Imagine giving a speech you know will be watched by the world, a speech which must at once unite your people behind you and convince the rest of the world to stand with you. George Bush is the head of the most powerful empire the world has ever seen. He personifies America.
What was your reaction to George Bush’s state of the union address? See smh.
I thought he was polished and flawless in presentation, although the strain of appealing to two vastly different audiences was always going to prevent perfection. The constant stand-up, applaud, cheer ritual – the certainty, the self-righteousness, the insistence that God was on his side – must go down well over there, and is guaranteed to grate with both acolyte nations and enemies of empire.
To me, it was telling that he devoted such a long portion of his speech to the disadvantaged and the world’s environmental crisis – a crisis the world is trying to address without – so far – support from America. Whether he means it or not, whether he’ll press hard for implementation or not, the emphasis on a caring, sharing America showed just how anxious he is to convince a divided country to pull together, and to rebuild America’s moral authority to mollify antagonistic world opinion. This part of speech could easily have been said by Bill Clinton. His pledge to apply compassion to “the homeless, the fatherless, the addicted” was one right out of the box. And his program to address the AIDS epidemic in Africa resonated strongly with Tony Blair’s focus on Africa in his vision speech after September 11.
On Iraq, he set the timetable for war. On February 5, The American’s most credible spokesman in the eyes of the world, Colin Powell, will give the Security Council America’s evidence for war – evidence it will be hard-pressed to make convincing since it’s come so late, and only after America gave itself no choice but war by amassing an invading force in the Gulf.
Bush’s rhetoric has transformed over the past year – he no longer insisted the goal was regime change. The invasion, he now says, will be to disarm Saddam. He said nothing about his plans for Iraq after winning the war or of the implications for the region. Tragically, the region’s most pressing problem, the Israeli/Palestinian war, rated a throwaway line.
But he dropped his constant refrain that nations were either with America or its enemy. Overall, I felt his tone and rhetoric were more conciliatory than previously.
I thought it very significant that Bush kept the heat on Iran, one of the “axis of evil” nations he identified in last year’s state of the union address, while at the same time indicating that he had no plans to do an Iraq on it. It was a “behave and you’ll be OK, for now” message. The world will notice, of course, that he singled out a former client state and said nothing about the many middle-eastern client states with similar records.
It was a compelling hours viewing. Maybe he was just throwing trinkets to the natives to get them onside, maybe he was just being calm and reasonable to in over the home front in the dash to war in the world’s most volatile region. Whatever he’s doing, he’s the most powerful man on earth, the man to whom John Howard has handed the fate of our troops, and of our nation. We’re with you George, like it or not. And crossing our fingers.
I’ve devoted this entry to critics of Webdiary’s coverage of the war, and to a critic of a critic.
***
Jack Stack
Don’t get your knickers in a knot, love. The so-called war in Iraq is not going to be a war. Why? because the moment the US fires the first shot the Iraqis will crap their pants and start running just as they did in The Gulf War. It was OK for the Fascist thug Saddam to invade the Kuwaitis, gas the Kurds, slaughter the Shi’ites, execute his opponents and torture dissenters because they couldn’t fight back, but when the big boy on the block confronts the bully we see the stuff these cowards are really made of.
I expect to see Saddam either on a plane to Libya where he can live next door to that raving nutcase Kaddaffi (maybe they can swap outfits), dangling like Mussolini from a pole or being machine gunned by his own people like Ceaucescu.
I would suggest you get your moral compass repaired because it has lost its direction. That’s why the Left always found excuses for Soviet expansionism, brutality and oppression but castigated the US as they defended the West. You are the spiritual heirs of the people who turned their back on Hitler’s aims and his persecution of the Jews, overlooked Mussolini’s murder of the Ethiopians and Libyans, ignored Turkey’s slaughter of Armenians, excused Stalin as he starved Russian peasants and praised the Soviet “experiment” even as the commissars consigned millions to the wasteland of the Gulags.
You didn’t give a damn about Japan’s atrocities in China or Communist China’s persecution of peasants, minorities and dissenters. Need I add Cambodia, Tibet, Rwanda, Serbia and the post-war purges and executions in Vietnam. You praise Castro while ignoring the thousands who flee every year, the dissenters he jails, the Gays he persecutes, the artists he punishes. You paraded for “peace” during the years of The Cold War.
Now let’s tell it as it is: You aren’t concerned about a war, you just hate the US and Americans. You hate this George Bush like you hated the last George Bush and Reagan before him and Eisenhower and Truman and any other US President who has a clear policy of standing up to aggressors.
And don’t give me BS about the US being the aggressor because if it wasn’t for its sacrifice we’d be pulling rickshaws, most of Europe would be speaking German and South Koreans would be as hungry as their kin in the North. And if it’s about OIL (that tired old shibboleth) why didn’t the US stay in Kuwait and steal their oil?
As an Australian-born American citizen, I wish the US would retreat to its pre-WW2 policy of isolationism, kick the UN into Geneva, stop foreign aid, defend only North and Central America and let the world go to hell. Within months you’d be begging for those “rotten Yanks” to come out of retirement.
Margo: Jack, I’m a small-l Liberal. I’m often critical of the traditional left. I believe in finding consensus if at all possible. I believe in open debate. The bedrock of my beliefs is a commitment to the UN universal declaration of human rights. I’ve never supported the communist or fascist regimes you mentioned. Never.
I am not anti-American, but I have strong doubts about the war. I fear it could increase the risk of terrorism worldwide, including in Australia. I fear the consequences of a unilateral American invasion of a country in the most volatile and dangerous region in the world, especially in the light of America’s record in the region. I’m concerned that invading another country would create a dangerous precedent in international law. I fear the implications of America’s new national security strategy, which asserts the absolute right to pick and chose countries which flout the UN to punish, and to withdraw from UN treaties and not comply with international norms itself. I’m very concerned that neither the government of the United States or of Australia will address these matters.
***
Below is an exchange of emails today between occasional Webdiarist Richard Moss and I. I’ve said this before and it remains true – readers critical of me or my views have a much better chance of being published than those who praise me or agree with me. Webdiary readers decide the tone and overall views of this forum. It’s self-selecting. Most readers are either small l liberals or lefties, and this is why I privilege reader’ contributions which aren’t in that vein. I want discussion, I want people to think, and I want people to understand what other people think, and why. What gets me about most of the hate mail I get is that those who write it don’t submit pieces explaining their views or why they disagree with others. Instead they blow up readers who do and hurl insults at me. There are many forums – right and left wing – in which people tell each other they’re right and the rest of the world is wrong. This isn’t one of them.
Richard Moss in Canberra
What a great pity that Webdiary, which started as a great experiment in media democracy, has degenerated as far as it has, into a tediously repetitious propaganda site for the trendy left. The outrageous bias, the metaphorical slogan shouting, the mindless anti-Americanism, the selective outrage, the repetitious preaching to the converted, the self-serving “analysis” and the sickening self congratulation have all become Webdiary’s constant characteristics and have made it a watchword in journalistic onanism.
It could have been so much better. Think of the real, intelligent debate that might have been possible on any number of topics, if only other voices had been able to be heard. The Iraq issue provides an excellent example. Rather than the mindless anti-American slogan shouting which characterises Webdiary’s “discussion” of the issue, it might have been possible for the other view to be heard, for other questions to be raised about how the world ought to react to such a situation.
But you and Webdiarists are not interested in such real analysis: it is much more satisfying to indulge in mutual applause and self congratulation. I guess if you are absolutely certain of your own righteousness, you really aren’t interested in discussing it.
I guess for me the low point was your decision to publish the insultingly moronic view from some European resident that our alliance with the world’s greatest democracies – an alliance which has saved the world from fascism at great cost – and our mutual desire to address the threat to the world presented by Saddam Hussein is due to some lingering Anglo-Saxon desire for Imperial glory. What puerile, racist, laughable nonsense – unworthy of even you, Margo.
It is revealing that you chose to publish such crap, while contributions I have provided in the past have been suppressed – eg my attempted analysis of the trendy lefty mindset last year. One can only surmise as to how much else you have suppressed in the interests of creating a site which clones your own views. Well congrats – you have succeeded, at the cost of any interest in the site from a cross-section of the community.
Margo: Hi Richard. I led with one of your anti-left pieces last year. I’ve published most of what you’ve written. Can’t remember the one you refer to. Four of my columnists write regularly about the war – two, John W. and Harry, are vehemently pro-war, and I’ve published acres of John’s analysis on the evils of Saddam. Since you find it tedious, I’m surprised you still read it.
Richard: I don’t very often these days.
The odd concession does little to relieve the consistent bias. Also, it’s the tone of so much of the material which is so troubling – the constant intemperate abuse of America (a liberal democracy) and its leadership, and the attribution of evil motives to our own leadership and all those who disagree with the accepted Webdiary viewpoint is extremely disturbing, and certainly not conducive to any rational debate. The “why America wants war” discussion is typical. But the views I mentioned in my first message about some sort of alleged desire to recreate the British Empire, really take the cake!
Margo: I’m publishing people’s views, not agreeing with them. If you read to get a feel for the feelings about the war of others, why slam-dunk the forum? Many readers of Webdiary would disagree with your views – does that mean I shouldn’t publish them?
***
Daniel Maurice (See Waiting for George for Daniel’s critique of my comments and my reply.).
Issue 1: “scorched earth/mass murder”
During the Second World War the allies routinely carpet-bombed German cities. While the bombings were not “indiscriminate” (they had military targets) they were also deliberately designed to destroy the German people’s will to fight. They led to huge numbers of civilian casualties because the allies lacked the technology to drop their bombs precisely onto designated targets. One infamous raid late in the War over Dresden is believed to have caused 60,000 civilian deaths IN ONE NIGHT. Certainly hundreds, if not thousands, of German civilians died in every raid.
Allied political leaders such Churchill, Roosevelt and Curtin (Australian airmen participated in the raids) clearly knew of, and authorised, these raids. By the morality standards you are seeking to impose today, these leaders were all “mass murderers”.
What happened in WW2 far exceeds anything that Bush has contemplated or will implement in Iraq. I haven’t seen one scrap of evidence that indiscriminate mass bombings of Baghdad is part of the US plans. The report that seems to have excited you refers to leaked plans about unleashing a concentrated wave of precision guided weapons which would be aimed to achieve a quick, demoralising blow to Saddam’s war capabilities. You’re too intelligent not to know that, so why resort to hysterical language and distortions?
It’s blindingly obvious that the US approach reflects the exact opposite of what you outrageously claim in your article, that is it seeks to keep Iraqi civilian casualties to a minimum. Indeed, if you want to take a different line, you should focus on the dangerous concept that somehow war can be made almost “painless” because technology allows it to be conducted with surgical precision.
Of course there will still be Iraqi casualties from any allied military action, no matter how carefully it is planned. However, I’ll pay more attention to your professed concern for these innocents and your moralising about Bush/Howard when you acknowledge the far more widespread suffering that the Iraqi people have suffered at the hands of the brutal Saddam regime over the last 25 years. Don’t the Iraqi people have the rights to life, liberty and freedom that you and I have? Is their liberation only to be pursued if it can be achieved at no cost?
Issue 2: Ethical Journalism
I began my last email with a quote from one of your Iraqi pieces earlier this week. Just a few days before that, you intro’ed another piece, this time on the HIH collapse, with these words:
“The (present Federal) government did a lot of crazy things in the name of neo-liberal ideology when it first came to power – often for the benefit of its big business benefactors at the expense of the citizens who elected it. Senior ministers – including Peter Costello, former finance minister John Fahey and former higher education minister David Kemp – grotesquely misconceived the role of government and completely failed to fulfil their duties to the people. The result has been disaster for the nation and its people, yet the perpetrators blithely refuse to admit error, rethink their principles for policy, or even wipe the self-satisfied smirks off their faces.”
Different issue, same crazy hyperbole! As always it’s not just enough for you to disagree with policies, you must attack motives and even the morality of those behind them. Others who do not share your views and values are not just wrong, or misguided, they’re plain EVIL! (Another example: in the refugee debate you regularly claim that the Government is “vilifying” asylum seekers. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.) John Howard is not actually the devil incarnate.
Margo, your approach toward reporting is essentially those that extremists everywhere adopt, whether their issues are religious, cultural or political. Extremists will not tolerate those who do not share their views and values and ultimately learn to justify any action on the grounds that it’s the necessary means to a noble. In your case, you are never justified in promoting HATRED of our political leaders or our democratic system, using exaggeration and extreme language to “prove” a point or passing off your prejudices as objective reporting.
I don’t pretend to know the nuances of ethics, but here’s a few rules I wish you would follow:
1. Always use moderate language – no hysteria or hyperbole. Read back your words and ask yourself “Do I REALLY believe what I have just written?”
2. Acknowledge that while you might disagree, strongly, with the views and policies of the Government, you do not claim moral superiority over it, and accept that those views are sincerely held and the policies are usually motivated by intentions that as as valid and “noble” as your own. Further acknowledge the that you understand that you are sometimes wrong.
3. Clearly separate out in your writing “fact” from “opinion”. Don’t pretend you’re reporting the former when actually you’re just giving us the latter.
4. Do not engage in vilification of the political system which gives you freedom to express your opinion. For all the faults you see in Australia you have the luxury of engaging in public criticism without fear for your own life and liberty. This is a luxury which very few of your trade have around the world. Care and nurture it, do not abuse it.
Margo: Hi again. Gee, you’re hard!!! There’s lots of reports around that the US could use nuclear weapons in Iraq – I didn’t mention that because I just can’t contemplate that they would, even though they’ve said they don’t rule it out. Sure, you don’t like my style, but I really don’t think that’s an ethical question. You seem to set extremely precise standards for me – I can’t think of any right wing commentator doing the rounds in the mainstream press who would come anywhere near meeting them! I also make a point of publishing just about all publishable criticism about my work – unlike most commentators.
As for the scorched earth point, the Pentagon official said in that article that nowhere in Baghdad would be safe and that it would be an unprecedented bombing campaign. I was talking about a unilateral invasion not sanctioned by the UN, not a defence to invasion like World War II. No-one questions the fact that Saddam is a systematic abuser of human rights. I’m talking about the human right to life here, the most basic human right of all.
On the style thing, in the first Webdiary this year, ‘New Year Resolutions’, I said I’d try to be more measured etc, and that’s what I am trying to do. The times require more measured discourse. However I stand by the HIH quotes. I have personal experience on the IT outsourcing issue – a lot of reasonable people tried to reason with/engage government ministers on this, and their eyes glazed. They weren’t open at all. They deserve strong criticism for this failure of policy, in my view. That’s just my view, of course. I’d be happy to run a piece from anyone with a contrary view. The government hasn’t sought to explain itself at all, just dropped it.
***
Mark Worthington
We live in interesting times. How reassuring to find the following quote from Daniel Maurice: “I despair. My last vestiges of respect for you as journalist, indeed a human being, have disappeared.”
A human being! Did he really SAY THAT! Oh yes he did, and thus (by dehumanising you Margo) he clears away all the coded language and reveals his true feelings. At last. You may recall Daniel Maurice doing all of this (and some) when we were debating the fate of the asylum seekers aboard the MV Tampa and SIEV-X. On that occasion he was careful to avoid direct language. Not so this time. Funny (not) that he should mention Hitler and Pol Pot in the same rant. Dehumanising people makes it so much easier to make them ‘disappear’ from your moral compass.
Maybe it’s the thrilling prospect of a war that makes someone so overexcited as to say such things. It can have this effect on people. Like sharks smelling blood in the water. Permit me to hold a mirror up to Daniel Maurice and bounce his own words, with slight modification in parentheses, back at him:
“All (that) I see now is a hate-filled ideologue, not interested in objective analysis or reporting, so determined are you to (digest) self-serving distortions of facts and motives to feed your own peculiar prejudices. Forget about Bush and Howard, it’s people like you I really fear.”
Yep, that sums up the way I feel about Daniel Maurice perfectly. But all that makes him very human. And if he doesn’t retract his appalling slur on you Margo (as he most certainly should) well that makes him all the more human, and therefore deserving of sympathy, and in equal parts contempt.