In order to remain profitable and to maintain its credibility, there are limits to the extent to which media can directly lie. It would also be very difficult for a media outlet to unquestioningly promote the War in Iraq as a good thing and to praise and explain in glowing terms the decisions of the administration. If they did so, they know that would be viewed as not being objective, and would lose credibility.
But this presents a conundrum to the gatekeepers of truth. Most of the corporate media in the United States do essentially support the foreign policy of the United States including the War in Iraq. Although these imperial adventures are always justified by appeals to humanitarian interest, the underlying belief of those who own most of media is that the US has the right to control the world by force for the benefit of its richest and most powerful citizens. Any true opposition to the War is based on its efficacy in that respect, not its moral validity.
So, the solution is to criticize, but from a position of strategy, not a questioning of underlying intentions. The debate recently has attempted to be framed as being between a benevolent administration that wants democracy and freedom for Iraq, and those, who for various reasons, think that these goals are impractical, or that Bush is going about them the wrong way. In fact, a more realistic presentation of the different points of view in the matter would also have arguments from those who believe that oil, money, and power are the true goals of the occupation, and that democracy is not even being attempted by the US government.
Consider the following, from the New York Times on April 11:
“In addition, the neoconservative wing of the administration – the group of hawkish officials who seek to challenge dictatorships around the world – may be in decline, its energies absorbed by Iraq. There are signs that the realists are gaining the upper hand.
Indeed, some of the most senior officials who supported the invasion of Iraq, including Ms. Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney, are operating these days more in the traditions of Mr. Kissinger and Mr. Scowcroft, the Republican apostles of realism whose foreign policy was based on national interests rather than American values. “
It has been standard fare the past few weeks to hear these types of arguments repeated over and over again. The Bush administration is filled with starry-eyed idealists, who only now are beginning to realize that maybe their lofty goals of bringing democracy and freedom to the world were potentially unrealistic.
Consider an even more striking example written by David Broder in the Washington Post on April 15:
“What is right, and what is terribly important and engaging, is the genuine idealism that informs George Bush’s basic policy decisions. He embodies and gives voice to the belief that goes back to the very founding of this nation — that America’s historic role is to demonstrate the blessings of freedom here at home, to be the bulwark of freedom in the world and to share the gift of freedom as widely as possible…
Idealism is a wonderful and attractive trait in a leader. But visions unhinged from strategies and heedless of risks can lead to disasters, especially when impatience produces hasty decision making. We have seen too much of that in the Bush presidency.â€
Of course, these arguments ignore completely the recent administration backed coup against President Aristide in Haiti who won his seat overwhelmingly in free and fair elections, unlike the “sovereign†government of Iraq which will be chosen by the US by June 30. It also ignores recent US support for the coup and destabilization of Venezuela, another county where a president won with an overwhelming majority.
On April 11, the San Francisco Chronicle treated readers to a long piece on by Vietnam-era war criminal Henry Kissinger, who also advises us that we need to be more strategic in our pursuit of “democratic valuesâ€:
“The advocates of the important role of a commitment to democracy in American foreign policy have won their intellectual battle. But institution- building requires not only doctrine but a vision recognizing cultural and historical circumstance. Such humility is not an abdication of American values; it is the only way to implement these values effectively.â€
It is revealing that the Chronicle would choose to print a column titled “Staying the Course: Democratic Values and U.S. Policy in Iraq,†written by a man who was involved in the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Chile in 1972, and which led to 30 years of dictatorship and repression in that country. It demonstrates that readers can not take at face value that the conclusions promoted by the corporate media are actually based upon the intentions offered.
Despite the opinions to the contrary of large segments of the population, the intentions of the President are taken at face value. The President is by his very nature honest and truthful, and therefore we need only discuss his tactics, not his intentions. Never mind that the US has sabotaged all plans for direct elections in Iraq and is building permanent military bases in Iraq before the people of Iraq have even had the chance to vote for representatives who might not want us there.
Of course, it won’t matter whether they want us there or not. Unless forced out militarily or by political circumstance in the US, we will stay and defend the oil at all costs. That is the simple truth that has become to obvious to mention.
To read more about the details of the US sabotaging of direct elections in Iraq and the media’s poor coverage of that, read this excellent report by FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting), http://www.fair.org/extra/0404/caucuses.html
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate