|
Smearing
Donald Rumsfeld: Aversion to truth-telling
by
Gary Larson
[email protected]
Making up “factoids” to slash ideological foes is one
of the oldest dirty tricks in politics. Contemptuous it is, but not beneath
shameful editorials such as in the mainstream Minneapolis (MN) Star Tribune
in Minnesota where I live. One stoops so low as to brand
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as nearly accessory to war crimes
against humanity--specifically, the mass murder of Kurds and Iranians in the
1980s. I kid you not. I am not making this up. Read on.
“Rumsfeld, acting as envoy for President Reagan,” it
says [Jan. 3, 2004], “took pains to reassure Saddam that those activities
[gassing of Kurds and Iranians] wouldn’t be a problem in the developing
relationship between Iraq and the United States.” Outlandish? Sure. Also
untrue, same as many unfounded assertions taken on--assimilated, really--as
“facts” by the loopy left.
Witness revisionist history of the nastiest kind,
dysfunctional journalism on the run, in such smears. Proving
“actual malice” of opinion journalists is hopelessly passé in courts,
at least for “public figures” since New York Times v. Sullivan (1964),
a landmark case for free speech. But there‘s no mistaking grounds here for
that other leg of libel -- “reckless disregard for truth.”
It’s in spades in this silly editorial, and in others put forth, in
Orwellian party orator fashion, by media now in lockstep with left-liberals.
Such smears are based on lies, steeped in ugly
partisanship, likely intended to incite Bush-bashers. History tells anyone
who’ll listen, or digs a little, that Rumsfeld did nothing of the sort in
his 1980s talks with Saddam in Baghdad. Declassified State Dept. reports
confirm he “strongly condemned” Iraq’s use of chemical weapons.
But truth apparently means little-to-nada to a postmodernist left,
unconcerned with facts, uncritical of baseless assumptions.
Meeting with Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz on March 5,
1984, Rumsfeld warned the cigar-chomping Iraqi that relations with the US
would be devastated by Iraqi use of WMDs. For a while, the dreadful attacks
stopped, thanks to Rumsfeld‘s visit on behalf of President Reagan.
Iraqi response was swift and caustic to the United
States’ condemnation. Saddam went on Iraqi TV to decry the charge, saying
the United States was “hypocritical” because, after all, it dropped the
atomic bombs on Japan. Significantly, the despot Saddam did not deny Iraq
had used WMDs.
A release from the State Dept. on March 4, 1984, just
before Rumsfeld’s second visit to Baghdad, stated unequivocally:
“The United States condemns the prohibited use of
chemical weapons wherever it occurs. There can be no justification for their
use by any country. . . ”
In Qs & As after the news release, check this colloquy
between a reporter and the State Dept. spokesperson:
Q. Beyond condemning Iraq’s use of CW (chemical
warfare), what are you [sic] doing to stop it?
A. We have made know our views directly to high levels of
the Iraqi government. We have taken steps to prevent U.S. exports to Iraq
that could be intended for CW production. . .and we have urged other
countries…to do likewise. We have taken notice of the Iranian charges [of
CW warfare] in our 1983 Human Rights report on Iraq, and in our February
1984 report to the UN Secretary-General. . .
Last month, nearly 20 years later, Rumsfeld reasserted at
a Pentagon press briefing that the United States warned Iraq “both
publicly and privately” in the early 80s not to use its WMDs. Case closed?
Only until the next briefing of the hostile Pentagon press corps. Expect the
daming question to be raised again.
Smearing Rumsfeld (also Bush, Cheney, et al.) is all in a
day’s work, I suppose. Going beyond partisan spin, into the realm of
partisan-inspired lies, and into libel/slander, is de rigueur in the
nation‘s media. Where’s their civility, at least a minimal regard
for truth, and regard for decency itself? DOA in the Clinton era?
What’s to gain by trashing Rumsfeld? Why such lies? Why
make up libelous myths--such as Rumsfeld, accessory to war crimes, no
Iraqi connection to terrorism, no WMDs, etc., when plain facts shout
otherwise? The real reason is to “get Bush“ at any cost, including
shredding truth itself, by misinforming the electorate, to stir a base
to hatred. (George Orwell speaks, straight from Oceana in the classic
“1984“: Newspeak pervades, and 10 minutes of seething hate is
dished out daily, to keep the party faithful.)
Robust discussion is one thing, but inciting over-the-top
hatred for Bush, with the attendant lies to “oust“ him, is sheer
travesty. Truth itself becomes the Enemy. Can it (we?) survive uncritical,
shameless, libelous assault brought on by the intellectual dishonesty of the
Left? Will Middle America be taken in? Hoodwinked? Our nation is
being tested. Final exams--a.k.a. elections--lie just over the horizon. Stay
tuned for final results.
|
