SATURDAY NIGHT/SUNDAY MORNING
MINDFOOD
March 23, 2003
We Are Terrorists
"Now," says William Rivers Pitt, "I am the terrorist." See Truthout.com. "Baghdad is a city of 5 million people, half of whom are under the age of fifteen, most of whom are too poor to flee. Now, a great many of those people are dead, burned in their homes and on their streets ... On September 11th, I sat in numb horror as the images of carnage unfolded before me on the television. On that day, I was the victim of terrorism, along with every other American. Today, I sit in numbed horror as more carnage unfolds. Hundreds of massive missiles have rained down on a city far away, killing indiscriminately among the young, the infirm, the old and the innocent. My government did this. My nation did this. My leaders did this. Today, I am the terrorist. So are you." The worst attacks on Americans so far seem to be nothing to do with Iraqis. Now the US has become such a violent supermonster that its worst enemy, perhaps its only enemy is itself. The helicopter crash that killed 12 had nothing to do with any Iraqi. Now this grenade attack in Kuwait seems to be not from an Iraqi, but from an American. The US Army spokesman explained that the motive was "most likely was resentment." See Yahoo for the story. The father of a marine who was killed in a helicopter crash vented his anger at Bush in an interview with the local TV station. He held up a picture of his son and said, "I want President Bush to get a good look at this, really good look here. This is the only son I had, only son." Then he broke up and walked away. The marine leaves a wife and a young son. See WBALchannel.com or the New York Times. Breslin as usual tells it like it is. This is not a war, it's an exhibition. "Take it and gag on it, for this is a total character collapse of a country that was supposed to be so far above this loathsome act. You become the thing you hate. And Friday, we did. We became the Germany of 1939." See Newsday. The New York Times, ever morally ambiguous, intellectually confused. Reporting on the destruction of Baghdad, the Times reporter John F. Burns, says, "The American war on Saddam Hussein exploded tonight in a ferocious display of precision bombing and cruise missile strikes that blasted the heart of the Iraqi ruler's power with a spectacular opening bulls-eye on his most forbidding palace and continued with at least 100 more devastating volleys in the first two hours." Notice how he sticks to the "war on Saddam Hussein" angle, ignoring the mass murder of civilians and the destruction of a city. He uses words like "precision" to describe the massive destruction of almost everything. God knows what he means. And he can't restrain his admiration when he talks about a "spectacular bulls eye," on the "forbidding palace." He saves his negative comments for the target. The palace that is being destroyed was "forbidding." Sounds like it deserved to be destroyed. He even goes so far as to use the word, "ferocious" but never "barbaric" and never alludes to the mass murder. Then in paragraph three he talks about a "10-minute volley of almost biblical power." What is he talking about "biblical power"? Is this guy for real? Is he trying to somehow bring the power of God into this description of a savage attack on a population. Is this Jehovah we are reporting on now, John? I am really ill. Journalists who are not in bed with -- excuse me, I think "imbedded" is the term they are using -- may just be killed. No way the Pentagon is going to let reporting of what is really going on there get the population all riled up and create an antiwar sentiment. If you aren't with us, your against us. Four independent journalists have been killed in the last few days. See .