Page 178 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

168 Chapter 7

[of Iraq] must clearly establish that violence will not be a means of political lev-
erage in a democratizing lraq,'*' and that Iraq must "establish itself as a democ-
racy that distributes power among its various communities through ballots rather
than force.'*3 The Post's comments were easily on par with such peculiar de-
mands as those of former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz that "all
Such
foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of ~ra~.'*~ framing
suggests that violence only exists if the U.S. is not the party responsible, and
outside incursion only takes place when the U.S. is not a party to such activities.
Within this doublethink framework, proponents of the occupation of Iraq rhet-
orically challenge violence and aggression only when the United States is not
responsible. The Oceania government of 1984 would have embraced such dou-
ble standards wholeheartedly.
Sometimes the media's Orwellian doublethink charged anti-war protestors
with responsibility for the violence in Iraq and for supporting the 911 1 terrorist
attacks. Take for example, one editorial by William Hawkins of the Washington
Times, in which he condemned anti-war groups such as ANSWER, Global Ex-
change, and others. According to Hawkins, ANSWER
was formed to oppose going into Afghanistan to destroy the main a1 Qaeda
base and the Taliban regime that had given it a home. In effect, ANSWER
wanted to protect the thugs behind the murder of 3,000 people in New York
and Washington. This is the same view as the other main sponsor of the Sep-
tember 24 [2005 anti-war] rally, the group United for Peace and Justice [UFPI].
Citing UFPI and other anti-war organizations, Hawkins argued: "These groups
are not coming to the nation's capital to promote 'peace.' They are aligned with
the planet's most violent despots and killers. Like Mr. Bush, they understand
what is at stake in Iraq and how important America's 'imperialist' power is to
world stability and progress. They just want none of it, preferring a new Dark
Age where America suffers precipitous decline in isolation and defeat.'*' Should
readers take Hawkins' words seriously, they would be left with the impression
that anti-war protestors somehow support and encourage Al Qaeda's war against
the U.S., even though many were calling for the nonviolent apprehension of
members of the terrorist network. One might also think that protestors are guilty
of escalating the conflict in Iraq by opposing the necessary steps U.S. leaders
planned on taking to escalate the "pacification" of Iraqi resistance. Hawkins'
statements are important in that, along with many other pundits, he situates the
war in Iraq within the "imperialist" framework of debate, while also dedicated to
democracy and human rights.