Posted on 09/28/2001 5:13:58 PM PDT by aaaDOC
6/12 - Brendan: Scheer propaganda (permanent link)
[Email this to a friend]
Robert Scheer, a syndicated columnist, has written an an outrageous piece of propaganda about the Bush administration that needs to be debunked. Originally published on May 22, it was picked up on The Nation's website last week.
In the article, Scheer condemns Bush for a "recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan", which he alleges is intended to reward the theocratic regime for its recent crackdown on opium production. He calls the US the "main sponsor" of the Taliban, extensively condemns the very real repression and human rights violations of the regime and then blames the US for supporting the perpetrators of those acts.
Reading this without any context, you might be outraged. That's because you have no way of knowing that it's a wild factual distortion, as Bryan Carnell of LeftWatch.com points out. The US did not give a "gift" to the Taliban. In fact, it was widely reported by CNN and others that the aid consists of $28 million in surplus wheat, $5 million in food commodities and $10 million in "livelihood and food security" programs intended to help alleviate a looming famine. Moreover, as Secretary of State Colin Powell said in his announcement of the aid, it will be distributed through international agencies of the United Nations and nongovernmental organizations, not the Taliban. Powell specifically added that the aid "bypasses the Taliban, who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it."
The aid does indirectly help the Taliban by helping prevent mass famine. And it does mitigate the effects of the ban on poppy cultivation and thereby discourage farmers from resuming cultivation. Can we say that the drug war had no relationship to this decision? Absolutely not. Powell acknowledged in his statement the administration's desire to help farmers hurt by the ban on poppy cultivation and its support for the ban. But it is unfair to omit details of the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, in which more than one million people are estimated to be at risk, and to dismiss any humanitarian motivation. Remember, Afghanistan is under UN sanctions imposed at the request of the US under President Clinton that are supported by Bush. Sheer is just being blatantly deceptive.
In addition to his factual distortions, Scheer uses a practiced and rephrensible technique - comparing American conservatives with extremists in other countries. Early this year, in fact, NAACP Chairman Julian Bond said the Bush admnistration "selected nominees from the Taliban wing of American politics". Scheer follows Bond's lead, implying that proponents of the drug war and the Taliban are comparably extreme. First, he writes: "[t]he war on drugs has become our own fanatics' obsession and easily trumps all other concerns." Then: "[t]he Taliban may suddenly be the dream regime of our own drug-war zealots, but in the end this alliance will prove a costly failure."
All in all, Scheer should be ashamed of himself.
Reminds me of people saying they like Clinton because of what he has done for the country but cannot name one single thing that has been beneficial.
So9
As well as tin hats from other points on the compass:
"A gift of $43 million from the Bush Administration was the wink and nod to support the WTC attacks -- The US government knew the attacks were coming and deliberately chose not to stop them -- The now certain economic collapse was going to happen anyway."
"...the left isn't much concerned with the truth, and eager to follow a "leader" blindly." ???
You have go to be kidding.
Bill Clinton was/is their leader.
Did Bill Clinton ever lie to anyone?
I mean, words have meanings. Clearly "alone" and "is" are among the most confusing words in the English language.
;-)
Second, I've not argued that this was a cash gift to the Taliban. Far from it, I've argued all along that this was chiefly aid of foodstuffs through various NGOs. My point has been that aid such as this can be and is converted. I've made that "allegation" based on my personal experience (I work for an NGO).
The State Department announcement indicates that the "majority" of the aid was foodstuffs. I have no reason to doubt that. However, because the aid was not exclusively foodstuff (and remember, even the State Department doesn't make that claim) and there are no Americans in Afghanistan to verify either the final destination or form of the aid I don't believe the claim that this didn't somehow aid the Taliban (any more than I believe that it was a "gift" to the Taliban).
I think further evidence for my "allegation" is the fact that among the first people/organizations that Bush froze the assets of were three NGOs. Now if these are the benevolent grain distributing organizations you claim they are, why are they among the first to have their assets seized? The answer of course is that Bush agrees with me.
I don't dispute for a minute that the NGOs are doing a lot of foodstuff distribution but, trust me on this, that ain't all they're up to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.