at December 3, 2004 11:53 AMJust this one more article from the Verbal Terrorist and I promise I will stop. This is her Peace Prize acceptance speech that was pointed to me by Dina to supposedly make me see the light and accept Roy as my personal savior. Heh! ZNet |Vision & Strategy | Peace?…
A few gems from the speech, if I may quote…In 1991 US President George Bush senior mounted Operation Desert Storm. Tens of thousands of Iraqis were killed in the war. Iraq’s fields were bombed with more than 300 tonnes of depleted uranium, causing a fourfold increase in cancer among children. For more than 13 years, twenty four million Iraqi people have lived in a war zone and been denied food and medicine and clean water. In the frenzy around the US elections, let’s remember that the levels of cruelty did not fluctuate whether the Democrats or the Republicans were in the White House. Half a million Iraqi children died because of the regime of economic sanctions in the run up to Operation Shock and Awe.Note the first sentence - one fine Day George H.W. Bush woke up and decided to invade Iraq. Yep, just like that! It isn’t like Iraq invaded Kuwait and Kuwait asked for help or anything - it isn’t like her beloved UN wanted Kuwait liberated or anything. For a reknown environmentalist, I would like to know where are critiques of Saddam draining the marshes to starve the people dependent on them and causing irreparable harm to the marsh lands. What about oilwells he set on fire? Nooo…not relevant to the discussion.
A new, detailed study, fast-tracked by the Lancet medical journal and extensively peer reviewed, estimates that 100,000 Iraqis have lost their lives since the 2003 invasion. That’s one hundred halls full of people - like this one.Of course, the Lady will just forget to mention that the study actually says that they are 95% certain that the number of deaths could be anywhere between 8000-194,000…Oops or not, since her brand of people only believe in the emotion evoked by the numbers she throws around - not the factual basis. I bet the defense will be - “8000 or 194,000, they are still dead people and it is awful!”. I agree with the argument, but I wish before rushing to defend her they would admit she lied!
The head of Britain’s BBC had to step down and one man committed suicide because a BBC reporter accused the Blair administration of ‘sexing up’ intelligence reports about Iraq’s WMD programme. But the head of Britain retains his job even though his government did much more than ‘sex up’ intelligence reports. It is responsible for the illegal invasion of a country and the mass murder of its people.Again, we will of course forget to mention there was an inquiry into the Blair administration’s conduct and they did not find any “sexing up”.
Even though no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq - stunning new evidence has revealed that Saddam Hussein was planning a weapons programme. (Like I was planning to win an Olympic Gold in synchronized swimming.) Thank goodness for the doctrine of pre-emptive strike. God knows what other evil thoughts he harbored - sending Tampax in the mail to American senators, or releasing female rabbits in burqas into the London underground. No doubt all will be revealed in the free and fair trial of Saddam Hussein that’s coming up soon in the New Iraq.Because as we all know that Saddam was but a cute, little fuzzy-wuzzy who absolutely never did anyone any harm. It wasn’t like he massacred Kurds by hundreds of thousands with non-existent chemical weapons - it wasn’t like he tortured people for fun or had a team of professional rapists or murdered peolpe and charged their families for the cost of bullets…let’s move on, alright? Poor non-fair-trial-getting Saddam!
Next, she goes on to point out relations between Bechtel and Saddam and the eevil Republicans - some real, most dubious or atleast circumstantial - but through it all the blame seems to lie squarely on everyone else involved except Saddam - that poor victim of his circumstances! Also, note that there is no mention of the oil-for-scandal or the UN or Germnay, France and Russia who were making money off of illegal contracts while Iraqis were starving. No, we decided more people would back us if we just painted America and Bechtel black, so we will not make any efforts to be fair or balanced.
Invaded and occupied Iraq has been made to pay out 200 million dollars in “reparations” for lost profits to corporations like Halliburton, Shell, Mobil, Nestle, Pepsi, Kentucky Fried Chicken and Toys R Us. That’s apart from its 125 billion dollar sovereign debt forcing it to turn to the IMF, waiting in the wings like the angel of death, with its Structural Adjustment program. (Though in Iraq there don’t seem to be many structures left to adjust. Except the shadowy Al Qaeda.)Hey, what about the 18 billion dollars America poured into the reconstruction? I guess it doesn’t count.
The only kind of resistance that has managed to survive is as crazed and brutal as the occupation itself. Is there space for a secular, democratic, feminist, non-violent resistance in Iraq? There isn’t really.Money quote, of course - not the fault of the poor resistance for being comprised of terrorists - blame America! Why is it that she will not mention the one good thing that came out of American invasion of Afghanistan, which was the holding of free and fair elections for the first time in decades? Shhh, we only do America-bashing here. Oh well, I will paraphrase somethign I read recently to say I fail to see how her arguments lead her to her conclusions or how people who see venom in her attackers fail to see the venom belying her flowery prose. To each his own, I guess - as for me, this is the last time I will talk about her here…I hope!Posted by shanti at December 2, 2004 10:47 AM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.realwomenonline.com/scgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/3174
You know, American Presidents can just do that. Invade any country at any time for any reason, I mean, just if they wake up and feel ornery.
Plus we Americans, we’re bloodthirsty and we just like killing Arabs. Everybody knows this, right?
Yeesh.
Posted by: Dean Esmay at December 3, 2004 7:22 AM
Of course, Dean - whenever you take a break from your puppy-blending ways (tm Frank J) you go on an Arab-killing rampage. Mean people!
Posted by: Shanti at December 3, 2004 8:22 AM
I think she should write the script for the next Michael Moore movie.
Posted by: JK at December 3, 2004 11:53 AM
I don’t like American foreign policy makers. Honest. But see what’s happening because of A_Roy’s excesses? There’s a backlash. People are having sympathy for them.
* * *
Speaking of Michael Moore, I think his contribution to Bush’s reelection cannot be underestimated. The Republicans ought to be grateful to him. He generated a backlash too.
And I think a lot of points in Christopher Hitechen’s review of Moore’s flick apply to Roy’s work too.
To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of “dissenting” bravery.
Wish I had written that.
Posted by: RR at December 3, 2004 12:32 PM
And she managed to con Tunku Varadarajan too.
(Roy’s writing) is sophistry masquerading as protest, rage unhinged from fact… Never mind that the present battle is against those who would extinguish everything she values ..
Fact is that she has no rage. She fakes it. Fact is that she values nothing: except fame for herself.
When will these guys learn?
Posted by: RR at December 3, 2004 12:41 PM
JK, Roy+Moore? One great combination regardless of which side of political spectrum you stand in - if you are on their side, you will love it and if you are not, you will still lvoe it for the number of centrists they are going to push to your side.
I agree with RR about the backlash generated by Moore, MoveOn and Co. When Republicans went too far in their deminozation of Clinton, they suffered because they actually managed to get th epublic to sympathize with Clinton - the exact same thing happened here - people saw here that one side was being constantly vilified by the other and we all know we like rooting for the underdog.
I think it was brilliant how the Republicans managed to portray a sitting President as an underdog. Far-left and the Democratic party only helped the cause by embracing each other publicly - the Republican party played safe by keeping the nuttier elements away from the President, atleast publicly. It is an interesting lesson in PR.
Posted by: Shanti at December 3, 2004 1:25 PM