm or comfortable or even fed and there's 3 men standing over you with guns
saying "sign this confession and we'll let you sleep" "sign this and you can eat" "sign this and you can see your family again".
Anybody who trusts information extracted under these conditions is a fool, a blind arrogant fool.
And can I please reply to this constant reference of the world being a safer place since the first attacks on Iraq, it is not just a comforting
untruth - it is a blatant and dangerous lie. The world has descended in to chaos. And it doesn't show any signs of turning around. The bush
administration themselves said this, admitted that terrorist activity is at the highest level in 30 years. After, of course, "accidentally" giving
the wrong information first. The war in Iraq diverted attention from Afghanistan and America's legitimate enemies. This administration has managed to
take unprecedented world sympathy and support after September 11th and turn it in to fierce enmity and burning anger. Literally MILLIONS around the
world were ignored by the leader of "the greatest democracy on earth" so that he could bring democracy to the Middle East, anybody get the irony of
this? No? Ok, I'll continue so.... The UN, representing the largest democracies in the world disagreed, and were unilatterally ignored... are we
getting this yet? No? not yet?... I'll try this; Congress never decided to go to war, they gave the deciding power to bush, which incidentally, is
against your constitution, effectively making him a dictator unanswerable to the people. The simple fact is, while a good percentage of Americans
believe the contrary, Saddam Husseuin and Iraq had NO LINKS to Al-Qaeda or the terrorist attacks. Your media was lead by a ruthless and irresponsible
administration which fears no repercussions because it has the support of it's own lawyers. It fed information to journalists through anonymous
sources and then verified them through legitimate channels blinding the people with scaremongering.
The American people have not yet learned to be cynical enough of your media and elected governance. I say you should not question why a reporter
doesn't sit silently in "Shock and Awe" of the all-powerful president, speaking only when spoken down to, accepting every unverified word but
rather you should question why anyone claiming to be an informer of the public would do such a thing.