HUMOURLESS LEFTY ATTEMPTS HUMOUR, AGAIN

Lefty Australian academic Tim Dunlop finds fault with a speech – see transcript here – by Donald Rumsfeld at Johns Hopkins University's Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies. Interestingly, Dunlop neither links to nor quotes from the speech transcript, relying instead on articles at The New York Times and Knight Ridder (and a full script of Monty Python and the Holy Grail) as his sources. This is a clever ploy as it both isolates the brief Rumsfeld quote from context and allows for the inclusion of considerable Knight Ridder embellishment.

Dunlop starts off by quoting from The New York Times:

Donald Rumsfeld finally nails the real problem with what's happening in Iraq, proving he is as original as he is competent:

"We've arrived at a strange time in this country where the worst about America and our military seems to so quickly be taken as truth by the press, and reported and spread around the world, often with little context and little scrutiny, let alone correction or accountability after the fact," he said in a speech at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.

Yes, it's a real shit when people fail to offer corrections or be held accountable after the fact. It was a real bummer, for instance, that the media decided to invade Iraq with insufficent troops, ignored advice to plan for the post-invasion period, and strenuously denied the existence of an insurgency, right up until last week, in fact. Bloody media and their lack of accountability.

So, Dunlop thinks it Okay for the press to give us less than truthful and complete reporting on the situation in Iraq because of alleged US mistakes and errant denials. Ain't that some sad shit from an academic?

Anyway, here's the Rumsfeld quote in context (my bold):

I began these remarks by mentioning the contrast between what the American people are reading and hearing about Iraq and the views of the Iraqi people. I don’t think we can close a discussion on Iraq without mentioning the media coverage and the current political debate that’s taking place.

Recently, a member of the Associated Press Managing Editors Association reported on the intense discussions within the A.P. over whether or not their coverage of Iraq has been slanted or fair. For my part, almost every time I meet with troops, I am asked the same question: they ask why aren’t the American people being given an accurate picture of what’s happening in Iraq?

But let me say something in defense of the media. They have a tough job. It’s not easy. And a number of them have put their lives at risk, and some have been killed.

The media serves a valuable -- and indeed an indispensable -- role in informing our society and holding government to account. But it’s important also for the media to hold itself to account. Government has to reassess continuously, and we do. So to, it’s useful I believe for the media to reassess.

We have arrived at a strange time in this country where the worst about America and our military seems to so quickly be taken as truth by the press and reported and spread around the world -- often with little context and little scrutiny -- let alone correction or accountability after the fact. Speed it appears is the critical determinant. Less so, context.

Recently there were claims by two Iraqis on a speaking tour that U.S. soldiers attacked them with lions. It was widely reported around the United States. It is still without substantiation. And yet that story was spread across the globe. Not too long ago, there was a false and terribly damaging story about a Koran that was supposedly flushed down a toilet in Guantanamo, and in the riots that followed in several countries, some people were killed. And a recent New York Times editorial implied that America’s armed forces -- your armed forces -- our armed forces -- use tactics reminiscent of Saddam Hussein.

I understand that there may be great pressure on many of them to tell a dramatic story. And while it is easy to use a bombing or a terrorist attack to support that interest, it is not always the most accurate story or at least not the full story.

His remarks seem fair enough to me.

Dunlop then attempts to inject some humour by attributing to Rumsfeld a passage from Monty Python and the Holy Grail:

The Secretary went on to say:

Oh, what sad times are these when passing ruffians can `nee' at will to old ladies. There is a pestilence upon this land, nothing is sacred. Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.

Quack.

Hilarious, no?

Dunlop isn't finished, though (again, my bold):

Actually, it is worth noting another aspect of Rumsfeld speech, the increasingly crazy threat of a worldwide Caliphate if the US leaves Iraq:

If U.S. forces leave too soon, Iraq will become a haven for terrorists and the base of a spreading Islamic superstate that would threaten the rest of the world, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said Monday.

Speaking at Johns Hopkins University's Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Rumsfeld warned that al-Qaida leaders such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Osama bin Laden would seize power in the wake of an American withdrawal and turn Iraq into the kind of terrorist safe haven that Afghanistan was before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Moreover, Rumsfeld said: "Iraq would serve as the base of a new Islamic caliphate to extend throughout the Middle East, and which would threaten legitimate governments in Europe, Africa and Asia. This is their plan. They have said so. We make a terrible mistake if we fail to listen and learn."

God, do these guys ever stop and listen to themselves? There is such an edge of desperation, almost insanity resonating in statements like this that you have to wonder as to how they can be so completely deaf to it.

First up, no-one is suggesting that the US leave 'too soon', so we are straight away in the realm of straw. Second, even if the US left yesterday, the chances of al-Zarqawi, let alone Osama bin Laden (for fuck's sake) seizing power are zero. They simply do not have the support or the wherewithal. Thus, thirdly, that their ascension to power in Iraq is going to be the first domino to fall in a world-wide Islamic caliphate is, by definition, a non-issue. For more on the unlikelihood of a Zarqawi-led Iraq, see this post by Eric that I've linked to previously.

Watching people like Rumsfeld spew this nonsense is incredibly disconcerting. It borders on insanity, not just because of its ostensible content, it's reality-challenged view of things, but because it underlines the extent to which the administration itself has debased all discussion about prospects in Iraq.

Whatever paradise or disaster awaits Iraq over the next twenty years, the reality is the Bush administration has done enormous damage to the operation of democracy in the West. Every day has become a battle to sift through the latest lies, stories, half-truths, facts and opinions that their propaganda machine reflexively churns out, world without end.

First up, Dunlop's criticism of the "too soon" remark should be directed at Knight Ridder not at Rumsfeld: here's what he actually said:

In my view, quitting is not a strategy. Quitting is an invitation to more attacks and more terrorist violence here at home. This is not just a hypothesis. The U.S. withdrawal from Somalia emboldened Osama bin Laden in the 1990’s. We know this. He said so.

Talk about creating a straw man...

Second, how the Hell does Dunlop know for certain that an immediate US withdrawal wouldn't result in Iraq splintering into Kurd, Shia and Sunni controlled areas? And if this did happen, every power-craving, pro-terrorist Sunni in the region would be attracted there. Only a fool would totally rule out such a development, no matter how unlikely it might seem.

Third, Rumsfeld does not claim that ascension to power in Iraq by pro-terrorist Sunni's would make it the first domino to fall in the formation of a world-wide caliphate. As the Knight Ridder excerpt above indicates, Rumsfeld's concern is that Zawahiri, Zarqawi, bin Laden and other like-minded terroroids would like nothing more than a caliphate in Iraq – or part thereof – that could eventually dominate the Middle East and threaten surrounding regions.

Finally, it would be helpful if Dunlop elaborated on the "enormous damage to the operation of democracy in the West" being done by the Bush "propaganda machine". Lefties like Dunlop have no confidence in the public's ability to sort fact from bullshit: after all, if the public had any brains the left would be in government.