Fisk Takes Western Officials - and Reporters - to Task
‘How do our journalists go to war without history books?’
BEIRUT - In wide-ranging remarks during a lecture at the American University of Beirut on Thursday, veteran British journalist Robert Fisk sharply criticized US policy in Iraq, analyzed shortcomings in Western journalism on the Middle East and reflected on the state of politics in the region, saying he was “distressed” by what he called the people’s hesitancy to question rulers.The lecture, entitled “After the Collapse: Disengagement in the Middle East,” ran for about 45 minutes and was followed by more than 20 minutes of questions. A live telecast of the remarks was broadcast in a second room to accommodate an overflow crowd. 
Fisk, who lived and reported in Lebanon throughout the Civil War, has for many years worked in the region as a correspondent for Britain’s Independent newspaper. He is also the author of the widely read “Pity the Nation: Lebanon at War,” among other titles.
In a spirited style that kept the audience laughing, Fisk lampooned Western journalists for their lack of historical perspective when reporting from the Middle East.
“I asked myself, how do our journalists go to war without history books?” he said.
In order to drive home his point about how poorly journalists had covered the Iraq war and how ignorant of history they had been, Fisk retold the story of the failed 1917-1920 British occupation of the country in a way that mirrored the current track of the United States there. The US excursion has been a “fingerprint parallel of history,” he said.
Again pointing a finger at Western journalists, Fisk ran through articles from The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times, noting that although the incidents reported in the articles took place in Iraq, the only sources cited were US officials.
Fisk discussed journalists’ tendency to illustrate division in the Middle East, such as divisions between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds in Iraq, by using maps. He then noted that journalists rarely dare to show such disunity within their own countries, noting that a US paper would never run maps of the racial divisions in Washington.
Turning to foreign policy, Fisk recommended that Western countries adopt a more compassionate approach in their interactions with Middle Eastern countries. “I don’t think that we Westerners care about the people of the Middle East, care about you,” he said.
Fisk also charged that democracy was never part of the plan for Iraq.
“It was only when the Shiites threatened to join the insurgency that we wanted democracy,” he said.
Criticizing what he believes are “futile, appalling policies in Iraq,” Fisk said of the US, “I think that superpowers have a visceral need to project military strength.”
Fisk said he believes that people in the Middle East want democracy and that they may want Western products as well. What they don’t want, he argued, is the West.
Asked during the question-and-answer session if he had any criticisms for people in the Middle East, Fisk said he had two.
First, he said he was “deeply distressed and deeply depressed” by the people’s willingness to accept things like torture and dictatorship. “I would like to see a Middle East that questions its own rulers much more than it does,” he said.
Second, Fisk said residents of the Middle East would do well to learn more about the United States. He lamented what he called a lack of American Studies departments at Middle Eastern universities in comparison with the numerous Middle Eastern studies departments at American universities.
Fisk punctuated his remarks with moments of optimism. “Lebanon’s refusal to re-enter civil war is probably the finest thing I’ve witnessed,” he said.
Ultimately, Fisk had a simple message for all Middle Easterners: “The only people who can decide your future is you.”
Copyright (c) 2007 The Daily Star
I am deeply distressed and deeply depressed by Americans willingness to accept things like torture and dictatorship. I would like to see an America that questions its own ruler much more than it does.
One can only hope that American Studies departments at Middle Eastern universities will be more helpful to students seeking unbiased information and interested in sound scholarship than many Middle Eastern studies departments at American universities have been in recent decades. I suspect that Dr. Fisk has done more to educate Americans about the Middle East than most Middle East studies departments at American universities.
Fisk’s lectures are always great. There are several posted on google video. It is recommended viewing.
Darryl, you hit the nail on the head
“I am deeply distressed and deeply depressed by Americans willingness to accept things like torture and dictatorship. I would like to see an America that questions its own ruler much more than it does.”
It appears my post was accidentally deleted.
My question is how someone, like Fisk, who purports to be very knowledgeable about history could say something like the following:
“It was only when the Shiites threatened to join the insurgency that we wanted democracy.”
This would be a valid point if it wasn’t completely false. United States Public Law 105-338 states, “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.”
PL 105-338 was passed in 1998, well before any insurgency to which Fisk could possibly be referring. In addition, it was in effect and represented the ongoing policy of the United States when the current war began in 2003.
Whoops.
What was he saying about journalists forgetting history?
unitaryexecutive, sometimes stated government policy is different from actual intent. Of course, if the neocons could sway elections to their favored candidates, then democracy would be fine.
unitaryexecutive, subjecting theory to historical review is often fun, sometimes even enlightening.
1) Rigged Votes and Puppet Governments http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff01212004.html
2)Turning point in Iraq January 19, 2004 some extracts
The second plan for creating an Iraqi government was hurriedly cobbled together out of the wreckage of the failed decapitation strategy in late June and early July. Under the cover of “democratizing” Iraq it was essentially a fall-back attempt to retain the goal of installing a puppet government dominated by Ahmed Chalabi with the cover of other US-selected groups.
In July 2003, Ayatollah Sistani declared that an imposed government without elections was absolutely unacceptable to the majority of Iraqis. He was ignored. Politically, his position is unassailable. It boils down to taking the Americans at their word: democratize Iraq. http://nwcitizen.us/wic/News/TurningpointinIraq.html
3) Along with Bush’s unilateral March 2003 Executive Order No.13303, which seized full control of Iraq’s oil revenues, Paul Bremer, former head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, concocted 100 Orders designed to control Iraq’s economy and daily life http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2005/12/after_december.html
4)A day after elections in Iraq, we go to Baghdad to speak with Robert Fisk, chief Middle East correspondent for the London Independent. Fisk says, “What this election has done is not actually a demonstration of people who demand democracy, but they want freedom of a different kind, freedom to vote, but also *freedom from foreign occupation*. And if they are betrayed in this, then we are going to look back and regret the broken promises. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/31/1516244
5)’What a bloody charade’ Robert Fisk http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?sf=2813&art_id=vn20050130113139150C501681&click_id=2813
6) Not Even Saddam Could Achieve the Divisions This Election Will Bring. Robert Fisk http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/printer_011705B.shtml
Woops
unitaryexecutive, can I suggest that the term “democracy” is only a public relations product.
During the run-up to war, the US pressured Turkey to cooperate in the invasion of northern Iraq. The Turkish government declined, since over 90 per cent of Turks were opposed to the idea. So the US offered Turkey a US$25 billion bribe. That effort was a frontal American assault on Turkish democracy.
During Iraq’s 2005 election, the “Shia List” party had a central political platform: develop a timetable for US withdrawal. When this party won the election, Bush congratulated them. But three days later, a journalist asked Bush whether he would consider setting a timetable for US withdrawal. Bush wouldn’t even discuss it.
Last month, a major survey indicated that 78 percent of Iraqis opposed the presence of foreign troops, and 69 percent said they worsened the security situation. Mysteriously, Bush *still* talks about democracy in Iraq, while championing a contrary policy.
To most American governments, foreign “democracy” has simply meant the freedom to choose among several candidates for American puppet-hood.
unitaryexecutive: Some US officials stated openly they wanted to install a new junta in place of Saddam but couldn’t get away with it. More to the point, the best proof that the US had no intentions of fostering democracy in Iraq is that the first US governor, Jay Garner, started putting in motion just that and was replaced in less than two months as a result. He wanted elections within 90 days of the invasion and for US troops to leave the cities and redeploy to a desert base, but this is exactly what BushCo didn’t want. They were concerned that the Shiite’s would become dominant, as they have, if free elections were held. It was only when Sadr called for mass protests that the US gave in. It is certainly ironic that if Garner had succeeded, much of the subsequent bloodshed may have been avoided.
Btw, quoting US law as motivation for US actions is really rather bizarre, particularly for this administration, which has less respect for rule of law than most.
George Bush is holding our troops hostage in Iraq. The ransom he demands from the American people is enough money to secure the oil fields long enough to divide them among his friends.
Someone better send out for pizza and cigarettes before he kills them all.
unitaryexecutive said,
“This would be a valid point if it wasn’t completely false. United States Public Law 105-338 states, ‘It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.’”
Our history as a nation, particularly since after WWII, is rife with examples of where we overthrew democratic governments and put in place dictatorships. We only like democracies that allow us to pursue our economic grip on the world, thus puppet regimes, and if we can get a quasi-democratic government in Iraq, one that allows us perpetual access to their oil, then we will “promote the emergence of a democratic government.” But lacking that, we will settle for any puppet regime, even a good old fashion oligarchy or dictatorship.
History tells the story of America, even if America will not.
During my youth I fell in love with a Palestinian girl who opposed the war in Viet-Nam. I, on the other hand,
was a staunch supporter of the “kill a commie for Christ” mindset. I resolved to show her the error of her thought through overwhelming evidence. The trouble was, I didn’t really know anything about Viet-Nam save what Lyndon Johnson and his minions had told me but I was sure they spoke the truth and all I had to do was study up on the brave struggle of South Viet-Nam to resist communist aggression to prove my point. It took longer to “study up” then I anticipated…so long, in fact, that she had dumped my jingoistic butt way before I finished. But when I did finish, I was convinced she was right and I joined the anti-war movement, much to my own personal detriment. I thank her for the gift she gave me every day because she opened my eyes.
When the current occupant started his swords rattling at Iraq I was much more informed and predicted to all who would listen that things would go exactly as they have. I live in a small town in Oklahoma with little access to the truth and even I could see what was coming down. Why couldn’t all the big time sophisticated pundits get it? All it takes is a little reading of HISTORY BOOKS! I have yet to hear Gertrude Bell’s name mentioned by anyone.
P.S. They hung the only person who has successfully maintained control of Iraq. Oops!
I am amazed how “democracy”=privatization of oil…
Plantman13, as you are not alone on the Viet Nam one, and explained it quite well.
I was writing against the war then but had little knowledge until the school wanted me to write for the paper, however we all found out I thought that the media and Nixon would never lie about death and destruction, would they?
Well some of us learned by reading and learned “QUESTION AUTHORITY ALWAYS”. The summer of 67 everyone did just that. I thought we did change the world, boy was I wrong, they changed it with more blood and years, now some of the same people are fighting Iraq as if it were still Viet Nam. Only this time King George wants a another war in Iran and will use nukes to do it!
This is were we are headed unless we IMPEACH! That would slow them down, but nothing else will, you can bet money on that one, now I do not believe in gambling, but betting on King George Bush and Company is not a bet, it is a sure thing!
I hope people are now teaching their children to question, but with the amount of home schooling in all we are only making little clones with no common sense nor any idea of a community, caring about others, they are for number one their own selves and will step on you to get to where they want, to make sure they are first in line.
fisk=cia another whiteman pretending to love the middle east hanging out in the cafes pretending to be what he is not period.
I took 3 quarters of American History in college back in the 1980’s. It wasn’t until I read Howard Zinn and his book that really put it together of the way the people have always been manipulated by the wealthy and powerful, who most often attained that status by cheating, slavery, genocide, and other nasty methods. I took many history classes, just short of a 2nd major. Now, 18 years later i find most of everything I read back then was whitewashed.
Hey, the Big Raven, I guess I’ll disagree with your untrue and unkind remark. Robert Fisk has risked his life many times reporting the conflicts as I’ve watched coverage on DemocracyNow. I have often worried about him being in the thick of such violence.
The Big Raven, Are you able to substantiate this allegation or just cawing, ie uttering hoarse and raucous sounds which possibly may be understood only by birds.
Thanks to everyone who commented on my post, many of you have intelligent and well-informed views.
Now for the response.
I agree that government policy is often different from stated intent. However, when every single action taken by the government is in furtherance of the stated objective, it is reasonable to believe that stated policy aligns with actual policy. This is exactly what is happening in Iraq. The coalition has never taken action inconsistent with establishing democracy in Iraq, even while encouraging certain candidates. GWB is too adherent to the Sharansky/Reagan/Jackson model of peace through strength/democracy to create a future external enemy by establishing one tyranny in the place of another. Further proof of this is the Iraqi Constitution itself. It represents the EU model of government over the US model in several respects (read: economic regulation). This would not be the case if some US-backed puppet government was running things.
It is important to remember that to establish a democracy in place of a totalitarian regime does require the use of force in most instances. This is why the oft-used slogan of the far left about “imposing democracy with the barrel of a gun” is so ridiculous. It was, in fact, insurgents that prevented democracy through the force of violence. I saw no one pointing a gun at an Iraqi, forcing them to vote. I did, however, see violence aimed at preventing citizens from voting. If you believe, as I do, in Natural Rights, a form of democracy exists naturally in any group of persons. Therefore, establishing democracy is not forcing anyone to do anything, it is simply returning things to their quasi-natural state. For instance, if I stopped someone who was strangling another from choking him, I am not “imposing” breathing on him, I am simply returning things to their natural state.
Those opposed to our strategy in Iraq are opposed to the thought that democracy is a fit for all, and to the idea that it is in the best interest of our national security.
The idea that America’s idea of democracy is a choice among puppet governments is laughable. A puppet government is non-democratic, and the aim of our policy is to establish a democratic government to improve our security with respect to Middle Eastern affairs (I could explain this in detail, but I don’t have a spare 10 hours, so I refer you to Natan Sharansky’s book, “The Case for Democracy.” It does a reasonably good job of outlining the basic case.) In the short term, a puppet government makes sense for the US, and this is why it is a favorite among conspiracy theorists. However, to maintain control over the populace, a non-democratically elected government must create external enemies to prevent revolt. This is why non-democratic governments are national security risks. Further, many examples some of you provided of US actions inconsistent with democracy were actions necessary to maintain the stability of the democratically elected government (i.e. lack of timetable, control over certain territories and revenues).
Someone actually cited divisions among Iraqi people for support of something (what that something is, who knows? Maybe just that things aren’t working). No large group of persons is going to agree about anything, and division is an important symptom of democracy. The reason the division was less visible prior to the invasion was that conformity was acheived through fear of rape and torture. Division and anti-American sentiment should viewed as a lack of occupation because dissent is demonstrable proof of at least some form of primitive democratization.
I could go on for weeks about this, but I will spare you all the agony. Anyways, thanks to all of you for your comments. Hopefully, we can work together to help win this war, secure freedom for Iraqis (and more Middle East persons), and ensure future peace through strength and increased human rights worldwide.
Enjoy the weekend!
Enjoy the weekend ?
A little difficult after reading your posts.
I am able to write any sort of rebuttal at this time but I am sure any number of posters here would be able find any number of faults in your arguments and I look forward to reading them.After all as you concede graciously many of the posters here have intelligent and well-informed views.
The coalition has never taken action inconsistent with establishing democracy in Iraq…” This is unbelievable. You didn’t address at all my point that we could have had elections right away in Iraq, thereby capitalizing on any good will the Iraqis may have felt for us, but instead we denied them until forced to, and long enough for an insurgency to get underway. I suppose we’re just noble bumblers.
Its hard to tell if unitaryexecutive is having us on or just seriously deluded. The list of dictators we’ve supported or actually installed (Saddam for one - the CIA agent in charge called it his favorite coup) seems endless and I won’t repeat it here. I will note another interesting fact though - US support for other governments varies inversely to their human rights record. That is, the worst regimes get the most money! What does Sharansky say about that?
And we could of course discuss the supposed right of the US to impose anything on anybody, but that really would be extending the agony.
Nanoo…that is why it is important to read much more then one source for any given subject…with a healthy dose of skepticism. Thats why it took me so long to find out about Viet-Nam back then. It took less time with Iraq but only because I have been reading alot since 1965. Check all sides of any argument.
Unitaryexec…I find your comments quite naive. My grandfather was in charge of organized crime in a mid western state. As I learned sitting at my ole gramp’s knee…the motivations behind the law and the actions taken by the government are like the layers of an onion. Often, the overt claim of a particular policy is the opposite of the desired result. So called law-and -order politicians were usually the ones my gramps did the best business with. Oh and how they would laugh at the chumps (voters) who thought these people were on their side! As Chicago said, “question authority always.” It costs 30 million bucks to run for the Senate…where do you think that money comes from? People like my gramps, that’s who…and that money does not come for free.
unitaryexecutive suggests reading The Case for Democracy. It does a reasonably good job of outlining the basic case.)Hmm, well I have read it and following plantmans “with a healthy dose of skepticism” I offer one light and one detailed examination of Mr. Sharansky and his seminal work.
Natan Sharansky: Minister of Ignorance Bush’s Guru By URI AVNERY March 10, 2005
“For years now, he has peddled the idea that peace with the Arabs is impossible until they become democratic. In Israel, this was dismissed as just another propaganda gimmick serving the Israeli government’s opposition to any peace that would mean an end to the occupation. Since Sharansky is totally ignorant of Arab affairs and has probably never had a serious conversation with an Arab, it is hard for Israelis to take him seriously. As far as I know, nobody does, not even among Rightists.”
“His highly unoriginal contention that “democracies do not make war against other democracies” is a perfect alibi for the United States to attack Iraq, Syria and Iran, which are, after all, no democracies (while dictatorships like Pakistan and Turkmenistan remain good friends).
The idea that the teachings of this particular political philosopher are the guiding star of the mightiest leader in the world, the commander of the biggest military machine in history, is rather frightening.” http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery03102005.html
google:
Bad Subjects: Natan Sharansky and Palestinian Human Rights;
“If Sharansky’s failings are manifest, they are nonetheless important for having popularized a false terminological division between ‘free’ and ‘fear.’
Natan Sharansky is such an attractive read in the current White House because fear is one of its most useful political tools and a simplified theory of global fear is Israel’s newest ideological export. “
Yow, the Avnery article says Sharansky was part of the Israeli government and had a material role in expanding the occupation of Palestinian lands. Now there’s a champion of democracy!
Unitaryexecutive, you are living in the Matrix. You can wake up, but you have to choose to do so, you have to want to understand. Time for the red pill.
The dreadfully F’d up American people not only accept and finance torture, we also finance terrorism & imperialism by paying our taxes.
We are too G.D. lazy and complacent to demand that the Bush regime be impeached.
We are the world’s #1 obstacle to world peace and the #1 terrorist nation. It would be understandable if our nation was nuked.
Unitaryexecutive” here’s all you you need to know about Iraq’s “democracy,” the unelected U.S. official Paul Bremer rewrote Iraq’s fiance laws from top to bottom to benefit U.S. corporations. Read it and weep:
“L. Paul Bremer, who led the U.S. occupation of Iraq from May 2, 2003, until he caught an early flight out of Baghdad on June 28, admits that when he arrived, “Baghdad was on fire, literally, as I drove in from the airport.” But before the fires from the “shock and awe” military onslaught were even extinguished, Bremer unleashed his shock therapy, pushing through more wrenching changes in one sweltering summer than the International Monetary Fund has managed to enact over three decades in Latin America. Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel laureate and former chief economist at the World Bank, describes Bremer’s reforms as “an even more radical form of shock therapy than pursued in the former Soviet world.”
The tone of Bremer’s tenure was set with his first major act on the job: he fired 500,000 state workers, most of them soldiers, but also doctors, nurses, teachers, publishers, and printers. Next, he flung open the country’s borders to absolutely unrestricted imports: no tariffs, no duties, no inspections, no taxes. Iraq, Bremer declared two weeks after he arrived, was “open for business.”
One month later, Bremer unveiled the centerpiece of his reforms. Before the invasion, Iraq’s non-oil-related economy had been dominated by 200 state-owned companies, which produced everything from cement to paper to washing machines. In June, Bremer flew to an economic summit in Jordan and announced that these firms would be privatized immediately. “Getting inefficient state enterprises into private hands,” he said, “is essential for Iraq’s economic recovery.” It would be the largest state liquidation sale since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
But Bremer’s economic engineering had only just begun. In September, to entice foreign investors to come to Iraq, he enacted a radical set of laws unprecedented in their generosity to multinational corporations. There was Order 37, which lowered Iraq’s corporate tax rate from roughly 40 percent to a flat 15 percent. There was Order 39, which allowed foreign companies to own 100 percent of Iraqi assets outside of the natural-resource sector. Even better, investors could take 100 percent of the profits they made in Iraq out of the country; they would not be required to reinvest and they would not be taxed. Under Order 39, they could sign leases and contracts that would last for forty years. Order 40 welcomed foreign banks to Iraq under the same favorable terms. All that remained of Saddam Hussein’s economic policies was a law restricting trade unions and collective bargaining.
If these policies sound familiar, it’s because they are the same ones multinationals around the world lobby for from national governments and in international trade agreements. ”
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/09/0080197
The minute the US leaves Iraq the “democracy” it has imposed on Iraq will collapse as will any other settlement/laws it has created. It does not understand (and has never understood) the cultural of Iraq - it did not understand what it was destroying. And, in its ignorance of any culture other than US, thinks it can give to the Iraqis a form of governmnet which is not part of their history/culture and the Iraqis will immediately understand and apply all the things that the US has taken hundreds of years (Americans inherited and adapted political and social developments from the natiosn from which they came)to learn.
The US also does not understand that the war is already lost. Apart from the fact that it should never have taken place, the main reason it never had an prospect of success was that the Amreica does not have much of a clue about how other nations work and certainly does not respect any other nation’s view. That is “why they hate us” - not because, as that fatuous fool in the White House said “.. because we are free ..” -
To get some perspective, just try and imagine if some foreign nation which had no idea of how your society functioned invaded the US, threw out your government, looted your national assets, destroyed your society, stirred up things so that 90-100 of your people were being killed on the streets every day, the foreign troops treated you as something less that they, and then imposed a government system that was totally foreign to you. What would you do? First, you woudl say (like the rest of the world) “Who the hell do you think you are to try and restructure my society (which you do not understand anyway)?”.
I too could go on but, with respect, for Americans who do not even understand how the Iraqi society works or the social and cultural norms of that society, to set themselves the task of removing an Iraqi government and “to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime” is monstrous arrogance.
Sure, help people who need help but do not translate that into sending military boots stamping through other peple’s gardens.
First of all I think if there were more ‘Fisks’ around many innocent people would still be alive and the Doomsday clock could have been set back to 11:30 instead of 11:59:55.
“I could go on for weeks about this, but I will spare you all the agony.”
The agony is with You.
“Hopefully, we can work together to help win this war, secure freedom for Iraqis (and more Middle East persons), and ensure future peace through strength and increased human rights worldwide.”
This is utter perversion. This war is not intended to be won
and it is extremely disturbing to read statements like this if they don’t come from cheney et al. With the neocons it is WYHIWYG. Sad that the RealPolitik behind bush is so incomprehensible for most people.
“Increased human rights worldwide” is a slap in the face of every humanitarian worker on the face of the planet.
Increased human rights brought to you with the help of depleted uranium and neutron bombs. Hell we spread human rights with nukes if we have to.
All this is very disturbing. As much as I am a Buddhist and mostly philanthropic my hopes for things to change to the better are dim. People like Fisk (how may are there?) dedicate their life (literally) to make the public aware of the tricks governments utilize to keep the same public uninformed. An informed American citizenry would have prevented bush in the first place. Better than the ‘healthy dose of skepticism’ is expecting the unthinkable. If You can’t possible believe Your government could do ’something like that’ You’re heading into the right direction. Governments do never deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Get real, out of Iraq and away from Iran.
From unitaryexecutive - United States Public Law 105-338 states, “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.”
Apparently Mr. Fisk’s point of American lack of historical knowledge not only applies to the Middle East but to our own sordid history. unitaryexec has no concept of history. Read the above statement again and you’ll see where the law states we “should… support efforts to remove Saddam’s regime” What does “should support” mean anyway? How do you enforce a public law that states foreign policy and what it SHOULD be? This should, no pun intended, prove to any person capable of thought, that this law was first nothing more than politics and second unconstitutional. You cannot pass laws that dictate foreign policy… Otherwise, for consistency the Republicans would have to place in jail, Caspar Weinberger, George H W Bush, Admiral Poindexter, Oliver North and a host of others involved with the Iran-Contra scandal. The Republican administration of Ronald Reagan had claimed that the law passed by Congress banning financial support of the Contras was not constitutional. Therefore they were doing nothing illegal to ignore it. SO which is it? Republicans have to decide if they want to abide by laws or not. This constant picking and choosing of which laws are to be followed and which ones can be ignored has to stop somewhere. Whatever happened to our culture of accountability?
Darryl: “I would like to see an America that questions its own ruler much more than it does.”
Believe me, so wouldn’t a lot of Americans!
This might help “Neoconned” understand how foreign policy is “implemented” in the United States. The following is from the text of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998:
“On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that `the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations’ and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.”
“On May 1, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-174, which made $5,000,000 available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition for such activities as organization, training, communication and dissemination of information, developing and implementing agreements among opposition groups, compiling information to support the indictment of Iraqi officials for war crimes, and for related purposes.” (SOURCE: THOMAS, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR:)
The text also contains the following:
“It is the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq’s transition to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, and by convening Iraq’s foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to Iraq’s foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein’s regime.” (SOURCE: Wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act)
Again, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was passed by both houses of the Congress of the United States (the vote was unanimous in the Senate) and signed into law by President William Jefferson Clinton. The legislation followed the Clinton Administrations aborted 1996 attempt to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein. One can only speculate what might have been averted if the 1996 attempt at “regime change” had succeeded. It seems public memory is not only extremely “short,” but exceedingly “selective,” as well, when if comes to regarding History. Mr. Fisk, therefore, seems to be in plenty of company.