|
|
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.
|