The most obvious example was President George Bush's speech to the
nation last week, as he struggled to define the mission in Iraq.
"On June 30 the occupation will end and Iraqis will govern their own
affairs," he said.
To understand what will happen at the end of the month it would make
more sense to turn the sentence inside out so that it says the
opposite:
"On June 30 the occupation will continue and Iraqis will not govern
their own affairs."
To the charge that this is leftwing axe-grinding, look no further than
the lead editorial in the Economist, which supported the war.
"To those who complain that in this case the sovereignty of the Iraqi
government is going to be pretty bogus, the answer of Messrs Bush and
Blair ought to be the honest one. Of course it is. In Iraq's present
context, sovereignty is just a word on paper, and not even the most
important one."
Only yesterday the Iraqi governing council members complained of
"massive pressure" to endorse Adnan Pachachi, America's choice for
president of the interim government, even though most of them favoured
another candidate, more critical of the US.
The US, which has the final say in the matter, threatened not to
recognise the council's choice.
Given that the US chose the members of the council, one can only
imagine how they will get on with a truly independent, democratically
accountable group of representatives.
Sadly, we are not about to find out.
What will in fact happen on June 30 is that a former CIA operative,
Iyad Allawi, who was picked by the US with little involvement from the
United Nations, will head a puppet regime.
This "sovereign" country will have 138,000 US troops on its soil, not
to mention soldiers from Britain and elsewhere, and its "sovereign"
leader will have no control over what they do.
"US forces remain under US command and will do what is necessary to
protect themselves," says Colin Powell.
From The Guardian, 5/31/04:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,9321,1228171,00.html
Never mind the truth
Gary Younge
Monday May 31, 2004
The Guardian
Seeing the US national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, testify
before the 9/11 commission on CNN in April was a challenge in eye-ear
coordination.
While she eloquently spelled out the Bush administration's strategy
for the war on terror, the tickertape of rolling news spewed out grim
news from the front across the bottom of the screen.
Your ears took in the official narrative:
"We are in control and shaping a positive future for the Middle East."
Your eyes traced the brutal reality:
"This is a bloody mess and innocents are dying."
At the very moment when Rice said that the invasion had removed a
source "of violence and fear and instability in the world's most
dangerous region", the tape read:
"Iraq's interim interior minister Nuril Al-Badran announces his
resignation; interior ministry is in charge of police forces."
At the point when she told the commission that invading Iraq was one
of "the only choices that can ensure the safety of our nation for
decades to come", the wire services reported:
"Iraqis say air strike killed dozens gathered for prayers."
Politics has, to an extent, always been about the triumph of symbols
over substance and assertion over actuality.
But in the case of Iraq this trend seems to have reached its apogee,
as though statements by themselves can fashion reality by the force of
their own will and judgment.
Declaration and proclamation have become everything.
The question of whether they bear any relation to the world we
actually live in seems like an unpleasant and occasionally
embarrassing intrusion.
_____________________________________________________
Bush and truth. A contradiction in terms.
Harry
.
|
