Comments on: Matt Welch is a smart guy

By: tombo

tombo — Fri, 14 May 2004 23:36:29 +0000

If it’s true that the Bush admin could have easily dispatched Zarqawi and failed to do so for political reasons, then Bush should be impeached. I’d like to see the actual evidence, though, before I leapt to such a conclusion. Rgds, T

By: Antoni Jaume

Antoni Jaume — Fri, 14 May 2004 21:33:05 +0000

Tombo, you claim that: “[...]Zarqawi. This BTW is the same terrorist, one of many, whom Saddam had harbored and funded in Iraq prior to the war[...]” Where are your evidences? Because if I’m not confused, that Zarqawi is the one whose base was in the US protected zone of Iraq, and that Bush refused to attack before in spite of military demands to do so. DSW

By: tombo

tombo — Thu, 13 May 2004 23:31:14 +0000

Interesting to note the east coast media’s sudden onset of scruples concerning publication of the Nick Berg, “God is Great” butchering by Zarqawi. This BTW is the same terrorist, one of many, whom Saddam had harbored and funded in Iraq prior to the war and who has already killed one US diplomat and god knows how many Kurds and Iraqis. Editors so far have been given two sets of grisly and morally repellent photos. Photo-set A consists of images that horrify Americans (and anyone else) of good will, enrage arabs and Europeans of less than good will, and cause many Americans to oppose the war against Islamist fascism. This photo-set harms Bush’s re-election chances. Photo-set B consists of images that enrage and horrify Americans (and anyone else) of good will and cause many Americans to rally behind the war against Islamist fascism. This photo-set helps Bush’s re-election chances. East coast US and European and arab editors have given exhaustive play to photo-set A while in nearly all cases refusing to give any play to the photo-set B. Wonder why? A hint: Someone did a search of ABC News reports on Abu Ghraib between 4/29 and 5/11 and found 58 instances. He then searched ABC News reports for instances of mentions of Saddam’s mass graves from January 2003 to the present and found 5 instances. Regards, Tombo

By: Rajeev Advani

Rajeev Advani — Thu, 13 May 2004 20:26:58 +0000

Of course I would, and have elsewhere, asked the same question regarding Nick Berg. This is why, in one of my earlier comments on this thread, I said the problem is not so much “heigtening” the torture scandal as it is “lowering” the crisis in Sudan. Finally, Pepi, you have a penchant for exagerration. Let me spell this out for you one final time. In my original post I said there was heightening in America and there was heightening in Europe. You interpreted me as saying there was heightening in Europe above and beyond the heightening in America. You do not have to be telepathic to discern a difference between the two claims.

By: pepi

pepi — Thu, 13 May 2004 18:27:19 +0000

Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough, as in re-reading my original post it can be taken both ways. Yes, indeed. But, despite that initial crass generalisation on Europeans, despite the straw man about antiamerican sadism lurking behind there being more coverage of this rather than Sudan, I will now take you word that by “heightened coverage abroad” you meant that the coverage is heightened everywhere, and while you do find a good reason for that in the US, you are in doubt about Europe. I profusely apologise for my lack of powers of mind-reading and my stubborness in taking words literally as they appear on the page in the sequence they appear in. That was so not creative of me. Did I get it right now? See, that “interpretation” of your question just sounds so much more surreal than the first one, I did not even take it into consideration. I really fail to see the logic in even needing to ask why the Iraqi torture scandal would get relatively more attention than Sudan in the media of the countries of the coalition currently occupying Iraq. As in the media of those involved with the US in other operations (Kosovo, Afghanistan, etc.). And in the media of their neighbouring countries. And in the media of countries that have US military bases in them. (here’s a quick game: name one that doesn’t). And like Freedman would say, in this big global village where telecommunications etc. etc. Seriously. Would you ask the same question (why more Iraq than Sudan in the US/British/Eurocontinental news) – of the Nick Berg killing? Since it also pertains to Iraq? And if not, why not?

By: Rajeev Advani

Rajeev Advani — Thu, 13 May 2004 17:50:20 +0000

Pepi, this IS a massive miscommunication. This is what I’m saying: 1) There is DISPARATE coverage WORLDWIDE between the torture scandal and the Sudan crisis. 2) The coverage is EQUALLY disparate everywhere (more or less). I did not ever think that the coverage is greater abroad than it was in the United States—that wasn’t even the question I was asking. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough, as in re-reading my original post it can be taken both ways. At the time I thought it was clear because at the start I acknowleded that coverage was heightened in the US relative to Sudan, and I explained that away, then I posed the question of why it was ALSO HEIGHTENED (emphasis: also) in Europe relative to Sudan. This is what I meant, so scrap any other interpretation you may have had. 3) I have taken account of all the reasons people gave, and I appreciate them. I am “hung up” on your attitude because I had made multiple attempts to lighten this conversation, all of which were summarily rejected by you. You continue, also, to assume that I haven’t been reading people’s reasons. How many times must I say this? I have read them—they make sense to me. Thank you! You keep insisting that I claimed that the coverage was greater in Europe than it was in the US —AND THAT, I never did claim. Perhaps I was not clear enough—fine, but now you know what I meant.

By: pepi

pepi — Thu, 13 May 2004 16:09:52 +0000

rajeev: hello? do we both speak the same language here? where did your apologies end up? and how come you can still keep contradicting yourself? you write that I have been “misreading” you all along, and that you never claimed that Europe is covering the story more than America” – well gosh I hate to be so boring but can you please re-read again your first post? where you asked why the heightend coverage abroad, and why in particular for Europe (“it gets more complicated when we go abroad to Europe”), and might it not be because Europeans enjoy America being caught contradicting its rhetoric? I would gladly consider all that scrapped in light of your later apology, if you didn’t keep reinforcing the statements you made there, while at the same time denying you ever made them. Consider me baffled. Baffled also at the way you manage to sidestep the discussion on the real point. You asked, why is this Abu Ghraib story getting more coverage than Sudan. Several different replies on that have already been given to you by me and other posters. Could you maybe give them a passing look instead of getting hung up on me being “nasty” or “vitriolic” by simply pointing out your inconsistency? On your point about the US military and coalition countries: that’s a good reason for disparate coverage No, not “disparate” (which is the same as heightened, different, more – I don’t suppose you mean “disparate” as less, do you ?) – the coverage is the same. Actually, even less prominent by now outside the US because there are also other national news. The fact European countries are in the military coalition with the US, and UK being on the front line there with mre troops than anybody else, and their own scandal too – those are reasons for the coverage being equally intense overall over the past weeks/days. Is that clearer? In light of that, as well as the other reasons previously given also by others, and in light of the facts on Abu Ghraib themselves, I am genuinely baffled that anyone could wonder why in the past few days in the US and Europe there has been more coverage of this than of anything else. There you go. Hope that is not too vitriolic for you.

By: Rajeev Advani

Rajeev Advani — Thu, 13 May 2004 14:54:33 +0000

Pepi, I believe I made it clear in my post above, the following are my thoughts on the issue: 1) I don’t think there was heightened coverage—that was, again, a word of convenience—I do think there is disparate coverage, between events that occur in America and the Sudanese crisis. I think that’s fairly undeniable, and yes it is fair to levy that judgment, as I do, against all people and governments worldwide. This is where you’ve been misreading me all along: I never claimed that Europe is covering the story more than America; I was simply saying that in general worldwide the story is getting more coverage than the Sudanese crisis. This was an observation to which I gave three possible reasons, one of which was a blanket idiocy. 2) My claim of anti-Americanism, as I said above, was exagerrated. I had meant to put a qualifier before I uttered the word “Europeans.” By anti-Americanism I mean both types: those that oppose the concept of America in general, and those that oppose only the current administration. Obviously, the former exist only in radical fringes. 3) On your point about the US military and coalition countries: that’s a good reason for disparate coverage. Read my original post. I asked for other reasons, politely enough—no need to castigate me for not mentioning that one. In fact, though I’ve heard it before, I thank you for mentioning it. And of course you’re not being pedanctic; but I must ask, why do you take that scathing tone and ask me if I think you are? Do you honestly believe I think that reason is trivial and academic? Again I feel that you’re assuming I’m someone I’m not. That’s just it Pepi: you need to ease off the vitriol. You keep getting nasty, and I keep staring at you blankly, interested in what you’re saying but cringing at your attitude.

By: albertchampion

albertchampion — Thu, 13 May 2004 09:19:42 +0000

it is a horrible act to take another human being’s life. all the same, the united states of amerika has been doing it for years[decades even]. why is it that we lament the demise of berg, but care so little about the demise of so many non-combatant iraqis? quite candidly, unless berg was a spook, he was insane to be rambling about a war zone. i think he had spook relationships. and i think that those spooks abadoned him. his dad got it right. it was the bush admin that exposed berg to their boy, zarkawi. let us never forget that zarkawi could have been picked up by the bushies at almost anytime over the last several years. but for some reason, the bushies refrained. that should make you consider that zarkawi was/is our boy. if berg wasn’t a spook, then he was a fool or an idiot. wandering around iraq in this era is a very stupid stunt – virtually suicidal. no tears for a fool. and no anger over his “offing”. it was predictable. avenging berg for his stupidity would be like driving into a head-on so as to avoid hitting a squirrel on the road. not wise.

By: pepi

pepi — Thu, 13 May 2004 08:10:15 +0000

rajeev: as long as you know what your opinion actually is… You contradicted yourself twice, not once. I take it your last and final opinion on the matter of coverage of the torture scandal outside the US is that there is indeed heightened coverage, correct? Now, here’s my last attempt at explaining why I said “you talk such crap”. And I never thought someone picturing non-Americans relishing the torture scandal would have such high standards of discourse that a “you talk crap” would be considered vitriol. But anyway. The point is not the blanket statement itself, so you don’t need to apologise for that. I couldn’t care less if you thought all Europeans were sadistic American-hating scum. The point is that: 1) there is NO heightened coverage of the torture scandal in Europe – point me to instances that prove otherwise – besides, for the past days, all sorts of other stories have made the top headlines (Glasgow explosion; elections in India; the killing of Nick Berg; violence in Israel; local news – etc. etc.) 2) it’s been the same attention as in the US, for the obvious reason it is a huge story of concern for all countries involved in Iraq – European countries – UK first of all of course (Britain having its own rather big allegations scandal, with tabloid printing pictures every day – and why did you not even consider that?), then, Poland, Spain, Italy among others – still have their troops there, in the coalition, under US control, so it is obvious they should be a little bit concerned about the torture allegations and the consequences of that, don’t you think? I’d rather you responded to that, than apologise for something I already told you was not “offensive”, only incorrect and conveniently biased with assumptions that do not happen to be true to anyone following both the US and European media. Besides, I never even discussed “anti-Americanism” per se, or denied or dismissed the existence of it. It is not the point here. While there is certainly the kind of kneejerk anti-Americanism, the bias kind, what you describe as “people out there who enjoy watching America contradict its rhetoric” conveniently sidesteps a reaction that is not of enjoyment but of criticism and outrage at the fact the current US government (not “America” at large) “contradicted its own rhetoric” – or, better, did not seem to manage the torture allegations, reports, denounciation, etc. very well. It seems there’s a lot of folks having that reaction in the US in the first place. In fact, I’m reading the most outraged comments in American press and weblogs. I suppose that’s one of the things that happen when you have a democracy. I wouldn’t certainly think everyone who is outraged in the US in the first place was just waiting for that sort of thing to happen so they could point the finger at the Bush administration and say, see, we told you they were bad for us! vote for Kerry! I would imagine that there are many people who are outraged just like, say, many members of the military – US and British and coalition countries alike, who went there, worked their ass off, risked their lives, even managed to build decent relations with locals in many cases – were outraged. Because what happened sucks very badly from all directions you look at it. I don’t see you even taking that kind of reaction into consideration when you speak of the coverage and public attention to this scandal. OR am I only being pedantic?

By: Rajeev Advani

Rajeev Advani — Thu, 13 May 2004 02:12:13 +0000

My last post on this thread, I’m going to pull a “Bush” (that is, contradict myself once, defend myself twice, then apologize): I apologize for the blanket comment I made about Europeans on my original post. It is not at all representative of my beliefs. While there certainly are people out there who enjoy watching America contradict its rhetoric—and those are the ones I find revolting—my statement was so general and logically incoherent that it merited the harsh rebukes from Pepi and others.

By: Rajeev Advani

Rajeev Advani — Thu, 13 May 2004 01:34:06 +0000

Alas! I’m caught in contradiction. What really happened was my alter-ego took over back there and wrote the first post. No really, for what it’s worth, “heightened” was a word of convenience. And yes, drunken bar conversations do often start off with one saying “rajeev, you just talk so much crap.” My primary point is that there are a lot of reasons for the “disparate” (suitable word?) coverage between atrocities. My original post was worded politely enough, and I did not appreciate your tone of voice when you responded to me. My original post was sloppy. I used the word “Europeans” when I should have said, “a number of Europeans.” Further, I agree with you that anti-Americanism is not the sole reason for the heightened coverage—I’ve said this again and again—but it is equally premature to say that anti-Americanism plays no role in the coverage. This is why anti-Americanism was only one of three reasons I threw out there. For Christ’s sake, the point of my post was in pleading for others to give me other reasons, and the responses I got—with notable exceptions—were seething with vitriol. Finally, I do not equate non-Americans with anti-Americans. Please, Pepi, just stop trying to equate me with some caricatured Rush Limbaugh; I’m sick of defending myself here, and I’m much more liberal than you seem to think.

By: Rajeev Advani

Rajeev Advani — Thu, 13 May 2004 01:33:25 +0000

By: pepi

pepi — Wed, 12 May 2004 17:01:16 +0000

lth: no need to apologise, really! I just found it amusing :) You’re entirely excused for that mistake, given what gmt has highlighted above about the increasingly blurred lines between parody and reality…

By: pepi

pepi — Wed, 12 May 2004 16:59:09 +0000

I predicted the terrible beheading of American Nick Berg of Philadelphia at the hands of the terrorists in Iraq. I blame none other than CBS 60 Minutes. His blood is on their hands as much as it is on the hands of the thugs who murdered him. Do I hear any liberals crying out for an apology? None. gmt, I’m 100% sure I read something that contained that very “argument” today, but sadly I don’t remember where. And of course the difference is the writer was not joking. Jon, I agree entirely with Secy Rumsfeld that the release of these photos was deplorable, but these actions of a few rogue journalists do not represent the vast majority of the American media. Indeed. There’s always good old Peggy! Politics, Jon, that’s what. Pure and simple. I think it’s pretty suspicious that these tortures took place during a Presidential campaign. This is a clear cut case of partisan sadism. You know, come to think of it, I’m pretty sure those Iraqi prisoners want Bush out of office too. You know I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if a pile of hooded, naked Iraqis has a job waiting for them in the Kerry Administration. Crikey. It doesn’t sound that far-fetched at all, actually. (That people would say that it was all staged, that is..). Satire is entirely superflous these days.