April 14, 2004
MARGO'S MISSING MEMORY
Sydney Morning Herald pseudo-journalist Margo Kingston has formally severed any ties to accuracy. In her latest load of sub-tabloid propaganda, Kingston publishes a letter from US reader Les Edwards:
Didn't President Bush say in the beginning that this would be a long war that would not be resolved easily or quickly? It seems as though this has been forgotten, and a panicked media, intent on causing uproar and controversy, is reporting nothing but negative aspects of this war. Alas, we are used to that.
Margo’s reply:
He said that about the 'war on terror'. On Iraq, it was supposed to be a cakewalk, hence the complete lack of planning for the peace.
Supposed to be a cakewalk, was it? Here’s Bush in February 2003:
The work ahead is demanding. It will be difficult to help freedom take hold in a country that has known three decades of dictatorship, secret police, internal divisions, and war.
And here’s Bush on the day the invasion began:
A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment.
In May 2003, from the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln:
We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We are pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes.
And in November:
In Iraq, the Coalition Provisional Authority and the Iraqi Governing Council are also working together to build a democracy -- and after three decades of tyranny, this work is not easy. The former dictator ruled by terror and treachery, and left deeply ingrained habits of fear and distrust. Remnants of his regime, joined by foreign terrorists, continue their battle against order and against civilization.
Where’s the cakewalk, Margo? For that matter, where is your memory, or your ethics? And where the hell are your editors?
Posted by Tim Blair at April 14, 2004 04:50 AMEvery time I see this sort of thing, I determine that there are two possibilities: The originator (in this case "Margo, please, just Margo already") is either a) blindingly stupid; b) malignantly lazy; or c) merely a liar.
Because, as you note Tim, it's not like this stuff can't be researched with a few taps of the keyboard and clicks of the mouse.
This isn't even a "he-said-he-meant" kind of analysis. She's saying he never said anything on the subject.
In other news, Maureen Dowd issued a self-correction.
Posted by: Steve in Houston at April 14, 2004 at 05:13 AMAnd where the hell are your editors?
You mean you didn't see them at lunch?
/Lunch Boy
Posted by: Tongue Boy at April 14, 2004 at 06:58 AMFrom http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm --
"In his testimony, Mr. Wolfowitz ticked off several reasons why he believed a much smaller coalition peacekeeping force than General Shinseki envisioned would be sufficient to police and rebuild postwar Iraq. He said there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq, as there was in Bosnia or Kosovo. He said Iraqi civilians would welcome an American-led liberation force that 'stayed as long as necessary but left as soon as possible,' but would oppose a long-term occupation force. And he said that nations that oppose war with Iraq would likely sign up to help rebuild it. 'I would expect that even countries like France will have a strong interest in assisting Iraq in reconstruction,' Mr. Wolfowitz said. He added that many Iraqi expatriates would likely return home to help."
The Bush team clearly thought they'd need far fewer troops to secure post-war Iraq. And they were completely blindsided by the hostility between Shi'ites and Sunnis. It never occurred to them that Shi'ites might have decades of scores to settle, and that Sunnis would fear that the Shi'ites would do unto them as Saddam did unto the Shi'ites. Even now, some Bushies are trying to pretend that al-Sadr's uprising is an Iranian plot rather than a native insurgency.
Bush et. al. clearly did not expect post-invasion Iraq to be as big of a mess as it presently is. It's silly to pretend otherwise.
For that matter, where is your memory, or your ethics? And where the hell are your editors?In the toilet, spinning down the drain.
Why do you ask?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut at April 14, 2004 at 09:00 AMBush et. al. clearly did not expect post-invasion Iraq to be as big of a mess as it presently is.Peter, they also didn't expect the Democrats and the American media to do and say everything possible to potray freeing Iraq from a murdering tyrant as a failure. Guess they were wrong on that one, too.
But America's enemies (Iran, North Korea, Hamas, Hizbollah, Al Queda, et al.) have noticed, and have taken the slanted reporting and the verbal attacks and the implication (or outright declaration) that things will be different under a Democrat to heart, and have been emboldened to call on/send their trained thugs to kill as many Americans as possible in Iraq.
And if they manage to drive us out of Iraq, they'll then send their thugs to kill as many Americans as possible here.
The Dem-o-Rats (may they rot in hell, with the exception of Zell Miller and Ed Koch) must be so proud.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut at April 14, 2004 at 09:11 AMeditors?! We don't need no steenking editors!
Posted by: mungo kingston at April 14, 2004 at 09:34 AMSnowed under by the unprecedented Webdiary workload, the SMH editors have had to abandon normal editing for triage. They won't be able even to look at Margo's stuff until they've worked through Robert Bosler's mixed-metaphor backlog-- sometime in late 2005. They're trying to find some way to get UN support for their efforts.
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek at April 14, 2004 at 10:49 AMTim, while on corrections, any joy on the leaking refugee boat, the Tampa?
Posted by: slatts at April 14, 2004 at 12:22 PMWhy are we surprised, this is typical tripe served up by Margit.
What I want to know is how she is classified as the SMH's political editor, that to me suggests a writer giving balanced commentary on the nations political events.
Margit is a paid propagandist for the Labor party. How anyone would let her rant and rave against the government day in and day out and define it as political commentary defies belief but it may explain the declining readership and relevance of the SMH.
Posted by: Nemesis at April 14, 2004 at 02:10 PM"Margit is a paid propagandist for the Labor party."
I dont even think the Labor party would really want her. She's sort of like the idiot loser you have to get a lift to a party with when you forgot to arrange a ride.
Posted by: max power at April 14, 2004 at 08:53 PMThis ongoing obsession with Margot is very telling. Look, she's got that gig, not you. Her. Not you. Just give up already.
Posted by: Miranda Divide at April 14, 2004 at 10:34 PMPeter Caress, what Wolfowitz said about a historical lack of ethnic strife between Sunni and Shia in Iraq is essentailly accurate (the Baath murderers excepted) and nothing that is happening in the current unrest indicates otherwise.
I suggest you read news reports more carefully, since Sadr's rebelllion is against the coalition forces and if the press is to be believed at all, Sunni and Shia opponents of the occupation are co-operating at least to the extent of co-ordinating the timing of their efforts to produce unrest on as wide a scale as possible.
It's silly to pretend otherwise.
Posted by: Dave F at April 14, 2004 at 10:35 PM"This ongoing obsession with Margot is very telling. Look, she's got that gig, not you. Her. Not you. Just give up already."
Poor little Miranda/Merv..whoever you are,
This ongoing obsession with Tim is very telling. Look, he's got a massive national and international readership, not you. Him. Not you. Just give up already.
Margo's articles contain very few grammar errors or misspellings. (I can't be completely sure as Australian is "different".) The sentences are usually understandable and the writing isn't horrible. The layout is rarely incoherent.
What more can one expect from editors?
Margo's articles contain very few grammar errors or misspellings. (I can't be completely sure as Australian is "different".) The sentences are usually understandable and the writing isn't horrible. The layout is rarely incoherent.
What more can one expect from editors?