Some Real Protesters---In IRAQ

[MMMMMM]

(excerpt)
SOME 20,000 intrepid, peace-loving activists turned out last week to protest against their government, its unjust policies, its war-mongering president and his utter disregard for international opinion.

The protest was held in Kirkuk, Iraq—outside the Baath Party’s main administrative headquarters. The demonstrators were calling for Saddam Hussein’s overthrow.

True, this protest didn’t generate as much attention as the “anti-war” rallies staged last weekend in a Portland, San Francisco, Washington, and elsewhere, where the America-hating left compared President Bush to Adolf Hitler and pleaded for Hussein’s prolonged hold on power, but there’s an explanation for that—beyond the establishment media’s obvious sympathy for the “anti-war” effort, that is.

The main reason we heard little and saw nothing from the Kirkuk protests is that there were no reporters there. The only evidence the world has that the event took place at all is a number of second-hand reports. That’s because Iraq—which assigns an official government minder to shadow every foreign correspondent—doesn’t allow the media access to its dissidents. For that matter, it doesn’t even let foreign correspondents use their own satellite phones to transmit stories back home. That’s how tightly Hussein’s fascist regime regulates the flow of news.

And it’s not as though protests are some everyday occurrence in Iraq, complete with celebrity appearances and a flurry of advance publicity. In Iraq, demonstrating against the president and his regime is a serious crime, the usual punishment for which is extensive torture followed by death.

At great personal risk, opposition forces have become bolder and more vocal in recent weeks because they’re optimistic that Hussein’s reign of terror will soon come to an end. That’s to say, America’s resolve has already made Iraq a freer place, and the liberation hasn’t even started yet.

Still, Iraqi protesters voice their opinions at their own peril.

Last week, in the al-Hurriyya suburb of Baghdad, Hussein’s security forces arrested a civil servant for preparing to flee the country. With war only days away, the government has issued strict orders for all civilians to stay put, the purpose being to drive up the number of innocent casualties after hostilities begin. To make an example of this poor soul, Hussein’s butchers tied him to a street pole and ordered passersby to watch as they cut out his tongue—then left him to bleed to death.

Relatively speaking, he got off lightly. He could have been forced to watch his wife or children get raped and killed, another of the regime’s more creative forms of punishment. Ann Clwyd, a British Labour Member of Parliament charged with cataloging Iraqi war crimes, reports even more ghastly stories of Iraqi abuses—humans dropped into giant shredders and ripped limb from limb, menstruating women suspended by their legs in a barbaric effort to humiliate them...

...Another anti-Hussein demonstration last weekend, this one waged by Iraqi Shi’ites in the holy city of Kerbala, was “violently suppressed after the intervention of militiamen loyal to Saddam,” according to news reports. In ethnically Kurdish areas, Iraqi forces have been rounding up young men, Gestapo-style, for fear that the Kurds will mount a revolution once the war begins. “There is a campaign to arrest young people, especially at night,” one 21-year-old Kurd told Knight Ridder. “The other day in the Iskan neighborhood, (Iraqi officials) cut the telephones so people could not speak to each other,” claims another.

Yet despite the risks, a good number of brave Iraqis are protesting—and more—hopeful that after a lifetime of oppression, freedom is coming. Saboteurs staged a successful strike last week against the Iraqi railway system. Vandals have begun trashing the ubiquitous Saddam posters that hang on doors throughout the country. Opposition leaders in Kurdish-controlled territories are busily collecting thousands of surrender letters from Iraqi political and military leaders that take effect the moment war begins.

When that happens, Iraqi protesters will tremble in fear while hanging on to hope. American protesters, on the other hand, plan to greet the start of the war by tying up crucial police and security services—services that could be needed in the event of a terrorist attack—by blocking federal buildings, deliberately creating traffic jams and disrupting commerce.(end excerpt)

There are links embedded in the text of the actual article. For instance, the "second hand reports" is a clickable link, as is "thousands of surrender letters." If you wish to use these links or read the entire article, go to:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6720

[brad]

hard to determine the propaganda content imho

[nicky g]

The only source given by the article he links to to justify his "secoond-hand reports" is a British Foreign office official - not particularly convicing. Nor is his claim that Baghdad only wants civilians to stay put in order for them to be killed - he offers no evidence for this at all for this pure speculation.

I don't doubt the brutality of the regime, but I'm a little suspicious about the timing of these particular reports. There has been endless untrue propaganda about Iraq since the first Gulf War.

Brad why are you always up so early (or late)?

[John Cole]

M,

It's really hard to get beyond the beginning of this article, especially when the writer trots out enough fallacies in the third paragraph to make any further reading pointless. For example, he or she begins by begging the question with the phrase "the American-hating left." Without proving that the demonstrators are even leftist to begin with (how would the writer know?), the writer asserts that the left hates America as if it were already proven. How, at this point, can the writer be trusted? If that weren't bad enough, a non sequitur follows closely: because the left protests and hates America (and again note that the whole is substituted for the individual in this writer's logic), it, concomitantly, calls for Saddam to remain in power. There's more, but I know I don't have to point out the flaws to you.

As a brief aside, and perhaps a reflection on how bad the writing and reporting has become in the media, I really wish you'd get a TV and cable because you'd enjoy the utter hilarity of the Fox News Channel. ("We present the information, so you can make up your mind" is their motto.) I thought that American television had reached its nadir with reality based shows, but yesterday morning I witnessed three idiots chuckling with glee at the prospect of war--and I'm not exaggerating. I wish I had an apt analogy ready, but I'm not bright enough to convey their behavior.

I'm surprised you'd get past this paragraph yourself--and you know I'd rather have you and Chris Alger sitting in a room attempting to solve problems than most of the so-called professionals we have elected to do so.

John

[Jimbo]

For example, he or she begins by begging the question with the phrase "the American-hating left." Without proving that the demonstrators are even leftist to begin with (how would the writer know?), the writer asserts that the left hates America as if it were already proven.

John, must we prove the earth is round and not flat every time we offer directions?

[MMMMMM]

I don't think those loose tidbits should be nearly reason enough to dismiss the article.

Reports like some linked in this article keep surfacing: testimonials by Iraqi defectors, exiles, and escapees corroborating Saddam's control and incredible brutality--many Iraqis do want regime change, too. These are important things for the world to hear, since so much of Iraqi dissent is not only stifled but murdered.

The author states some things as facts (regarding the Left)which are only partially true. If that were the main point of the article I would expect a more detailed breakdown and some documented support.

I don't think it would be erroneous, however, to assert that some elements of the left do indeed hate America, and some elements of the America-haters will oppose America simply for the sake of opposing.

I felt the article would have been better without dwelling on such matters. However, for me, that doesn't significantly reduce the value of the rest of the article.

[andyfox]

Note that the author puts "anti-war" in quotes, as if there is some ulterior motive to the protests. What is so hard to accept about the fact that those who are protesting the upcoming war are against that war? One can argue about whether it is better for our country if we go to war or not, but there is nothing America-hating about protesting a policy about which one disapproves. The real America-haters are those that deny the right of other Americans to have their say. Those who claim its OK for Sean Hannity to have his say but not Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter. Those who claim that protesters are America-haters.

No one who disapproves of the policies of the administration has claimed that Saddam Hussein is a good guy. The disagreement is over what policy will be best for our country.

[Jimbo]

"The real America-haters are those that deny the right of other Americans to have their say. Those who claim its OK for Sean Hannity to have his say but not Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter. Those who claim that protesters are America-haters."

Andy I agree that all these people have a right to be heard. I also believe that they are nuttier than fruitcakes and their opinions should be taken with a grain of salt. Surely you also respect my right to that opinion.

[brad]

the games break

[Pot-A]

I remember a lot of what we heard about the Iraqis in Gulf War I turned out to be a load of rubbish. Anyone recall the tearfull testimony before Congress which contained a detailed account of Kuwaiti babies being ripped from incubators and thrown on the floor? Turned out to be the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter going for her first Oscar.

Or how we had credible information about Saddam's imminent development of a nuclear weapon? Turns out he had a nuclear program, but they were years and years away from their first crude weapon, and the US government knew it.

I'm not saying I think Saddam is a nice guy. However, after all the outright lies we were told the first time around, I wanna see some documentation before I believe second-hand accounts about life and death in Iraq.

[MMMMMM]

I believe the first UN team, UNSCOM, declared that Iraq was about 1 year away from developing a nuclear weapon when progress was arrested. I could be wrong.

One false report (incubator babies) means little. Many, many reports are coming out, and to disregard them all is absurd. You probably just aren't aware of the volume of reports from defectors, escapees, exiles, etc.

[BruceZ]

As a brief aside, and perhaps a reflection on how bad the writing and reporting has become in the media, I really wish you'd get a TV and cable because you'd enjoy the utter hilarity of the Fox News Channel. ("We present the information, so you can make up your mind" is their motto.)

It's "we report, you decide". They offer "fair and balanced" reporting. Hannity and Colmes is a perfect example of the balance; Hannity argues the right case, and Colmes takes the left. Every show brings out guests or talking heads from both the right and the left, and both are subjected to tough questions. The O'Reilly Factor attempts to present only facts and analysis, while not permitting "spin" from either side. If the side of the left appears under represented on the channel, it is because their views often tend to crumble under this type of critical analysis. The ratings of this network completely crush the competition. It is a breath of fresh air in an news media that has been dominated by a strong liberal bias. I love this network, and watch it addictively.

[andyfox]

Surely. How did what I say make you ask?

[John Cole]

Bruce,

You are joking, right? Shouting matches hardly represent fair and honest reporting--or debate. I decide to have you on my show for a debate or to give you a few seconds to present your side of a topic. I, though, hold the kill switch. I control content. I invite BruceZ onto my show to present his side of an issue, spend thirty minutes telling the audience that BruceZ is an idiot and I am a genius, and then ask you if you've stopped beating your wife. "Well, huh," you reply.

"Please, BruceZ," I scream, "answer the question."

Then I get to tell my audience that BruceZ represents all of those who won't deal with "facts."

Gee, Bruce, any wonder your argument can't stand up to critical analysis?

John

[John Cole]

Jimbo,

I think you meant that their opinions should be taken with a pillar of salt.

John

[adios]

Of course presenting both sides of an issue represents fairness. Bruce what you must realize is that John believes that NPR provides fair, balanced and unbiased reporting. I believe that most people would say that NPR has a clear left wing bias. Here's a site that is in a constant battle with NPR over their reporting:

Commitee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (http://www.camera.org)

What really frosts me about NPR is the tax payer money directed it's way.

A few more links about those that don't think NPR is exactly fair and unbiased in it's reporting.

Rep. DeLay Condemns NPR for Anti-Christian Smear (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/2/28/175002.shtml)

Robert Dole Abu-Jamal Senate Speech 5/16/94 (http://www.pacifica.org/9798archives/__democracy/mumia/mumdole.html)

Stop supporting National Public Radio (NPR) (http://www.factsofisrael.com/load.php?p=http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000301.html)

NPR’s Biased Corrections (http://www.truthnews.net/world/2002080093.htm)

[adios]

"Shouting matches hardly represent fair and honest reporting--or debate."

That's a rather convienient characterization and certainly open to debate. Do you mind if others don't share your view and actually discern other positions from such discussions?


"I, though, hold the kill switch. I control content. I invite BruceZ onto my show to present his side of an issue, spend thirty minutes telling the audience that BruceZ is an idiot and I am a genius, and then ask you if you've stopped beating your wife. "Well, huh," you reply.

"Please, BruceZ," I scream, "answer the question."

Then I get to tell my audience that BruceZ represents all of those who won't deal with "facts."

Gee, Bruce, any wonder your argument can't stand up to critical analysis?"

This is your shining example of critical analysis?

[BruceZ]

No I wasn't joking. The shouting matches when everyone talks at once are unfortunate, but they only break out occasionally. Format constraints require that guests be given limited time to answer direct questions. These questions are highly relevant, cut to the chase, and are the ones that I want the answers too. They should be easily answerable and expected by the person representing an issue. Often the guests try to stray from the sensitive questions, so the interviewer must try and keep the discussion on topic. The kill switch is used very rarely, and only when a guest tries to hog the airtime for his own agenda instead of staying on topic. Under this format, many guests are able to provide clear, direct answers and strong arguments which I can analyze, and I find these discussions most useful. When the guest can only duck questions and stray off topic, that also tells me something about the strength of their position, though it is less enlightening because it may only mean that the guest is inarticulate, rather than that their position is weak. Many people, usually from the left but some from the extreme right too, are afraid to be interviewed by that network. Americans like straight talk, which is why that network is so successful.

If I'm accused of beating my wife, I better expect to be asked about that if I'm going on there. I doubt that would come up out of a clear blue sky. If I don't beat my wife, I would say "I don't beat my wife". Done. Simple.

You can't judge the network by the morning show. Lately they have been all pro-war. The purpose of those shows is to jolt people awake. Still they give you something to think about. The hotties alone almost make it worth watching /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

[B-Man]

There is nothing remotely fair or unbiased about NPR. It has a specific agenda and its stories are designed to advance that agenda. It is a despicable organization and it infuriates me that my tax dollars go to support it.

[B-Man]

Great post. Finally, there is a television news source which isn't completely biased toward the left.

[John Cole]

Tom,

First, I have never claimed that NPR offers unbiased reporting. I did say, however, that I enjoy listening to guests who are given some time to articulate their ideas without being shouted down by the host of the program. (Perhaps, your analytical skills failed you a bit there. BTW, my response to Bruce was simply an analogy--perhaps a lame one--not critical analysis; surely you recognize the difference. If you wish, fault me for lame analogies.)

I would not claim that anyone--let alone a major news organization--is unbiased. I know better. Furthermore, I'm continually surprised that many people think NPR or PBS are left wing. If anything, these organizations are far too conservative on most issues. I do not see, however, that NPR purposely stages phony debates by drawing on the same cast of characters to promulagate an agenda. (Christ, how many times can William Bennett grace the airways?)

If only Fox News could merge with the Sci-Fi Channel. Then, we could combine O'Reilly with Crossing Over and stage a debate between Patton and Ghandi. Imagine the fun.

John

PS. I checked out the "Stop Supporting Public Radio" site; although I didn't read fully, I did notice that much of the so-called bias was simply factual error.

[John Cole]

B-Man,

I suppose you've missed the series on milestones of American music. Bad stuff.

John

[John Cole]

Bruce,

My worst reaction to the network stems from the morning show; I realize the other stuff is mostly for entertainment value.

I agree that most Americans like straight talk, but I think that's a euphemism for anything short and sweet that doesn't require reading.

John

[John Cole]

B-Man,

Seriously, have you listened to, for one, Tom Brokaw?

John

[B-Man]

I didn't see it. Why was it bad?

[B-Man]

Yes, though I tend to watch Peter Jennings and Saddam's good friend, Dan Rather, much more than Brokaw.

John, you aren't denying that the three major networks have a liberal bias, are you? Or that NPR has a liberal bias?

[John Cole]

B-Man,

You would, of course, have to hear it (sorry, I couldn't resist; please don't hold it gainst me), but, no, the parts I have caught have been quite good. Any overview of American music that can put Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue and the Ramone's "I Wanna Be Sedated" on the same list can't be all bad.

John

[BruceZ]

You mean the stuff on the morning show is mostly for entertainment value, or the other shows? I would agree that the morning show is mostly for entertainment value and less for news and analysis. The other shows may be entertaining, but they are certainly very informative. The show with Brit Hume even has a FOXNews contributor from NPR on regularly, and they have a roundtable discussion where each person has ample time to talk. Same with the Beltway Boys. Then there's a bunch of shows about investing in which everyone gets to express their diverse opinions, and they are all very respectful of each other.

[B-Man]

I suppose I walked into that one. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

By the way, why is Emerson usually referred to as Ralph Waldo Emerson, rather than simply Ralph Emerson?

[nicky g]

One of CAMERA's main gripes seems to be that NPR does not refer to Palestinian gunmen acting within the occupied territories as "terrorists." There's a good reason for this - there is a war going on there and to refer to one side in that war as terrorists would be absurdly one-sided journalism and out of place in a news item, especially as both the soldiers and the settlers are there illegally. I would bet my bottom dollar that NPR does refer to any attacks on civilans within Israel's borders as terrorism. It is a common distinction that most major news organisations use. The term terrorism cannot be applied to all attacks - it is a term that should be reserved for unprovoked attacks on civilians who are not involved in the conflict. An attack on a military force may be morally wrong but it is not terrorism, it's an act of war.To use the term to describe any attack you disagree with makes it completely meaningless.

[John Cole]

B-Man,

I don't think the major networks have a liberal bias at all; in fact, I think they perform a very conservative ideological function. But, that does not mean they necessarily hold conservative values (or liberal values).

Also, I'm not sure why Waldo is always used with Emerson. Perhaps it simply sounds better, or perhaps Emerson's name appeared in print with the middle name included. But, since I can never resist an Emerson quote, here's another since I know your familiar with the streets of Boston: "The streets of Boston look like they were laid out by cows. There are worse surveyors."

John

[BruceZ]

It is a common distinction that most major news organisations use.

There was some major news organization, CNN I think, that has a rule forbiding the use the word "terrorist" ever, and I don't think they are the only ones. That is just ridiculous.

[B-Man]

I think the streets of Boston actually were laid out by cows.

Can you imagine if you met an out-of-towner who just flew into Logan, rented a car, and asked you, "How do I get to Copley Square?" What would you tell the person?

As for the foolish consistency quote, there are some poker players I know who could really improve their games from thinking about that quote.

[nicky g]

It is silly, but I think that's down to the overuse of it that threatens to, and possibly has, rendered it a meaningless word. It's like fascist - people just use it against their enemies. But I think so long as you make it clear you are using it consideredly, in cases where it is the appropriate term (eg 9/11, suicide bombings against civilian targets), then there's no reason not to use it.

[MMMMMM]

Over the years I have gathered the impression that all three networks do have a liberal bias. Also, when I occasionally watch some CNN at a friend's place, I often detect a liberal bias.

Maybe our difference in perspective could be explained by the concept of palette-shift;-) Or maybe I just never watched enough TV.

Hey...I caught you: "your" instead of "you're." I guess I'm not the only one who makes hasty typos that look like spelling errors;-) Recently, I used "emigrate" where I should have used "immigrate,"--which I can't pass off as a typo: a slip of the mind, rather.

[BruceZ]

I make the your, you're mistake all the time. Its, it's too, I have to think to get that one right.

If you really want a different perspective, watch the news in a foreign country. It's weird. It's kind of like listening to someone talk about you behind your back. The facts are still there, but everything about America is put in kind of a blunt and vaguely anti-American sort of way.

[MMMMMM]

I have recently added the BBC website to my Favorites list and go there occasionally. Just wish I could hear the accents, though;-) That's one thing I like about NPR: the cultured, quiet voices and classical music. However, recently I listened to an NPR show on the Palestinian/Israeli issue and it was literally 100% Palestinian-sided. I do suspect they have an overall liberal bias.

[B-Man]

NPR actually stands for National Palestinian Radio

[Jimbo]

"I think you meant that their opinions should be taken with a pillar of salt" Actually John if they (Jimmy and Bill) were out in a field tending a salt lick that would make more sense.

[Jimbo]

"Surely. How did what I say make you ask?" It was more of a statement than a question Andy. But it never hurts to check your pulse once in awhile. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[Parmenides]

Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdoch. It is a poor example of journalism integrity. The propaganda spewed forth on a daily basis from the likes of Brit Hume disgusts anyone with critical thinking skills.

[Jimbo]

parmenides, seeing these words "...anyone with critical thinking skills." coming from a post of yours made me bust a gut laughing! /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

[BruceZ]

I doubt that you've ever watched it very closely. If you did you would know that Brit Hume rarely spews anything, but almost exclusively asks questions. I wonder if you even know who Brit Hume is.

[andyfox]

"But it never hurts to check your pulse once in awhile."

No sh*t. I was reading the pharmacy sheets on the two medications I'm now taking. One is for my back: it says one of the side effects may be difficulty in urination. The other is for my urination problems: it say is may cause back pain.

And you thought Saddam Hussein had problems.

[MMMMMM]

Just wondering andy, did the same doctor prescribe both medications?

[Cyrus]

You never hear any of 'em complicated words. Simple facts, simple analysis, simple phrases, so that everyone can understand. Democracy in action, actually. And the hair of all presenters is usually great.

You get the United States viewpoint un-diluted. You get the flag at the upper left corner. You get graphics like NFL replays.

It's simply great.

TRIVIA : The late, great Dennis Potter when he found out he had cancer, got to "affectionately" calling his malignancy Rupert.

[BruceZ]

I agree with you completely, except for one thing:

You never hear any of 'em complicated words.

They did use the word "terroristic" and they even defined it. Had you been watching, you would have had the opportunity to become somewhat more literate.

[John Cole]

Well, you certainly don't hear them use the word "hegemony."

BTW, film version, starring Robert Downey Jr., of The Singing Detective, due to be released soon.

[andyfox]

The best Fox news comes from Andy.

[MMMMMM]

Is hegemony a bad thing? I see it everywhere: in the animal kingdom, in the world of humans. What percentage of relationships in the real world don't have a leading or dominant partner, or at least one with a preponderance of influence? Probably only very few, and these are likely only some very select two-person relationships.

If we give up our nation's hegemony, rest assured that we will eventually become the "hegemonee" rather than the "hegemoner." I personally don't carry a big enough load of guilt to wish that on myself or on our nation. Nor do I see any way in this stage of the moral/spiritual development of humanity to arrive at hegemony-free international relationships. Further, any attempts to enforce such an ideal will only result in transferred power and another form of hegemony (in the same way that communism only produces another form of elite in society--that of the ruling Party--and the attempted perversion of natural self-interests only results in a less efficient and more corruptible system).

If there has to be a dominant party, it would be well for it to be a member of the Free World--and it might as well be us since we're already there. Besides, that sounds good from the standpoint of pure self-interest.

With all that said, I think that those countries we do business with both typically and significantly benefit from their relationships with us. So why all this fuss I keep hearing about hegemony?

[John Cole]

M,

I would use the term to mean the ways by which the state uses various institutions--education, the church, advertising, for example--to maintain power, so that power remains abstract and unequal power relations appear natural. (Cyrus may use the term differently.) The dominant class, therefore, possesses power because it has the natural (or perhaps god-given) right to power. American documentary film-maker Fred Wiseman has produced a series of films that show the workings of hegemony in American culture, among which Titticut Follies, High School, and Welfare are the best examples. (It is a crime that these films are unavailable on video.) All these films show clearly how a democratic society controls its members, especially its members who lack power.

Although I might imply that the workings of hegemony are profound, I don't necessarily mean they are fixed and permanent. If that were the case, we'd never see any slippage in power. For one, we can, according to Hannah Arendt see that "violence appears when power is in jeopardy." And, if hegemony's effects were totalizing (can't think of a better word right now), no one would resist or be able to theorize how hegemony works.

John

[Cyrus]

[FOXNews] did use the word "terroristic" and they even defined it. Had you been watching, you would have had the opportunity to become somewhat more literate.

I don't know, Bruce. Somehow getting my education from watching FOXNews doesn't seem right.

[Cyrus]

BTW, film version, starring Robert Downey Jr., of The Singing Detective, due to be released soon.

No problemo. Like "Solaris" or "Breakdown", the only common thing will be the title.