NPR = National Pentagon Radio
To: WILPF <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: FW: NPR - The U.S. Attack
on Iraq
From: Ali Abunimah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: NPR--The U.S. attack on Iraq
February 16, 2001
Dear NPR News,
The Pentagon press office will be delighted by your coverage on All Things
Considered this afternoon of the latest attack on Iraq.
The 4PM GMT newscast reported President Bush's statement about the attack,
followed by a soundbite of a Pentagon spokesman stating that the United
States attacked "five command and control nodes," whatever on earth that is
supposed to mean.
The newscast ended with the sentence "Baghdad media are reporting that
some civilians were hurt in the attacks but there is no confirmation of
that."
Such journalistic scepticism is admirable, of course, except that you do not
apply it at all to claims from the Pentagon which on numerous
occasions in the past, oh say thirty years, have proven to be utter,
contemptible lies. In the Q&A betweem host Linda Wertheimer and reporter Tom
Gjelten, Linda would ask things like "What do we know about the targets?"
and Tom read back exactly what the Pentagon spokesman said. Linda never
asked, "do you have any confirmation of that, Tom?" It is just assumed that
The United States Government Always Tells The Truth, Especially When Arabs
Are Concerned.
So Tom reported "All of these attacks are what the Pentagon calls
self-defence measures that are meant to take out Iraqi air defence
facilities that are hitting U.S. aircraft."
Really? How many U.S aircraft have been "hit" by anything the Iraqis have
fired since the Gulf War?
When Linda asked about the targets, Tom answered (again relaying only the
information in the Pentagon briefing as if it were confirmed), "We know that
five targets were, four of them outside the no-fly zones, one north of
Baghdad, three south of Baghdad."
Finally, Tom reassured us that: "The targets that were chosen were part of
that anti-aircraft defence system. They were also chosen Pentagon
officials say because they were separated from civilian areas which meant
that the risk of collateral damage should have been less."
"Collateral damage." Who invented that terminology?
Tom did not volunteer any information at all about the reported civilian
victims, nor did Linda bother to ask. And neither when Tom referred to the 7
or 8 previous times the United States bombed Iraq this year did he report
that civilians had been killed and injured and livestock of Iraqi farmers
destroyed.
Throughout, Tom and Linda referred repeatedly to the "no-fly zones," at no
point informing listeners that these are unilaterally imposed creations of
the United States with no standing in international law. Nor did they ask
why American pilots needed to be protected by bombing a country half way
around the world. After all, the safest way to protect American pilots would
be to not send them to violate the airspace of a sovereign nation, bombing
it, killing innocent civilians and destroying their property.
Quite misleadingly, in the introduction to the Q&A, Wertheimer said
"President Bush, who's in Mexico today...said Saddam Hussein has to
understand that the United States expects him to abide by the agreements he
signed after the Gulf War." Then, immediately cut to Bush saying "we will
enforce the no-fly zone south and north. Our intention is to make sure the
world is as peaceful as possible."
This juxtaposition clearly suggested that the "no fly zones" were part of
the Gulf War ceasefire resolutions and agreements. They were not. They were
unilaterally imposed by President Bush in April 1991. Iraq has never signed
any agreement recognizing them and nor are they contained in any U.N.
resolutions.
You've had ten years to get this stuff right. How much longer do you need?
Sincerely,
Ali Abunimah
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.abunimah.org
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
