Saddam, The Media and Us:
Test Your Knowledge
By Michel Collon
In 1991, the mainstream media in Europe as well as in the US funneled an accumulation of media lies intended to convince public opinion to support a war against Iraq. Today, many European governments have distanced themselves from Bush's tactics. Can we assume that the European media will tell us the whole truth right now? Have they subjected all the information that has been trotted out over the last twelve years to a critical evaluation? Here is a media test.

Answer the following questions:

1. Saddam was punished starting from the moment he invaded Kuwait in 1990.
TRUE FALSE

2. Saddam is solely responsible for the murderous Iran-Iraq War (1980-1998).
TRUE FALSE

3. Saddam willfully gassed 5,000 Kurdish civilians in Halabja.
TRUE FALSE

4. Saddam possesses the most dangerous weapons in the world (Bush, January 2003).
TRUE FALSE

5. The West ought to eliminate Saddam because he is a tyrant.
TRUE FALSE

6. Saddam is incapable of being a model for any society.
TRUE FALSE

7. Saddam was an instrument used by the USA, and it's out of the question to consider him to be an anti-imperialist.
TRUE FALSE

8. But it would be good, all the same, if we got rid of Saddam.
TRUE FALSE

9. All the same, it is impossible to support Saddam!
TRUE FALSE

10. Finally, shouldn't one say "Neither Bush nor Saddam"?
TRUE FALSE


1. Saddam was punished starting from the moment he invaded Kuwait in 1990.

FALSE: The US Congress first decided to impose an embargo against Iraq in 1989 after he had made an appeal to the countries of the Middle East to unite in order to become more independent of the USA.
Why have the mainstream Western media carefully hidden the history of Kuwait? It had always been part of Iraq. But British colonialists granted it independence in 1920 "in order to weaken Iraq and to deprive it of access to the sea" (quoted from a letter written by the British governor at the time). No country in the region recognized this separation. And all the successive Iraqi regimes have sought ways to regain this lost province.

2. Saddam is solely responsible for the murderous Iran-Iraq War (1980-1998).

FALSE: It’s true that Saddam unleashed this war, unfortunately, after Iranian provocations, one of which was the attempted assassination of Tariq Aziz. It was Iran’s leader, the Ayatollah Khomeini, who refused to sign a peace treaty and made the war last eight years.
But most important here is the diabolical strategy of the United States: divide and conquer. The US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said that he hoped that this war "would last as long as possible and that the greatest possible number of people die on both sides." In fact, the USA never tolerated a Middle Eastern state that had the means to resist Israel, and it has attacked Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and the Palestinians… And Iraq has faithfully supported the Palestinians.

3. Saddam willfully gassed 5,000 Kurdish civilians in Halabja.

DOUBTFUL: Let us recall the numerous media lies that were launched in 1991 when the USA and Europe attacked Iraq: incubators supposedly stolen by the Iraqi army from Kuwait City, the oil lake attributed to Saddam (but which was in reality the work of the US army) the alleged torture of Western pilots who were taken prisoner, the nonsense about the "fourth largest army in the world" presented as if it were a threat to all of us…. All of these charges collapsed (see Attention, médias! Les mediamensonges du Golfe, EPO, Bruxelles, see http://www.freeflights.net/carl1/attmedia.htm).
As far as Halabja is concerned, in the January 31, 2003 edition of The New York Times, Stephen C. Pelletiere, a CIA officer in charge of following this war, and professor of the U.S. Army War College, refuted Bush, pointing out that 1) the gassing occurred by mistake during a battle between the Iraqi and Iranian armies; and 2) it was almost certainly the work of the Iranian army, the only one that possessed this type of gas (cyanide-based) used in the battle. His conclusion: "There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them."
Whatever one may think of it, what would people say if Cuba bombed Washington because the United States had committed serial war crimes, attempted to assassinate Castro and to invade the island, and had accumulated weapons of mass destruction in Guantanomo Bay?

4. Saddam possesses the most dangerous weapons in the world (Bush, January 2003).

FALSE: Israel clandestinely acquired and illegally possesses 200 nuclear warheads, and denies it and refuses any inspection. Israel has imprisoned Mordechai Vanunu, an Israeli engineer who was courageous enough to reveal the existence of this nuclear arsenal. This is the great taboo for the Western media. Why must Iraq, a sovereign state, disarm itself when Israel threatens the entire region?
But the greatest danger comes from the USA itself, which has used nuclear weapons (Hiroshima), chemical weapons (Vietnam – Agent Orange) and bacteriological weapons (Cuba). Today, the USA refuses to commit itself to not using nuclear weapons, even against a non-nuclear country. Under the pretext of a "threat." Hitler was also claiming to be "threatened" by Poland.
It's worth noting that even in 1991, when he was attacked by the West, Saddam did not use chemical weapons.

5. The West ought to eliminate Saddam because he is a tyrant.

HYPOCRITICAL: The United States has supported and still supports the worst dictators on the planet: Mobutu, Pinochet, all the dictators in Latin America, and Turkish generals…. because they serve the United States' economic interests.
The true objective of the USA was defined in July 2002 by one of Bush's close aides, Senator Lugar: "[W]e are going to run the oil business. We are going to run it well, we are going to make money; and it's going to help pay for the rehabilitation of Iraq because there is money there."
Esso, Shell and BP rank among the TOP 15 multi-national corporations. Before 1958, they colonized and pillaged Iraq. Driven out by a revolution of national liberation, they have never stopped wanting to recapture the second largest oil reserves in the world. And they want to oust their French and Russian competitors (Total and Lukoil, respectively). Washington wants to use total blackmail to control the energy supplies of its rivals: Europe and Japan.
The United States' economy is in bankruptcy: imports exceed exports by $450 billion per year. It is holding up only because of German and Japanese loans. And by confiscating petro-dollars from the Middle East, thanks to corrupt emirs and sheiks they impose on puppet states in the Gulf.

6. Saddam is incapable of being a model for any society.

ANSWER: Saddam represents the Iraqi nationalist bourgeoisie, which drove British colonialists out of the country in 1958. Because of this, he presents two different faces.
On the one hand, he certainly does not represent a "model for society" for those who advocate a socialist society and democracy as the only means of assuring the well being of the entire population.
But, compared to the other regimes in the Middle East, his balance sheet is much more positive: instead of pouring petro-dollars back into US multi-national corporations, he used them — and all Western observers have recognized this — to develop education, health care and, in general, the economy of his country.
Iraq is also the only secular state in the Middle East. In his administration, it is not unusual to see women holding important positions, and men working for them. Compare that to the other neighboring countries…

7. Saddam was an instrument used by the USA, and it's out of the question to consider him to be an anti-imperialist.

ANSWER: We must start with facts, with economic reality. The aggravation of the crisis and the global economic war push the multi-national corporations of wealthy countries to leave the capitalist class in each third-world country nothing more than crumbs from the cake. They know how to take complete control of a strategic country, with its enterprises, and its raw materials.
In order to survive, the local bourgeoisie often has no recourse other than opposing imperialism. Its resistance has the effect of involving the largest part of the population in the struggle. However, in order to resist a planetary threat which is today represented by the United States and its allies, it is in the interest of the people that the anti-imperialist front be as large as possible.
What is the principal contradiction in Iraq today? That between the country and the threat of imperialist occupation. To bring another conflict into the foreground, the one between the Iraqi bourgeoisie and its population, plays into Bush's hands.
Imagine a man and his wife having a fight. A thief appears who wants to seize their property and set fire to their home. Which task has priority? Continuing the argument or putting out the fire?

8. But it would be good, all the same, if we got rid of Saddam.

ANSWER: Good for whom? At this moment, Saddam represents the independence of his country, that is to say the right to refuse to give oil away for free to multi-national corporations. Any "imported" leader — whether he is brought in by bombs or by blackmail — will be a puppet. To say "we must replace Saddam", amounts, in the current balance of power, to letting the ruling class of the United States and Europe do whatever it wants.
To replace rebels with puppets is the global strategy of re-colonization. Condoleezza Rice, Bush's Secretary of State, stated: "Saddam's Iraq as well as Arafat's Palestinians need new leaders … capable of leading reforms as in Serbia and in Afghanistan." Let's take a look at the results. In Afghanistan, ten ministers out of sixteen carry a US passport, and President Karzaï is a hired hand of the US multi-national oil company, Unocal. In Serbia, the price of a loaf of bread has gone from four to thirty dinars; the cost of electricity has increased fourfold, depriving people of electric power as well as heating (170,000 families in Belgrade alone). The IMF has demanded that 800,000 workers be let go from firms before privatizing everything for the exclusive benefit of multi-nationals.
Such made-in-the-USA "democratic leaders" are spearheading the re-colonization of the world. It is a merciless process for the country's workers and farmers.

9. All the same, it is impossible to support Saddam!

ANSWER: The first question for any anti-imperialist is: Must everything possible be done to prevent the United States from completely dominating the world, yes or no? The answer is of course, yes. Because, if we let the balance of power deteriorate further to their advantage, it will result in a new fascism that will threaten all the peoples of the world.
When Hitler and Mussolini were menacing the world, it was necessary to support all those who resisted them. Including, for example, the Ethiopian dictator, Haile Selassie, who opposed the Italian invasion.
Is it then necessary to support the resistance of the Iraqi people and their leaders against invasion? The answer is also yes.
After Iraq, Bush will seize Iran, Syria, or even Saudi Arabia. If Washington completely controls the Middle East (and the other great strategic regions: Central Asia, the Caucasus, Central Africa, Maghreb, the northern part of Latin America…), the balance of power will be even more disadvantageous during the next wars planned by Bush.
And when the USA occupies a region, the conditions of the struggle become much worse for all the people living there, whether it's the struggle for the right to eat, the struggle for democracy, for the environment or for the solidarity of peoples. A US military occupation is the worst of catastrophes for these various peoples, and for the balance of power in the world. If Iraqi leaders resist US imperialism, is it a good thing to do for their people? Yes.
A Communist Iraqi fled Saddam and took Algerian citizenship. He returned in April 2002 with our mission as an "Inspector of Peace," and stated clearly: "Today, my duty as a Communist is to defend my country and its raw materials from the USA. With the present regime, if necessary. As soon as the threat has been neutralized, it will be up to the Iraqi people to decide whether to transform the regime or to replace it. To let wealthy countries decide instead is merely paternalistic colonialism."
The imperialist countries advocate the suppression of the sovereignty of third-world states in order to justify their rapacious interference, and they are able to threaten all people who resist globalization. But the right to sovereignty is something acquired by the anti-colonial struggle, and it is necessary to preserve it.
This is why the global interest of peoples is to support the countries and leaders who resist seizure by the United States. This does not imply approval of all of their actions, past or present, nor the rest of their political program. But its counter-productive to place such criticism in the foreground at the moment when Bush is looking for a way to swing international public opinion in his favor.

10. Finally, shouldn't one say "Neither Bush nor Saddam"?

ANSWER: This is what the dominant tendency in the Left in Europe has been inclined to say for the last twelve years, and it has borne extremely negative consequences.
In 1991, under the slogan of "Neither Bush nor Saddam," it said "no" to war but "yes" to an embargo against Iraq. In reality, it was another form of warfare: and soon there were two million victims.
In 1995 and 1999, with the slogan of "Neither NATO nor Milosevic," it approved (and in some cases even demanded) NATO bombardments. It was a prelude to imposing an IMF government and a NATO occupation in Kosovo, which today lives under a reign of terror led by the Albanian mafia and the ethnic cleansing of the national minorities: Serbs, Roma, Jews, Muslims, Turks, etc.
In 2001, with "Neither Bush nor the Taliban," they shut their eyes to the neocolonial occupation of Afghanistan, whose goal is to construct a US pipeline and the installation of military bases in the heart of Central Asia. We have heard "Neither Sharon nor Arafat" many times.
Tomorrow, we will hear more "Neither … nor …" propositions when Washington attacks Iran, Korea, Colombia (where a war has already started), the Philippines or other countries. It will always be done with the same humanitarian pretexts; it will always be done with media lies to demonize those who put up resistance. Now is the time to return to the true fundamental position of the Left, which must of necessity be anti-colonialism: the aggressor and the victim of aggression must never be put on the same footing; the war propaganda and media lies disseminated by the ruling class must be unmasked; and most of all, the hidden economic interests behind each war must be denounced.
Subsequently, the only possible anti-imperialist position is to say "no" to the global war and to support the resistance people put up against it. The "Neither … nor …" proposition is condemned to paralysis. The "Neither … nor …" proposition prevents the growth and unification of resistance to US imperialism.

Translated by Milo Yelesiyevich

Planning for martial law?

Civil libertarians say the Bush administration may give the military scary new police powers in its secret planning for a bunker-based, post-disaster shadow government.

When the Washington Post revealed the existence of an American "shadow government," operating secretly in Tora Bora-style mountain bunkers over the six months since Sept. 11, it shocked even some congressional leaders, who learned about it March 1 from the Post, not the Bush administration.

Now civil libertarians on the left and right are raising new questions about the shadow government -- about its secrecy, its leadership, and the way it involves the military in domestic roles. In particular, plans to have the military assume domestic police functions in case of national emergency alarm some scholars and advocates, who believe the shadow government could be an early step on the way to martial law.

Take a Look, George



"One of the first American casualties in the war against Iraq is a Baltimore man, and his family shared their feelings about the war Friday...He is identified as Marine Staff Sgt. Kendall Waters-Bey, 29, of northeast Baltimore, WBAL-TV 11 NEWS reported.

"As he held a picture of his son, Waters-Bey's father, Michael, said: 'I want President Bush to get a good look at this, really good look here. This is the only son I had, only son.' He then walked away in tears, with his family behind him."

"It's all for nothing, that war could have been prevented," said Waters-Bey's sister, Michelle. "Now, we're out of a brother. [President] Bush is not out of a brother. We are."

The Moron Majority, by Ted Rall

Decades of budget cuts in education are finally yielding results, a fact confirmed by CNN's poll of March 16, which shows that an astonishing 51 percent of the public believe that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was responsible for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

. . . Furthermore, no one really believes that the GOP is interested in liberating the oppressed people of Iraq. America's role in the world, after all, typically involves funding dictators--as Bush is currently doing in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan---not democrats.

Great points. America's pathetic public education system only leads to a nation of the easily-led. When you look at cuts in education, censorship in education (no Howard Zinn! He's "anti-american!"), or changes in education such as those sought from the barely-concealed fundamentalist 'intelligent design' group, you are looking at one of the most subtle yet highly effective means of repression any dictatorial power has. Conversely, free computers, free uncensored net access, and a passionate, ongoing encouragement to all Americans--especially young--to get into the free flow and exchange of information and ideas is one of the most rebellious actions Americans can take right now in their efforts to usurp the present global dictatorship of George W. Bush. Now more than ever, America should know what the rest of the world already understands: the US corporate media is nothing but an extension of the White House--and the White House is nothing but a megalomaniacal mass murderer and thief which cloaks itself in the language of the free. Swallow or spin.

We Are In A Nation Ruled By Madmen Who Will Bury The U.N.

Before announcing a state of war Bush pumps his fist and boasts, "Feels good."

Donald Rumsfeld walks around quoting Al Capone.

Richard Perle calls an internationally respected journalist a terrorist for disclosing how Perle would profit from an Iraq war.

And then Richard Perle celebrates the death of the U.N.

Like it's yet unleashed Guernica-bombing campaign, touted as "Shock and Awe" the brazen, thuggish extremism of the Bush administration is meant to numb the American public into submission.

And, for the most part, the strategy has succeeded. [more]

CNN censors war reporting

I've been asked to suspend my war blogging for awhile.

But I don't want let you down -- I'm chronicling the events of my war experiences, the same as I always have, and hope to come to agreement with CNN in the near future to make them available to you in some shape or form, perhaps on this site.

In the meantime, thanks for participating in this remarkable forum. It's been a remarkable experience to be your witness here.

-- Kevin Sites.

Operation Stupid Fuck gets rollin'

The war has begun.

I'm utterly disgusted by Bush and the Rumsfeld Crony Machine and everything on down to those weaselly brown-nosers at NPR, formerly a place where you could get a fair amount of semi-balanced news in this godforsaken media snowjob of a navel-gazing Hamburglar nation.

I've protested and waved my signs (downloaded off of Anti-War.us like the one you see here), done "online activism," called my Congresspeople, circulated my petitions, written letters to the editors, and all that cheesy stuff that's preaching to the choir. How adorable. Does it do any fucking good? Probably not. I just don't know what to do instead.

Anyone have an opinion on whether we should just glide into the Silent Zombie Mode preferred by most Americans, leave the whole debate up to the transfixed Right Wing nutbars who let AM Radio talk shows tell them what to believe? Or some overexcited, self-important "anarchists" in black hoodies: closing down local bridges, throwing a rock at a local bookstore -- is this the way to effect real political change or is this masturbatory, violent bullshit? When evil assholes are in power (not that evil assholes aren't usually in power), what should one DO about it? Sit around going, "There isn't anything we can do about it. Please pass the Twinkies." ??

Seriously. What do we do about it? Like a good little ultra-entitled, middle class, educated, pretentious white girl, I'm getting out of the USA. Assuming I don't get nuked in some terrorist action at LAX on the way out, I'll talk to y'all when I get back. We'll solve the world's problems. No, really.

Peace out, maaaaan.

xoxo

tif

magdalen a t corporatecollapse.com

PS:
There's a nice rant on the STARE blog (formerly IncuBLOGula) by Dr.Menlo. Read it over yonder at Incunabula. Much less whiny than mine.

Raimondo excoriates the breakaway extra-legal actions by black bloc anarchists and others in San Francisco and elsewhere yesterday as off the wall theatrical adventurism which will discredit the anti-interventionsist movement. Scott Handlemann calls the same tactcis by militant queers and other "small mobile clusters" "fourth generation protest", a creative breakthrough. My head is with the Raimondo position. If (as it appears) the U.S. government under Bush &cohorts really has gone around the bend on the way to 5-10 years of semi-continual "small wars" varying between low and high-intensity, covert and overt, then an opposition needs to be running to run a marathon. That means being disciplined, patient and concentrating its energies on steady education and mass legal and peaceful protests. Yet I can't but find Handleman's perception that just repeating demonstrations will not be enough when you have a regime essentially deaf to protest. I guess it's just the praxis action vs. action faction conundrum all over again (though I'm too young to have been "of age" in the late 60s early 70s). I'm not about to go the Handleman route, but the the question of how to really effectively face and overcome this "small war" mad government persists.

Robert Fisk is in Baghdad: check out the right column of this page for frequent blog-like updates.

China denounces Iraqi War:

Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan said the beginning of the attack took place "in disregard for the opposition of the international community." "Military action against Iraq is violating the norms of international behavior," Kong said

Chinese State Councilor Tang Jiaxuan told U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell that China "strongly urged an end to military actions against Iraq so as to avoid hurting innocent people," the official Xinhua News Agency reported. Tang also told Powell that China is "deeply worried about humanitarian disasters, regional turbulence" and other ramifications of the war, the report said.

I snorted over how the invaders, occupiers, and plunderers of Tibet, who have presided over revolting human rights abuses, could say all this with a straight face.

And then I realized that for generations to come, that's just how seriously anyone else in the world will take U.S. criticism of other nations' unprovoked aggression.

ACTIVISTS: SAME BULLDOZER WHICH KILLED CORRIE USED TO BREAK UP MEMORIAL VIGIL

Haven't found anything corroborating it other than the piece excerpted below, but last night on NPR Adam Shapiro or one of his affiliates said that a vigil honoring Rachel Corrie had been broken up by Israeli Army troop and armor - allegedly including the same bulldozer which killed Corrie. The activist said that an identification number painted on the vehicle was identical to the one emblazoned on the bulldozer which felled Corrie. This from the International Solidarity Movement:

The mourners then marched to the barbed wire fenced that marks the boundary between the Occupied Gaza Strip and Egypt where they mounted the ISM banner and placed more flowers on the ground.

The tank was then joined by two others and three bulldozers. When the Rafah activists saw that one of the bulldozers was the same one that was used to murder Rachel several of them began to weep.

The tanks and bulldozers then began to drive around the crowd at high spee’ forcing several people to jump out of their way to avoid being run over. As they did this they also flung sound grenades and tear gas canisters into the crowd but fortunately the tear gas dispersed harmlessly in the stiff wind. The mourners refused to surrender to the intimidation and again laid their flowers and posters on the war machine’ [sic] which left the area after a few minute' [sic] leaving only the original tank.

Round-up of some anti-war moods as the obscene travesty of the junta ( er, administration's) war of conquest (excuse me, glorious democratic liberation) begins:

elegiac
morose
depressed
trepidatious
perceptive
crotchety (and I think prophetic)
intrepidly muckracking
probably bombed (and unfortunately I don't mean drunk)
apologetic (sic)
morally ambivalent
righteously pissed
spaced out
wacky
still officially a hawk but coming to his senses
philosophical

Illness as Metaphor: "Is the war making you ill? In San Francisco, a group called Direct Action to Stop the War put out the call to call in sick the day the United States invades Iraq. Most peace demos thus far have been held after work and on weekends in order to guarantee higher turnouts and to avoid interfering with the working day, but the rapidly maturing anti-war movement is looking for ways to dust off the old connections between war and capitalism by monkeywrenching the economy." Village Voice

Military Sites in the US of A 'A' to 'Z', letter 'C' ('D' to follow shortly). Ummm, do with these what you will. For instance, there might be some civil disobedience happening at one of these facilities, and you could go down there to watch. E-Journal of Modern Strategy

PATRIOT, n.

One to whom the interests of a part seem superior to those of the whole. The dupe of statesmen and the tool of conquerors.

-Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

Ari's Spin Zone

Before I take your questions, there's one item I would like to point out to you. The President would like to thank the growing number of nations that have joined in the coalition of the willing to disarm Saddam Hussein. As of today, there are more than 35 countries currently committed to the coalition, and that number is growing. Contributions from nations include direct military participation; logistical, intelligence and political support; specialized chemical and biological response teams; over-flight rights; and humanitarian and other aid. [emphasis mine]

The text above is a portion of Ari's statement at today's press conference. I've often wanted to be one of the press allowed to ask a question. Here is a possible exchange I would have had today with Ari.

Q I have a question and a follow up.
Mr. Fleischer: Go ahead
Q Am I correct in assuming that countries such as Turkey are members of the coalition because they are allowing over-flight rights?
Mr. Fleischer: Yes that is correct.
Q Since France is allowing over-flight rights do you also consider them a member of the coalition?
Mr. Fleischer: Well that's a complicated question ... next question please.

US offers Israel billions in aid
Israel's Finance Ministry said the package consisted of $1bn in direct military aid and $9bn in loan guarantees.

"I'll make those creeps sing..." Captain America is now Judge Dredd.

"Due to the inhuman and illegal Middle East war launched by Bush the Second, and his far-rightist planners of the new Pox Americana, in defiance of the United Nations and most of the population of the world, we at City Lights Bookstore will close our doors for the day when US Forces begin their attack, hoping that everyone will join us in demonstrating for peace."

–Lawrence Ferlinghetti

We will be closed Thursday, March 20, and reopen again on Friday, March 21.

The rejection by President Bush of the Kyoto agreement on global warming has led to a consumer backlash around the world. On this site, ECRA charts the campaigners’ progress and lists the brands for consumers to avoid.

Bush says God is on his side. Saddam says God is on his side. The Pope, instead, says God is disgusted.

"Today I weep for my country," said West Virginia Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd. "No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. ... Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned.

"We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance," Byrd said, adding: "After war has ended the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America's image around the globe."

BBC Bloggers in Baghdad, Amman, Qatar, Northern Iraq and Washington report on War

WorldLink TV: an oasis of reason

At the edge of the great desert wasteland we know as the American corporate media there exists a tiny oasis of objectivity and counterpoint called WorldLink TV.

This haven of non-corporate information registers as a single voice against the martial trumpeting of the huge network conglomerates and their satellites on cable. Yet I've come to rely on this channel more and more to give me a perspective rarely taken by media in this nation today: that of looking at the important issues of the day from a distinctly non-American point of view.

This is not so say that it is anti-American. Instead, programming on WorldLink TV strives to allow entertainers, filmmakers, newsmakers and documentarians from around the world to express the issues of their lives in a non-filtered and non-exploitative way.

I discovered WorldLink TV a few years ago when I first got interested in that eclectic musical genre known as World Music. For a few hours each day, they would feature foreign music videos that ran the gamut from the sounds of the powerful Afro-Celt Sound System through the feel-good Brazilian beat of Antonio Carlos Jobim to the creative imagery of Uzbeki folk rock videos and a myriad of interesting creative ventures in between.

According to a 2001 article about WorldLink TV,

The initial programming concept for the channel was to "bring the world to America" through a combination of news, current affairs shows, documentaries, cultural programs and feature films not found elsewhere on American television. Popular offerings have included Karachi Kops, a documentary series about a police precinct in Pakistan; Jamaica E.R., set in the Kingston Public Hospital; and world music videos.

Since then, they've expanded their offerings to include documentaries by independent American media producers who can rely less and less on the increasingly politicized PBS Network to present their productions.

With the aggressive bellicosity of our current Administration, World Link TV has taken on a new, more important role: that of a counterbalance to the right wing thrust of American corporate media. Since the definition of left wing and liberal in today's doublethink culture is anything not adhering to the dogmatism of the right, World Link TV is undoubtedly considered another example of that absurd wingnut creation called liberal media bias.

By the standards of the rest of the world, however, it is no more liberal than the BBC or even Radio Free Europe; except that it refuses to present issues from an exclusively and rabidly pro-American point of view as does the American corporate media.

So with war in Iraq a mere hours away, I find World Link TV to be the most refreshing and thought-provoking source of dialogue and information on television. And it's apparent that they take their role of being advocates for the world as a whole very seriously.

One of the most topical and important new programs is called The Active Opposition – Iraq: The Campaign for Hearts and Minds. According to WorldLink's website:

Host Peter Coyote and selected guests examine the Bush Administration’s “Iraq message”, and its particular mix of rational and emotional arguments to rally the American people behind its buildup to war. Using video clips from recent speeches by George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and John Ashcroft, the program focuses on the administration’s media strategies which appeal directly to human emotions, including:

THE POLITICS OF FEAR: What is Iraq’s real threat to the US and other countries of the middle east?

THE POLITICS OF COMPASSION: How can the world stand by and watch while the Iraqi people are subjected to rape, murder and torture?

THE POLITICS OF HOPE: Will the overthrow of Saddam Hussein lead to an open Western-style democracy or another strongman loyal to us in the short term who will be eventually overthrown?

IRAQ: THE CAMPAIGN FOR HEARTS AND MINDS will deconstruct the media spin and examine the administration’s message in a broader context.

Except for PBS's Now with Bill Moyers, this hour and a half exchange is like nothing I've seen on television in recent months. The analyses of this Administration's manipulation of American Hearts and Minds is dangerous to non-thinking citizens and possibly subversive to proto-despots like John Ashcroft. For these reasons, it is a must-see. Yet you can be assured that it will never be seen anywhere else on television.

It is just this kind of informative programming that guided our country through the social and cultural travails of the 20th century. Now, without broad access to dissenting opinion, the American public has slowly been conditioned to blindly accept the slant of the media and the spin of the newsmakers.

No more explicit example of this can be seen than (a majority of) the American peoples' docility at accepting this artificial Bush-created war that will most certainly place America and Americans in harms way. Most incredibly of all, it seems to me, is that we as a nation have taken on the arrogance and cavalier attitudes of the Bush braintrust, and are willing to go our own way regardless of what anyone else in the world thinks.

The precedents taken by their extremist viewpoints could create the most critically unstable world since the dawn of the nuclear age. Yet, like lemmings, Americans seem content to follow George Bush toward a precipice of doom.

The question is...is it already too late?

---

Thought for the day

"How bad do you have to suck to lose a popularity contest with Saddam Hussein?"- Bill Maher