Page 180 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

170 Chapter 7

attacks, in which Rumsfeld expressed his desire to use the attacks as a justifica-
tion for bombing ~ra~.~' Wolfowitz also admitted that, in his meeting with Bush
administration officials two days after 911 1, "On the surface of the debate it at
least appeared to be about not whether but when" an attack on Iraq would take
place [emphasis added].48 These admissions were the opposite of President
Bush's public promises, faithfully reported by media, that the President had "not
made up" his mind about military action in the weeks before the and his
claim that the war was somehow "forced upon" the U.S. contrary to the wishes
of the Bush administrati~n.~~

Freedom is Slavery:
The Fallacy of Democratic Imperialism

A final use of Orwellian doublethink by media involves the admission of an-
tagonistic policy goals in terms of U.S. motivations in Iraq. Establishment
sources sometimes sent conflicting signals regarding what American leaders
really wanted from war in Iraq. On the one hand, the media spoke in high regard
of a "vision7' of the Bush administration of ending the totalitarian rule of Sad-
dam Hussein and imposing democracy in Iraq. On the other hand, from time to
time it was lucidly admitted that the United States had selfish motivations out-
side of promoting justice and human rights. Considering such schizophrenic
portrayals, it may be difficult for many readers to know which messages to take
seriously and which to disregard. Sometimes it was admitted within the same
news article that the US. was an imperialist power, yet also committed to de-
mocracy. Other times, readers were left to try and put together the pieces of a
puzzle that did not seem to fit. For instance, what little polling was done of the
Iraqi people consistently revealed a pattern of negative attitudes toward the U.S.
occupation. Polling research showed that most Iraqis were overwhelmingly
against American occupation by 2004, and that they viewed the U.S. as an occu-
pier rather than a liberator." Yet at the same time, corporate media outlets, by
ignoring the implications of their own polling information, continued to promote
the idea of the U.S. as a liberator and democratizer in Iraq. This antagonism has
not sufficiently been addressed in media reporting, unless Americans are to un-
derstand that when U.S. elites discuss "democracy," they are really referring to
U.S. coercion, dominance, and empire.

Why War?
The Strategic Importance of Oil
Schizophrenia was rife throughout media appraisals and reappraisals of the rea-
sons for war. At times, media outlets portrayed the Bush administration as dis-
honest in its motives for war, while still lending strong support to its promises
for the future democratization of Iraq. The Nao Republic effectively spear-
headed this initiative with editorials such as "Best Intentions: Why We Went,