13.8.05

Aaronovitch archive.

This is a complete list of my Aaro related musings to date.

10.4.04
Something that's puzzled me is the support for the Iraq war from people normally considered to be "of the left". David Aaronovitch who writes for "The Guardian" and "The Observer" is a good example. He claims that this position is based on his meetings with Iraqi students whilst at University, and the stories they told him about repression in Iraq. Grow up David.

22.4.04
I just came across an article from December 2003 where David Aaronovitch (one of the Iraq war supporters from the left of the political spectrum - see Saturday April 10th post)says, "If Iraq becomes a democracy, the consequences for the rest of the Middle East would be profound. If it becomes a basket case, then people like me will owe the world an apology. David"I wonder what his timescale is?

26.4.04
Killing two birds with one stone, I've decided to post the content of the e-mails I send out to the press etc. That means I don't have to do the same rant twice. Here is one to "The Guardian".

"Dear Sir,I was wondering what David Aaronovitch thinks of the 50 British ex-diplomats' (all served in the Middle East) letter to Tony Blair, a letter, which expressed robustly, their views on the current situations in Iraq and Israel? I'm sure he's read about it.
Yours sincerely,

27.4.04
I thought to keep the blog complete I would post my previous letters to the press.

Here is a letter I sent to David Aaronovitch. No reply as yet."Dear David,I have written a few letters to "The Guardian" about your reporting of the Iraq issue. None have been published, so you probably haven't seen them. I would really like to understand your position on the situation, so wonder whether a direct approach might achieve more. I was very much against the invasion of Iraq and was surprised at your strong support for it. Up until the invasion, your worldview (liberal, Internationalist, secular - civilized) coincided with mine completely. The stance you adopt in your piece in "The Observer" today is very much at odds, not only with Charles Kennedy and Henry Porter, but also it seems to me, with much informed opinion worldwide. You are not alone in this; Christopher Hitchens and Anne MacElvoy, both of whom I would normally feel close to politically, also beat the drum for Bush's policies. I am quite prepared to accept that my understanding of the Middle East is ill informed; I just need to understand what it is that you know or perceive that I don't.I hope you can find the time to reply, if you can't, no problem yours sincerely,

Dear Sir,I was wondering when could we expect David Aaronovitch's analysis of Richard Clarke's testimony?
Yours sincerely,

28/3/04
"Dear Sir,David Aaronovitch's article in today's "Observer" (not entitled "was I right on Iraq?" as were his previous two articles) had me scratching my head. I had to re-read it twice to establish exactly what he was trying to say. He castigates Malcolm Rifkind (he's on your side Dave) for his, admittedly, opportunistic and disingenuous attack on Blair. He ridicules those who would have liked Blair to use his "influence" to change Dubya's stance on Iraq and Palestine, and he scoffs at the idea of Blair building a relationship with John Kerry (who he describes as "not even formally the Democratic Presidential nominee" - rearrange these words Dave "hostage" and "fortune"). Then we are told about how Blair is using his "influence" to steer Dubya towards involving the UN. Dave, if the USA has to keep on paying for this "nation building" in Iraq, it will bankrupt them. If they can find a way to get someone else to pay to clean up the unholy mess they've created, they aren't going to need much persuasion. Dave then addresses the June "handover of sovereignty". What does "sovereignty" mean? According to Sun Yu and Niccolo Machiavelli the defining element of a "state" is the ability to defend the integrity of that state. Which army and police force will the nascent New Iraq be relying on? Will it be their own security apparatus? No, of course it won’t such a thing doesn't exist. The ultimate authority (the threat of violence) will still be the US military. Dave then goes on to say that of course Bush and Sharon are wrong about Yassim (no-one thought he was Santa Claus Dave, don't mistake pragmatism for naivety) and the West Bank, and finishes back with Rifkind again for not doing anything about Srebrenica. Dave, what is your point exactly?Yours faithfully,

18/4/04
"Dear Sir, I found the article about British Muslims in Today's "Observer" very interesting, and somewhat disturbing. Osama Saeed of the Muslim Association of Britain is quoted as saying that some British Muslims "carry the burden of struggles elsewhere - Palestine, Iraq and Kashmir". As we all know, Kashmir and Palestine have been at the heart of immense suffering (including 9/11) for 50 years now. So the effect of the Iraq fiasco is to that Muslims have another reason to resent Europe and America. What does David Aaronovitch think? Yours sincerely,4/4/04"Dear Sir,Have the apologists for Aznar's frankly bizarre and politically cynical attempts to deny the obvious, and blame ETA for Thursday's outrage (Melanie Phillips, Tony Blair, David Aaronovitch - sorry Dave but I find your feeble attempts at justifying your ludicrous position on the "war" increasingly comical) considered that the time wasted trying pathetically to implicate the Basques, may have hindered not only the investigation into that atrocity, but also any attempt to use information on the real suspects in preventing further carnage - possibly in London.
Yours sincerely,

16/3/04"Dear Sir,The prompt dispatch of the Aznar government (Aznar's father was apparently a close friend of Franco - some pedigree!) is a refreshing sign of where ultimate political power lies. This should give Mr Blair pause for thought. However he should be more concerned that his only European ally in the absurd Iraq venture is Silvio Berlusconni. What does David Aaronovitch think?
Yours sincerely,

15/3/04
"Dear Sir,I see that a number of Oil Companies have pulled out of a conference on reconstructing the Iraqi oil industry, which is supposed to happen later this month in Basra. Understandably they will not to expose their employees to potential events like the Fallujah atrocity of last week. What does David Aaronovitch think?
Yours sincerely,

Monday, May 03, 2004
Following Dave's ridiculous article in today's Observer, I felt I had to write."Dear Sir,The article in today's Observer "The horrors we don't see" by David Aaronovitch continues his increasingly petulant defence of his stance on the Iraq war. Apparently we should balance our feelings of revulsion about the possible mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners by US and British forces by remembering that some Arab governments routinely torture suspects. He further enlightens us by asserting that had we not invaded Iraq, worse things would be being done at Abu Ghraib by Saddam. This may or may not be the case. However, even if it is, the outrages would not be being committed by my government, ostensibly in my name. That is my problem David.Kind regards,”


Wednesday, May 05, 2004
The Aaronovitch/Clwyd/etc. axis is arguing that the abuses happening at Abu Ghraib are better than things were there under Saddam. Difference is, Saddam was an Iraqi so it was an internal problem. now it has become very external.

Monday, May 10, 2004
David Aaronovitch's weekly column in "The Observer" yesterday was all about "Friends", the TV show. You'd have thought that David would have more pressing matters to write about.

"Dear Sir,How refreshing to see a column (David Aaronovitch "The Observer" Sunday May 9th) where the writer is able to avoid the situation in Iraq, and cheer us all up with a witty and highly relevant article about the last episode of "Friends" the feelgood American TV sitcom. There is too much bad news these days! Well done David.Yours faithfully,


David Aaronovitch has coined an expression for supporters of the war from the left of the political spectrum such as him and presumably Anne Clwyd and Tony Blair (left?), "liberal interventionists". OK but what did "liberals" think they would gain from an alliance with the "most right wing US administrations for generations", run by the religious right and by neo-con ideologues?


Tuesday, May 11, 2004
Today’s letter to "The Guardian"
Dear Sir,Can David Aaronovitch explain what exactly the "liberal interventionists" as he describes himself, (and presumably Anne Clwyd and Anne McElvoy) expected from an alliance with a US administration widely held to be the most right wing of recent years, which administration seems to be run by the religious right and neo-con ideologues? Did he not foresee problems from such an alliance? More to the point, should not Tony Blair have had the political nous to realise that his blind support for Bush would result in a situation where we become tarred with the same brush as the US by world, and more importantly, Middle Eastern opinion?Yours faithfully,


Wednesday, May 12, 2004
I wonder about Aaronovitch and the other "liberal interventionists". Did they succumb to that American style "if we say it is so, then it will be so"? Nothing else can explain their inability to foresee the mess they have helped to create.


Thursday, May 27, 2004
Another of my letters to The Guardian. David Aaronovitch actually sent me a reply to this. Which was nice."Dear Sir,I notice that life in Iraq appears to be worsening daily. Is it fair then, that David Aaronovitch only has one column per week in which to enlighten us as to the reality of the situation? Do we have to wait until next week to get the real story behind Chalabi? After his masterful dissection of Susan Sontag's article, I'm not sure that I can wait that long.Yours faithfully,

David's reply was:"I don't, Vinnie, you can read me in the Observer as well. There, I betthat made your day.Best wishes,David A"I then wrote back saying this."Thanks for replying David. I do read you every week in "The Observer" butthought the point was better made by reference to your Guardian column only. What would make my day would be to understand how a highly educated, liberal, European journalist ends up siding with George W. Bush against Susan Sontag.Once again, thanks for taking the trouble to reply.Kind regards,


Tuesday, September 21, 2004
"One of the best-selling CDs in Baghdad's market shows an Egyptian accused of working for the Americans having his head sawn off in a scruffy backyard.The CD is professionally produced, using the latest technology. " The Guardian 21st September 2004."If Iraq becomes a democracy, the consequences for the rest of the Middle East would be profound. If it becomes a basket case, then people like me will owe the world an apology. " David Aaronovitch" December 20th 2003.Is it a basket case yet? "The BEST Selling CD". There is real hatred there.


6.8.05
ot seems likely that Shia extremists, who were aided by the police, killed the American journalist who was murdered last week. He was found with his hands tied with police issue plastic handcuffs, some believe his killers were the police themselves. His crime was to speak out about the growing power of hardline Shia Islamists in government. (note to Dubya: these aren't the same as the salafi jihadists we are fighting in the "war on terror". I know it's complicated George but keep with it.) I am reminded of David "Dave" Aaronovitch words of December 2003."If Iraq becomes a democracy, the consequences for the rest of the Middle East would be profound. If it becomes a basket case, then people like me will owe the world an apology. David"I would say that a US journalist being killed by the Shia (those were the "good guys" we went to liberate) whilst our war with the Sunnis becomes increasingly vicious could be seen as a basket case.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home