Because You Never Asked

(6/07, Spain)

     As explained in the essay “Imperial Rationalizations”, my need to check in with the spin of American journalism has been tempered somewhat by the failure of the Iraqi adventure. With American efforts to justify the war almost gone, the tension between the American and European press coverage has been relaxed. As a result, after more than 6 weeks residence by the Roman Sea, I found myself buying “The Trib” for only the second time ---

     --- and yet, the tone of the Yankee press is still found to be mired in the bloody “au jus” of its own making. It should never be forgotten that the gringo mainstream forms of Big Media allied themselves with the immoral act of military aggression. Many of the things I read in the June 24^th edition of the International Herald Tribune reflect this attitude and would not be found in the press outlets on the European continent (in general, of course). It is sad to think this publication is really just an extension of the New York Times, which is supposed to represent the most intellectual, progressive currents of American thought. Upon delving into the material, I found myself continually questioning anyone’s need to read this sludge (just think of how many trees could be saved). When one considers some of the poignant rounds of objective analysis found on the Web these days, the sham of Big Media, both print and visual, hits you like a CIA interrogation light, right in the eyeballs. It hurts.

     This go round also caused another light to go on in my head. The “Trib” spends a lot of time talking about “human rights”. The reader should be reminded that the Herald Tribune is America’s newspaper voice abroad and the United States uses human rights like an advertising slogan to sell its product of imperial aggression (“Human rights. Just Do It!”). You can find more references to human rights in one edition of the “Trib” than in all of Spain’s newspapers put together --- for months. I can only assume that human rights means more to the United States than life itself, which it destroys without shame in horrifying numbers.

     Although, after an almost 2 month respite from it, the general tenor of American journalism seems provincial and adolescent, it was 2 lengthy editorial page pieces about Tony Blair that set this essay to paper. Blair is about to step down as the U.K’s Prime Minister, forced from office by his pig headed, immoral bet on George W.’s oil war. Almost a whole page is devoted to his departure and his legacy is given the most favorable spin possible by an American media establishment who made the same bet.

     Before going any further, and due to the fact that our Big Media professionals do not find the truth a good business decision, I’ll take the time to give it to you here: Tony Blair is one of the principle players in a scheme hatched to take control of a natural resource neither he nor anyone else in on the scam will ever talk about. He conspired in the unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation with the use of pretenses he knew to be false, that has led to the deaths of perhaps more than a million people. Both him and his good buddy W. are ostentatious believers in a Christian God who will judge their deeds on their Day of Reckoning. It’s times like this when I really wish there was such a God, so they could both end up in the fiery hell that would be too good for them.

     But that is the “unofficial” version of Blair’s legacy, one that will only appear in the outer reaches of the Blogosphere where this mass of dubious philosophical patter anonymously orbits. The “official” version (lie) will be ground out in industrial food factories like the “Trib” and delivered for mass consumption everyday, like a fast food version of the truth, superficially ingested by millions at an intellectual price we can all afford. In this version, the Iraqi war is --- well --- you know, it could have turned out better, but Mr. Blair stuck to his convictions, showed great courage --- etc. and what a great man.

     Perhaps the most striking aspect of the 2 editorials echoing this “official” version is that they were both written by prominent members of the opposition Conservative Party. Blair’s betrayal of his constituency has been so shameless, it had to be left to 2 Tories to eulogize his political death. Nary a Labor man anywhere is cozying up to Tony these days.

     The Conservative homage for Blair is disturbing for reasons beyond his betrayal. It shows an alarming tendency for one party rule in both the U.K. and the U.S., a trend that is weaker but ongoing in the rest of Occidente as well. The burlesque of ideologically opposed major political parties is being distilled more and more into what I’d call “The Dictatorship of Major Corporate Interests”. This is what we call “democracy” these days.

     The first editorial piece was written by Michael Portillo, a Tory politician who was once considered his party’s “golden boy”, with Prime Minister written all over him. He was described as Britain’s defense minister under John Major. How he ended up being Tony Blair’s apologist on the Op Ed pages of the “Trib” is beyond the I.Q. of my British  political knowledge.

     Mr. Portillo’s lengthy article is a prodigious waste of forestry resources entitled “Yes, We Will Miss Him”. Considering the attitude of most Brits these days, the correct pronoun should have been “I” not “we”. It is a tortured attempt to praise an opposition politician who is probably more to his liking than he is to those who voted for him. But the burlesque of “opposition” meant he could not make Blair look too good. This made his article an ambiguous tiptoe-through-the-tulips of Blair’s tarnished career, which is about as good as the “Trib” could do if it wanted to be sympathetic to Blair. In other words, when I realized I could have been doing something more intellectually uplifting than reading this indigestion --- like cleaning out my closet --- I felt completely defrauded. I quote: “And then, of course, came 9/11 and Iraq. From the moment that the Twin Towers were attacked he (Blair) knew Britain’s place was alongside President George W. Bush. Quite simply, he never blinked”.

     It is astonishing to think this statement is being made with 6 years of hindsight. Is Mr. Portillo actually portraying this as a positive thing? He continues, “He told the British people that the war was necessary to destroy Saddam Hussein’s WMD’s. Later he stood accused of manipulating the intelligence --- “. I remind the reader that Portillo is offering all this in praise of Mr. Blair, that this was all well and good because “Britain’s place was alongside the U.S.”. Wouldn’t “partners in crime” be a much better way to express Mr. Blair’s loyalty to George W. Bush?

     Mr. Portillo is taking an almost microscopic minority position in claiming he will miss either one of them.

     The second article was written by one Sir Malcolm Rifkind, described as the foreign secretary  under John Major. It is an opinion piece on where Britain’s involvement in Iraq should go now that Blair is gone. It warns against early and complete withdrawal and could have been written a few months after W.’s “mission accomplished” speech, when the reality of the situation began coming into focus. It is a stale pot of coffee that has been reheated so many times, it can hardly be kept down anymore. And yet, the New York Times, through its International Herald Tribune outlet, can find nothing better to fill the most prominent pages of its publication with.

     The unmistakably bankrupt nature of both the content and sincerity of the piece begins right in the title: “Iraq Still Needs Us”. Sir Malcolm, in putting it this way, is insinuating there was a time previous to now when Iraq “needed” us. If there is somebody out there who can explain to me why Iraq ever needed what the Anglo invasion of the country has wrought, I suppose I’d be willing to listen. But before doing so, you will have to possess a notarized copy of something certifying your sanity.

     Mr. Rifkind begins his piece with a note of extreme self indulgence. He realizes there will be  a “major reduction” in British troops after Blair’s departure. I remind Sir Malcolm that a “major reduction” of almost nothing is almost nothing. There are now about 5,000 British soldiers in Iraq. The participation of our great ally has always been primarily a propaganda stunt, much like American journalism.

     But let’s get to the really good stuff. I quote: “It is precisely because the U.S. and the U.K. created the conditions that have led to the mayhem and power vacuum that we do not have the right to consider our merely own convenience as to the date of our departure”. In light of the fact that we considered nothing but our own convenience in attacking Iraq, there seems to be a grave, almost mathematical inconsistency here. He goes on to say, “Saudi Arabia’s (that great beacon of human rights) Prince Turki al Faisal has put it rather well. He says that because the coalition went into Iraq uninvited, they must not leave uninvited”.

     -------------------- Duh!?

     I feel somewhat degraded in having to comment on idiotic remarks such as this, but I can only blame myself for having read the material. After almost 5 years of catastrophic warfare, this is one of the clumsiest versions of a hawkish argument that has appeared repetitively since the first dim realizations of the immense tragedy created in Iraq. It calls for those who were stupid enough to do this, to be allowed to correct the situation, because --- well --- they were stupid enough to do it! I can think of no other organized institution of any kind that would choose to resolve a problem in this way. In addition, it expects us to swallow the fact that the Anglo military machine serves in Iraq at the behest of somebody other than themselves. Even more distressing, I repeat, is the idea that America’s most prestigious newspaper company believes such refried, overcooked, reheated leftovers should be served as the main course in a prominent place on their editorial page.

     Rifkind continues to justify a British presence in Iraq with a lot more blah,blah,blah, training Iraqi security forces, yadda,yadda,yadda, protecting convoys, yak,yak,yak, pursuing Al Qaeda --- the same moldy cold cuts served on stale bread we’ve heard before. In a final typhoon of stupidity, he suggests the international community “should seek to prevent the humiliation of the U.S.” (join us, brothers and sisters) so as not to give Al Qaeda a propaganda victory, as if it were Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda alone that is fighting this war.

     In other words --- other than take this whole article and cram it up Sir Malcolm’s excremental orifice, you could choose the more civilized approach and condense it into the following sentence: we must, according to Sir Malcolm, keep trying to win this war.