text: Voting at gunpoint – the jaw-dropping media bias on Crimea and Iraq: Guess which country held its 'first free election in decades' and which held a 'bogus' and 'illegal' referendum under military occupation. | wirwollenkeinenkrieg
  Voting at gunpoint – the jaw-dropping media bias on Crimea and Iraq: Guess which country held its 'first free election in decades' and which held a 'bogus' and 'illegal' referendum under military occupation.
  Voting at gunpoint – the jaw-dropping media bias on Crimea and Iraq
  David Edwards 30 March 2014. Posted in News
  Guess which country held its 'first free election in decades' and which held a 'bogus' and 'illegal' referendum under military occupation.
  Comment? Or propaganda? Cartoon typical of the media coverage of the Crimea referendum
  Prior to the 16 March 2014 referendum in Crimea, the BBC website reported: 'Crimeans will vote on whether they want their autonomous republic to break away from Ukraine and join Russia.'
  The title of the news report indicated the focus: 'Is Crimea's referendum legal?' The answer: 'Ukraine and the West have dismissed the referendum as illegal and one that will be held at gunpoint, but Russia supports it.'
  Legality was not an issue in BBC coverage of the January 2005 election held in Iraq under US-UK occupation. This was accepted on the main BBC evening news as 'the first democratic election in fifty years'. (BBC1, News at Ten, January 10, 2005)
  And the Iraq election was not merely 'held at gunpoint'; it was held in the middle of a ferocious war to crush resistance to occupation. Just weeks before the vote, American and British forces had subjected Iraq's third city, Fallujah, to all-out assault leaving 70 per cent of houses and shops destroyed, and at least 800 civilians dead. (www.irinnews.org, November 30, 2004)
  'It was completely devastated, destruction everywhere. It looked like a city of ghosts. Falluja used to be a modern city; now there was nothing. We spent the day going through the rubble that had been the centre of the city; I didn't see a single building that was functioning.' (The Guardian, January 11, 2005)
  The BBC made no mention of the argument that the deaths of 100,000 Iraqisas a result of the invasion over the previous two years made a nonsense of the claim that the election was free and fair.
  The US had in fact rigged the rules to ensure US-friendly Kurds had 27% of the seats in the national assembly, although they made up just 15% of the population. In a rare departure from mainstream propaganda, Naomi Kleincommented in the Guardian:
  'Skewing matters further, the US-authored interim constitution requires that all major decisions have the support of two-thirds or, in some cases, three-quarters of the assembly – an absurdly high figure that gives the Kurds the power to block any call for foreign troop withdrawal, any attempt to roll back Bremer's economic orders, and any part of a new constitution.' (The Guardian, March 14, 2005)
  Washington-funded organisations with long records of machinating for US interests abroad were deeply involved in the election. The National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI) were part of a consortium to which the US government had provided over $80 million for political and electoral activities in Iraq. NDI was headed by former Secretary of State Madeleine 'We think the price is worth it' Albright, while IRI was chaired by Republican Senator John McCain. (www.newstandardnews.net, December 13, 2004)
  And yet a Guardian editorial lauded the vote as 'the country's first free election in decades', a 'landmark election' that would be 'in a way, a grand moment'. (The Guardian, January 7, 2005 and January 29, 2005)
  'It is in the interests of all – Iraqis, the Arabs, the US and Britain – that something workable be salvaged from the wreckage as Iraq stands poised between imperfect democracy and worsening strife.' (Leader, January 29, 2005)
  In 2004, the Daily Telegraph looked forward to 'the first democratic elections' in Iraq. (Daily Telegraph, December 6, 2004) The Sunday Telegraph wrote of 'the first democratic elections there for more than 50 years'. (Sunday Telegraph, November 28, 2004)
  Of Crimea, the Telegraph commented earlier this month: 'Russia's campaign to gain control of Crimea will culminate on Sunday with an illegal referendum conducted at gunpoint.'
  What kind of nutbar working within the UK press establishment would conceiveof proposing sanctions against Britain and America, or discuss 'the overriding importance of making Mr Bush and Mr Blair pay for Iraq'?
  The Independent quoted David Cameron: 'It is completely unacceptable for Russia to use force to change borders based on a sham referendum held at the barrel of a Russian gun.'
  In 2004, the Independent's reporters told readers that 'democratic and free elections can bring a hope of peace' in Iraq. (The Independent, December 28, 2004)
  'The referendum was absurdly hasty. It was conducted with Russian special forces barricading Ukrainian soldiers into their bases and regular Russian troops massing on their western border.' (The Times, March 17, 2014)
  In 2004, the same newspaper commented of Iraq: 'The terrorists will do all they can to destroy democratic elections.' (Sunday Times, October 10, 2004)
  The Financial Times observed: 'Iraq's first democratic election is unfolding under the shadow of a deadly insurgency.' (Financial Times, December 16, 2004)
  'It is Britain and America that want to give the besieged people of Iraq their true freedom, to hold free elections and elect a democratic government.' (The Express, October 6, 2004)
  The Sunday Express wrote of 'Iraq's first free election in decades.' (Sunday Express, December 19, 2004)
  'The people of Crimea have a right to self-determination. But there was nothing normal about the referendum when you consider Russia had sent armed troops into the region, which remains, for now, part of Ukraine.' (The Mirror, March 18, 2014)
  In 2005, the Mirror reported that Iraq was approaching 'its first democratic elections on January 30'. (The Mirror, January 11, 2005)
  Again, an unthinkable comparison for 'our' actions, and White added: 'A Crimean referendum staged under what amounts to Russian military occupation – navy and soldiers – and boycotted by the minority Ukrainians and (12%) Tatars (expelled and butchered by Stalin) is pretty bogus.'
  In November 2004, as Iraq's bloodbath overflowed, as Fallujah burned, Whitepainted a happier picture:
  White noted: 'Successful elections would quieten some of the international criticism of US involvement in Iraq.' There was 'US involvement in Iraq', much as there was German 'involvement' in France in 1940 and Iraqi 'involvement' in Kuwait in 1990.
  'Thanks for the note and points which I will ponder. I try to be aware of the double standards issue and think I acknowledged as much in the piece in question.'
  This was a surprisingly forthright and friendly reply from White. He of course completely failed to answer the question. But then, the propaganda system runs on unexplained silences the way an engine runs on oil.
  http://www.stopwar.org.uk/news/voting-at-gunpoint-the-jaw-dropping-media-bias-on-crimea-and-iraq#.UzkkQah_uww