e. magill's Intrigue

Iraq is Free, a Dictator is Dethroned, Terrorists are Failing, and that is NOT a Bad Thing

There is a common feeling that I can see around me, from news outlets to casual conversations to civil confrontations with my friends. Whenever I turn on television news to get an update, I hear from one of the Democratic nominees for president or from Jacques Chirac or even a news anchor claiming to be unbiased that the reconstruction of Iraq is going badly.

Few people talk about the schools or hospitals being built, the police forces and armies being trained, the national bank or democratic governing council being established, or the remarkable speed with which we are rebuilding Iraq (making far quicker strides than we did during the Marshall Plan), but almost everybody wants to discuss the mounting U.S. casualties, the terrorist strikes, the military accidents, the uncertain time table, or the lack of weapons of mass destruction.

When the U.S. president goes in front of the United Nations and justifies the actions of his coalition, all the televised newscasts want to show me is the French reaction or some political analyst talking about the “icy” reception of a glorified, multinational, and unelected body of diplomats representing nations that are typically not free. I never see the very defensive and eloquent rebuttals of Prime Minister Howard from Australia; I only manage to track that down during a very long internet hunt. And all I hear on the television of the president’s speech are tiny soundbites that barely scratch the surface of what he said.

Is it, therefore, any surprise that a populace infused with an extremely one-sided argument would start to believe what they are being told? Is it any surprise that polls in this country are starting to show a faltering public support for the U.S.-lead invasion of Baghdad (even though Gallup polls in Baghdad show an increase of support)?

Let’s face it; a vast majority of the American public isn’t paying close enough attention to know that the propaganda of the mainstream is merely an illusion. Most people are unwilling to take the time and effort to do independent analysis. Most people would rather get their news from a twenty-second viewing of MSNBC than from an actual intellectual effort. Even those who are paying attention would rather believe Kofi Annan or Hans Blix when they complain that the U.S. acted unilaterally and overhyped the threat of Saddam Hussein (despite the fact that Blix is partially responsible for that “hype” by presenting his report on Hussein’s weapons program on March 6, a report that did not paint a picture of a benevolent and cooperative dictator free of weapons of mass destruction).

Many of my less conservative friends are, no doubt, ignoring this rant (if you’re reading this, I’m obviously not referring to you). They tend to disregard my arguments out of hand, because, clearly, I don’t know what I’m talking about and all I do is attack their opinions. It upsets me that they can’t tell the difference between a challenge and an attack, or that they confuse intelligent debate with hateful bigotry. They are content with their beliefs, would never expose them as I do, and actually believe that there’s nothing anybody in the world could say to them that would change their minds. When I tell them that I debate them because I want them to try to change my mind, they tell me they believe that to be equally impossible, even though they have succeeded on a few subjects (whether they know it or not).

This is the one severe flaw of the democratic process, and a flaw I do not wish to solve. I have faith that the truth will win out over this mess, that the truth behind what we accomplished in Iraq will be more generally known someday (hopefully sooner rather than later). I hope that David Kay’s upcoming announcements concerning the biological weapons program in Iraq will stop the barrage of criticism, even though I’m pretty sure that it won’t accomplish any more than the nuclear centrifuge or mobile labs we unearthed did. It is also my hope that the U.N. will one day become something useful and representative of the world’s people, that it will not be headed by nations of oppression, despite the fact that a large number of my more politically-minded friends consider such a view to be racist and ethnocentric.

Those who are being shrill about Iraq now--especially the Democratic presidential forerunners--are not going to stop their dissent. They even make it clear that they define “patriotism” as bitching at the government and that they consider protesting in a nation where free speech is commonplace to be “courageous”. These do not make up the kind of people who will admit when they are proven wrong. Rather, they’ll go on spitting their rhetoric, counting on the gullibility of people who aren’t paying enough attention to notice that they had the exact opposite viewpoint on Iraq not that long ago.

The vocal opposition of the U.N. and people like Jacques Chirac isn’t much different. Here is a leader who refused to intervene when a heatwave crippled the people in his country, people who had been forced to give up air conditioning because the government had banned it; he actually blamed the people. This is not the kind of man I want speaking for me or anyone else. This is a man who ordered a unilateral preemptive invasion without U.N. approval of a central African colony while simultaneously complaining that the United States has no right to act unilaterally or preemptively. This is a man on a corrupt power binge, and it should come as little surprise to anyone that he would oppose a military act to strip power from another corrupt leader.

And yet, there seems to be this growing feeling in America that Jacques Chirac is more honest than President Bush. This should be the expected result when a majority of mainstream news sources are giving more airtime and credibility to Bush’s critics than to his supporters. When Wesley Clarke blasts the president and suggests handing over more of our sovereignty to the United Nations, he’s called an intelligent candidate with a lot of promise, but when Rush Limbaugh supports Bush and blasts Jacques Chirac, he’s called an egotistical media hack and a liar.

To those of you who don’t believe that there is bias in the mainstream television media, I simply challenge you to do your own research on any political subject and compare that research with what you see on CNN or FoxNews. Only when you have spent a few months doing this will I even consider your analysis that CNN and FoxNews are unbiased. It is my assertion, in fact, that media bias is inevitable and unavoidable.

I’m not suggesting that anything be done about this media bias, nor am I suggesting that the “fairness” doctrine be reinstated. I’m only suggesting that the people who know the truth need to be more vocal. This is a democracy, and we can’t let it be hijacked by people who put their own political agendas above the truth.

I put less blame on the heads of CNN than I do on the heads of the people. The mainstream media is supposed to be a reflection of what we are, not a dictating force of it. It just upsets me that there are far fewer people out there opposing this reflection than there are obeying it.

That is why I wrote this rant.

[By the way, I have deliberately refrained from citing any of my sources in this rant. It is my hope that you’ll go look up my assertions in an attempt to prove me right or wrong. It is my hope that you’ll start to see what’s really going on out there and that you won’t take anybody’s word for it, not even mine.]

-e. magill, 9/24/2003