Two articles concerning the most recent bomb-blast in Iraq -- both coincidentally distributed by the Associated Press -- illustrate the widening gulf in the embattled nation.
In the first, we are treated to the Bush Administration's reaction.
U.S. and Iraqi authorities were quick to point out that the victims of the Baghdad bombing were mostly Iraqi civilians rather than American occupation troops.
"Once again, it is innocent Iraqis who have been murdered by these terrorists in a senseless act of violence," Bremer said in a statement. "Our determination to work for a stable and democratic future for this country is undiminished."
It's convenient to point fingers, but those "quick to point out" are, apparently, blissfully oblivious to the Geneva Conventions, which mandate the occupying powers to provide for the safety and security of the civilian population in an occupied country. U.S. and Iraqi authorities, in other words, were "quick to point out" the derelection of their own obligations.
Further hanging itself with its own rope, the "provisional authority", this time in the form of Col. Ralph Baker
said the fact that the bomber was unable to penetrate the security cordon "speaks highly of the level of security that we maintain" but that "anamolies like car bombs" are likely to continue.
Translation: to the extent that terrorist attacks upon civilians and civilian institutions (as opposed to attacks against military targets which, however tragic for the soldiers who are simply pawns in the Administration's "Great Game", are entirely legal) only kill and maim niggers (20 people killed and 60 wounded in this case, a handful of Americans among the wounded) it "speaks highly of the level of security we maintain".
This is perhaps the Administration's most telling quote to-date regarding the nature of the occupation.
We are told that, "No group claimed responsibility, but anti-U.S. insurgents that the military links to Saddam supporters have targeted Americans and Iraqis who cooperate with the U.S.-led coalition in previous bombings."
In the second piece, we hear the opinions of those who cooperate with the U.S.-led "coalition", those that the "U.S. and Iraqi authorities were quick to point out" are the victims of the terrorist attacks. They're not happy with the suicide bombers either -- they feel that they're being wrongly labeled as collaborators:
• "When they strike, only Iraqis die. Why do you think we work with them? There are no other jobs."
• "What kind of holy war is this? Is it holy war to kill innocent Iraqi people? They should kill Americans. These workers have harmed no one. They were waiting in line to go and make a living. We are living in such a bad time that we can only depend on God."
• "It's all the Americans' fault. They should take care of this country. ... They should help us as they promised they would."
• "Please tell me exactly what the Americans are doing here. They ruined everything, and now they are just standing here, unable to do anything. All these civilians are dying, and young people have no support -- that's why they work at these jobs. If the Americans can't do anything, let them leave this country."
Maybe there's a helpful truism in here: you know your imperial occupation has gone to shit when even the "collaborators" want you dead and/or gone.