Posted on 01/30/2005 2:07:16 PM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham
I don't know how many of you had the opportunity to read the front-page, above the fold article published in today's edition of the New York Times, which dealt specifically with the concerns surrounding the first (democratic) elections held in Iraq since 1954.
It was an telling article, mainly-at least, from my perspective-because it was an indication that John Burns-a British journalist whose previous reportage from that country stood out for its clarity of purpose and sharp divergence from the standard "America is bogged down in an irretrievable quagmire" line-had finally subscribed to the press corp's generalized hostility for Operation Iraqi Freedom and the reconstruction of that nation, which followed the cessation of major military operations.
The piece began with some initial promise, with a lede that briefly traces the arc of an archetypal Iraqi exile, named Ghassan al-Atiyyah. The following two paragraphs give a brief synopsis of how Mr. Atiyyah has exploited the newfound freedom within Iraq to return to his homeland and start a pluralistic political slate, which competed in yesterday's national elections.
However, the piece takes a stark turn when the author captures this man's frame of mind, insofar as the imminent national elections are concerned: "But Mr. Attiyah is hoping, now, that the voters will reject him."
Burns then goes on to enumerate all of the difficulties-each one of which is seemingly related to the American refusal to adopt the ideas of men like Mr. Attiyah without any qualifications whatsoever-expressed by the Iraqis who opposed holding the just recently successfully completed elections.
I was hoping that the rest of this piece would focus on the positive developments leading up to this historic, groundbreaking election, especially after Mr. Burns quoted a female Shiite dentist-who was a former member of the IGC-who defiantly proclaimed that, "If I die, it is better to have died for something than to have died for nothing."
That statement-for me, at least-encapsulates the hope and persistence embodied by so many ordinary Iraqis, who have taken the extraordinary step of embarking upon the unique journey-at least, one that is unheard of in the Arab world-of creating a pluralistic, fully-functional, parliamentary democracy.
Unfortunately, Burns et. al., do not see it that way. For the remainder of this article he homes in on-like a precision guided laser-the putative failings of the Coalition and the provisional Iraqi government.
He reiterates virtually every leftist platitude that has been brought up to discredit our efforts to provide Iraqis with a modicum of freedom and stability.
-The Iraqis can't participate in a free and fair plebiscite under a military occupation they resent with an unmatched passion.
-The anarchic situation unleased by the 2003 invasion has made the country so chaotic that you can't possibly expect a fair, impartial result.
The problems that mitigate against the emergence of a prospersous, thriving font of democracy in the Middle East are innumerable, and are limned-in excruciating detail-throughout the remainder of this piece.
However, what is so galling about this aspect of the article is that is framed in the omniscient voice of a foreign journalist, who is speaking for all Iraqis.
Of course, he only provides two authorities that confirm his pre-existing conception of what the vast majority of Iraqi citizens allegedly believe. Those two voices belong, to an unrepentent Baathist-who yearns to return to the halcyon days of Hussein-and a radical Islamist who demands a theocratic government be installed.
How these two men are reflective of any wider sentiment among the Iraqi population is never explained-at least, not to my satisfaction-apparently, it is merely enough that two disgruntled people exist-within the sea of Iraqis eager to make their voices heard at the polls-to deglegitimize this noble experiment in participatory democracy.
Which leads Burns back to Mr. Atiyyah-who advocates the integration of former members of the Baathist regime into key postions of any future government-and his ultimate belief that Iraq's diabolical neighbor, Iran, will outfox the United States in this 'great game.' According to him-and presumably, Mr. Burns-the "Americans will preside over the rise of a new Taliban, except that here in Iraq there will be two Talibans, the Sunni Taliban who are already fighting the Americans, and a Shiite Taliban that the Americans have placed in power."
It doesn't sound to me as if the reporters working for the 'Old Gray Lady' put much faith in the wisdom of the Iraqi people.
-good times, G.J.P.(Jr.)
For a vanity, I vote a 10. Well done.
Don't throw the article away. It could come in handy if you run out of toiletries.
I'll keep that in mind.
:)
-good times, G.J.P.(Jr.)
Burns is a great writer..I simply do not like his thinking.
Good "fisking".
I just knew you were a good judge of talent. ;O)
I just think that he's fallen into the trap-of late-of lapsing into the muddled, defeatist mindset exhibited by most of his colleagues.
Click the Pic
:)
BTW, help yourself to the image, no credit needed. My joy is in the creation of it. Spread it like the mustard seed, that all might know the truth.
A cogent and satisfying read. Well done! Yesterday on one of Fox's live segments, the discussion was about the Iraqi terrorists' awareness, and use of, our mainstream media. It was said that when our troops secured one particular safe house they found the TV tuned into CNN, and the front page of the NY Times taped to a computer monitor.
Don't forget that the president of CNN (Eason Jordan?) admitted that his network had been complicit in manufacturing stories favorable to the former Iraqi regime.
They are the same people who willingly agreed to the constraints imposed upon their reporters freedom of movement, when they decided to truckle under the pressures exerted by "El Hefe."
Quote:
the Times's new publisher, Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr ... was a sixties anti-war activist who famously declared that in a confrontation between an American and a North Vietnamese soldier he'd want to see the American get shot."
Unquote.
Stanley Kurtz (NRO on line, June 5, 2001)
The fact that this man is able to manipulate the coverage of virtually every significant public issue, of either national or international import, is truly disturbing.
Bump!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
