Marian Wilkinson muddies Bush's war on terrorism

Gerard Jackson

Monday 4 October 2004

Marian Wilkinson is another appalling example of what passes for a journalist in these ideologically benighted times. Employed by Fairfax Press the Bush-hating Little Miss Wilkinson can always be relied on to produce grossly misleading articles designed to misrepresent President Bush and smear his achievements in Iraq.

In Hostage crisis clouds Allawi's US trip (The Age, 25 September) Marian Wilkinson went straight for the jugular. She began her hit piece with "Militants opposed to the US-led occupation of Iraq have seized two more hostages…"

These are terrorists, not militants: blood-soaked murderers led by the sadistic Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi who was one of Hussein's allies. Readers need to take careful note of these facts and ask themselves why Wilkinson refused to A) identify these savages as terrorists, B) to point out that their leader lived in Iraq under Hussein's protection, C) that what this murderous scum really oppose and fear is not occupation per se but a democratic Iraq, and D) the ultimate intention of these brutes is to impose a vicious theocratic state that would sponsor international terrorism.

It is now a cardinal rule among leftist journalists that these psychotic killers be described as "militants" or even "resistance fighters". The reasoning behind this sickening hypocrisy was laid out by the morally repulsive Molly Ivins who wrote: "Defining 'terrorist' or any 'other' as an absolute, irrational evil gives us a spurious and intoxicating sense of self-righteousness.

Apparently, Ivins had nothing to say about the 35 Iraqi children who were recently massacred by these terrorists. Perhaps she didn't want to be judgemental by calling them evil.

Reading Ivins' disgusting piece once again got me thinking about the fact that leftists like Marian Wilkinson never refer to the liberation of Iraq — it's always the occupation. Perhaps in their fetid minds occupation equals the Nazi occupation of France which in turn equals the French resistance.

(This ruse of using the word resistance to describe terrorists has become so successful that even many in favour of the liberation have fallen into the trap of calling these butchers the "resistance").

Another rule of leftwing journalism is that the public's attention is never to be drawn to Al-Zarqawi's close connection with Hussein. After all, it is the left's dishonest contention that Hussein had no links to terrorist groups, especially al Qaeda.

Although in the fifth paragraph of her story Wilkinson called Zarqawi a terrorist it has to be born in mind that it's a bit difficult call this beast anything else once you mention his name. Nevertheless, this seems to be about as far as she is prepared to go.

Little Miss Marian Wilkinson has made it clear she has no intention of breaking any of the rules, isn't that so, dear?

Wilkinson said that Gen. Abizaid had said that more troops were needed. What the General actually said is: "I think we will need more troops than we currently have to secure the elections process in Iraq that will probably take place in the end of January." Additional troops might be needed to secure the elections. Not quite the same thing as saying that more troops are needed to defeat the terrorists.

As usual, it's what these lefty journalists leave out that tends to be revealing, particularly about themselves. Wilkinson correctly reports that Dr Allawi blamed "the media for its negative coverage of Iraq." What she neglected to point out is that Gen. Abizaid is in full agreement with Dr Allawi.

This is what he had to say on 26 September on Meet the Press: "There's more people that are coming forward to fight for the future of Iraq than are fighting against it. So the constant drumbeat in Washington of a war that is being lost, that can't be won . . . So is this fight in the Middle East worth fighting? And the answer is, Absolutely." He was making a direct reference to the mainstream (meaning the Democrats') media.

Marian Wilkinson and her supporters can argue that my reference is not fair because General Abizaid made his statements after Wilkinson sent in her copy. But my point is that though the General has made his views clear for sometime the mainstream journalists have insisted on only quoting that which they think will serve their Bush-hating agenda.

Like the vast majority of lefties Wilkinson thinks the rest of us are truly stupid. She proved this when she took Iraq War casualty figures — she chose to ignore Saddam's body count — from Antiwar.com. Now this site is about as anti-American as they come, which is why she promoted it.

There you have it, Miss Wilkinson, Mr Raimondo reckons the Jews, not Arab terrorists, are responsible for 9/11. On another occasion he said: "It is a high price to pay for 'victory' — so high that patriots might almost be forgiven if they pine for defeat." Like you, Marian Wilkinson, Raimondo also wishes for an American defeat in Iraq.

Raimondo's ideas are not really surprising when one considers that he believes "the wrong side won the war in the Pacific." Perhaps Wilkinson also agrees with Raimondo's view that "the idea that America is, in any sense, a civilized country is easily dispelled."

Going through my Wilkinson file I found an article (Bob Burton, Journalism's new standard-bearers, The Australian 19-25 July 2001) that revealed that she, along with a number of other Australian journalists, is a member of the extreme leftwing ICIJ (International Consortium of Investigative Journalists).

The ICIJ is the offspring of the Centre for Investigative Reporting (CIR) which in turn was founded by the notorious Institute for Policy Studies, a Marxist organisation which acted as a front for the KGB during the Cold War. For some strange reason all of these facts managed to escape Burton's attention. So much for investigative journalism.

Burton's article bragged that the CIR "has been exposing political scandals for 24 years. One project exposed the overseas dumping of pesticides manufactured by US companies. The resulting book, The Circle of Poison, by David Weir and Mark Schapiro, sparked congressional and UN debates…"

It's a pity that Burton didn't care to mention the authors' links to the America-hating IPS, along with the fact that the book is nothing but a vicious concoction of leftwing lies written by a pair of America-hating political bigots.

So what makes our Miss Wilkinson the thing she is? What made her promote an anti-Semite? What made her link up with an IPS front?

I don't pretend to know what motivates this woman. Whatever it is, I believe it to be truly nasty.

The Circle of Poison: another vicious example of green propaganda.

John Kerry and his anti-American IPS playmates

Institute for Policy Studies targets President Bush and Cheney

The following articles reveal Wilkinson's style of journalism.

Even in death journalists still smear President Reagan

An SMH Reporter does hit job on Condi Rice

An SMH journalist tries to skewer Bush on incomes and inequality

SMH covers up Bush successes in Iraq

Australian reporter whitewashes pro-Saddam lefties

SMH reporter accuses Bush administration of censoring and controlling US media

Gerard Jackson is Brookes' economics editor