January 17, 2006

There is a debate raging in the US on the vitality, efficacy and morality of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

However, every debate is considered healthy but only to the extent allowed by the mechanisms which deliver it key information.

And, unfortunately, for all the technological advancements in telecommunications and network systems in the US, much of the information needed to engage in such debate is missing.

Or intentionally kept out of the public eye.

A few days ago, Penn. Demoract John Murtha was swiftboated. For those who have not been keeping a constant watch on US politics (which in the end are really world politics) - swiftboating is a term applied by the media in reference to Mass Senator John Kerry's comrades at arms on a swift boat he rode in Vietnam who later came out and disputed his military record.

They formed a group called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

In effect, rather than call it a betrayal or a stab in the back, the term became swiftboating.

Something similar happened to John McCain when he ran against Bush.

John Murtha, who has been commended for his military record in Vietnam, is now being discredited online by a group who claims he did not earn his commendations and several Purple Hearts he received.

Why? Because Murtha went up against the established order "Iraq war is good. Saying Iraq was is not good is both bad and unpatriotic."

That is the general policy among the Völkischer Beobachter newspaper which supports the military and foreign policy. The paper is run by the Nationale Jungsturm, young supporters of the government and its foreign policy.

And ...

Oh wait, I was writing about Nazi Germany there and Hitler's support base. Sorry, sometimes I just can't tell the difference with the GOP anymore.

Moving right along, I believe the commentators and the public should be privy to what is really happening in Iraq.

For example, this video shows how easy it has become for the Iraqi resistance to drop US helicopters from the skies.

Three such helicopters were downed in Iraq in less than a week.

There are many such videos all over the Internet (I will not link to them because they show US soldiers' body parts strewn about a road after an IED attack on a Humvee and other such corporeal dismemberment).

Some call these propaganda, but then when CNN and MSNBC show US soldiers detaining Iraqi families or footage of attacks on Iraqis - are these too not propaganda?

Why is only one side being shown to the public?

In his attack on Sparta and Athens in 480-81 BC, Xerxes mustered an army some said was 3-million strong. But this army was held off by 300 Spartans and some 600 other allied soldiers at the pass of Thermoplyae.

After five days of holding off the Persian horde, the defenders were betrayed by a Greek and eventually killed off.

However, they managed to utterly destroy 20,000 of Xerxes crack troops.

Xerxes had the bodies of the Spartans dismembered, their heads held on spikes to show the rest of his army how well he had done. But he hid all traces of the bodies of his crack troops because 1) it would show how a little force held him at bay and 2) it would weaken the morale of his troops to know the truth.

He cast the bodies of the 20,000 in mass graves, in the sea, and so on.

Back to the Iraq debate, can the US public really understand all facets of this war unless they have information on all facets of this war?

I have read in various publications and on various blogs that Aljazeera for example, shows beheadings. I watch Aljazeera diligently (and don't agree with much of the way they broadcast news) but I never seen an Aljazeera broadcast of a beheading.

In fact, they have shown footage of two different incidents - Nick Berg and the Korean man - edited just before the beheading took place. No actual beheading was ever shown on the Arab network.

Yet, to hear US commentators speak, you would think Aljazeera showed beheadings almost daily. It remains that Aljazeera has never shown such footage and has remarked repeatedly that they would not show such images because of their graphic nature.

Did those US commentators actually see the footage aired? No and if they did, then they lied.

Similarly, we hear how Aljazeera espouses hatred against Jews. How would US commentators know that unless they watch Aljazeera 24/7 and understand Arabic?

In fact, many leading Arab networks now enjoy a good working relationship with the Israeli government. As soon as something happens, you will see Sharon's spokesperson Ranaan Gissin on Arab TV. Or members of the Israeli cabinet.

And US politicians appear almost nightly on Arab TV and are given great lengths to speak. Is the effort reciprocated on US networks? Look, Britney is pregnant again.

In conclusion, the debate raging in the US is a shadow of what it could really be and is underserved by US censorship. Not enough information is made to the reader/viewer who mistakenly believes he/she is informed.

But now, with the wiretapping scandal in the GOP, quick on the heels of the DeLay scandal coinciding with the Abramoff scandal, and sugar-topping the AIPAC investigation, America may finally be waking up.

Americans don't like to be fooled. When they give trust to something or someone, it is sancrosanct. To have that trust betrayed is not so small a transgression.

One of the guiding principles of modernism is the ability to debate, to question, to cast doubt, this is precisely why the Age of Enlightenment came about.

Martin Luther questioned the Roman Catholic Church as did Galileo. The Colonists questioned the tyranny of King George.

Continue questioning then. Ask the difficult questions. Critiquing today's King George is not a crime nor is it unpatriotic.

The intellectual revolution ... has it begun?

I shudder to ... yes, it has. They - the pro-war, pro-death, pro-racism cabal are on the run. Even O'Reilly is getting his feathers ruffled:

"You want a piece of me?" O’Reilly said Monday. "Would you like to sit on this set right here and let me have it? Of course you would. Well, now that can happen."