World Opinion Roundup

In his weekly discussion, washingtonpost.com staff writer Jefferson Morley conducts a freewheeling tour of the best of Internet news sites from Afghanistan to Beijing to Mexico City to Paris to Zimbabwe.

Jefferson Morley was online Tuesday, June 28, at 1 p.m. ET to discuss the war in Iraq and Bush's upcoming speech.

Read this week's World Opinion Roundup: Iraq Realities Force Bush to Respond.

A transcript follows.

Roundup brings the diversity of the global online media to your screen, presenting today's news and views from journalists, pundits and commentators from every continent. We'll talk about America in the eyes of the world, compare journalistic practices, analyze politics and perspectives, examine the nature of news and debate styles of journalism.

____________________

Jefferson Morley: Hello, hello.

We've got a lot to talk about today with Glenn Frankel's fine summation of the Downing Street Memo(os) in the Post today and President Bush's speech on Iraq tonight.

If you would like to get the World Opinion Roundup via email, just send a message to jeff.morley@wpni.com and put "subscribe" in the subject line. Your address will not be shared with any other party.

_______________________

Ellicott City, Md.: What is world opinion on the latest Pakistanis freed from Gitmo saying the Koran was desecrated? The U.S. line is that it is in the Al Qaeda manual to say this, but these guys were found innocent of wrongdoing, so why would they have read the manual?

Jefferson Morley: Since that news story just broke today, there hasn't been much opinion.

In my experience, most of the world does not share the American insistence on instant and unequivocal opinionizing about breaking news.

_______________________

Juneau, Alaska: With the unwillingness of Congress to pursue the Gitmo, extra-judicial rendition, DSM and similar issues, do you see the foreign press and courts as being the main source of more details about our government's activities? Also do you have some sense of irony that we are learning about much of these activities from foreign press/courts?

What's the Italian press reaction to the abduction story?

Jefferson Morley: I think the foreign press has become an essential to anyone who wants to be reasonably well informed about U.S. foreign policy. It is ironic that overseas reader may be better informed about our actions than we are. For a democracy, it is a disturbing sign and the U.S. press needs to take it as a wake up call.

_______________________

Los Angeles, Calif.: Thank you for taking questions. Only lately have I been hearing of allegations that U.S. and British forces were conducting a covert bombing campaign in Iraq well before the official start of the war. If this is true, I can't believe the public would not have been aware of this--was Arab media covering this? Surely, Iraq would have complained about it. And is this story going to get any traction in U.S. MSM?

Jefferson Morley: Michael Smith, The Times of London reporter who broke the Downing Street Memo story, has taken the lead in reporting this story too. His contention is that the war on Iraq effectively began in mid 2002 with bombing raids in the "no fly" zone which were intended to pave the way for the ground invasion that followed.

No, the Arab media was not paying attention. The Iraqi media controlled by Saddam's sons was full of fascistic propagandistic drivel and was barely worth reading.

Yes, I think the story is getting traction. The DSM story is not a "smoking gun." It is the tip of the emerging history of how the United States really went to war. It is an alternative to the officially sanctioned history which holds that the administration feared Iraq's WMD and various intelligence agencies provided an erroneous information that Iraq had WMD. This was never a terribly persuasive narrative but it was sanctioned by various Washington institutions.

The DSM story has caught on because it provides a documented alternative account that sounds more credible on key points.

_______________________

Anonymous: Good insight today, for me. Amy Goodman at Democracy Now! contests that we are a shielded people. That is, we see no real images from the war. We don't see pictures of our dead, or the dead Iraqi people. We don't really even see pictures of the physical destruction of towns. How can we get that out to people? I feel like we should be forced to see it. The administration wants us to see pictures of the mass graves, but not the dead soldiers. Why? I think someone in the U.S. press needs to step up and put these images out there. Do you think that would give us more insight as to the world's perception of us?

Jefferson Morley: I think more photos of the war would bring home the reality and force a more honest debate about the lousy choices we face there.

But its tough because of people's very legitimate feelings about the graphic imagery. I think the independent press has to lead the way in finding a way to responsibly present the reality of war.

_______________________

Greenville, S.C.: Re: Ellicot City. The former Gitmo prisoners were not innocent. They were released despite being avowed enemies of the United States but who pledged not to mess with Pakistan. Ex-Detainees Allege Koran Was Abused. If you read the article they went to Afghanistan to fight with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. In the full AP story, edited out by The Post, points out that at least one of the "innocents" wants to fight in a jihad again. If we are to criticize the Bush administration it should be for letting combatants go before their sponsoring organization has been defeated and surrendered unconditionally.

Jefferson Morley: Your position is certainly consistent Greenville.

The question is, if both the United States and the Pakistani governments felt that the release of these men posed no danger, then on what basis can we say that the DO pose a danger? That the Bush administration is soft on terrorists?

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: Today's Post article about the Downing Street Memos raises but does not address at least two of the memos' assertions (Bush had decided to go to war but continued to tell the Nation he was still trying to avoid war; and that the U.N. diplomacy initiative was a charade not intended to avoid war). This article today seems in line with The Post's adamant position not to investigate the domestic implications of the Memos not matter what. In your estimation will The Post ever investigate implications of the Memos about the President's possible duplicity, or will it at most continue to focus the story, like today's article does, on "British doubts" or on anything else except what the President of the United States may have done to mislead the American people into war? Old news or new news, there is no statute of limitations on reporting presidential deceptions that lead to war and American deaths.

Jefferson Morley: Well, there's no satisfying some people, including you, I guess.

The complaint for a while was that the Post wasn't covering the story. Then we had a good story by Walter Pincus on p. 13 and the complaint was that it wasn't on the front page. Now we have a front page story and the complaint is that doesn't cover every implication in a series of British memos.

Well, no it doesn't. But it sketches the outlines of the counterhistory of how America went to war as documented by the British side. It doesn't deal with the "domestic implications" of the memos because that is not the central thrust of the new evidence in the memos. Those implications deserve investigation but the larger story has to be told first.

Today's story in the Post--and its placement--are an important service. I was critical of my colleagues at the Post for being slow to get on the story but I also said that the real question was not that we were slow out of the blocks but could we get to the front of the pack? Glenn Frankel's story, I am happy to say, gets us back in the running.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Two questions: How many British troops have died in Iraq? It seems like the targets are American convoys and troops, yet I never hear about casualties from British or coalition troops. It seems like British troops patrol safer areas and I wonder if that was part of the agreement between Bush and Blair?

The article in today's Post pointed out that the British backed the Americans to keep alive the trans-Atlantic friendship. So if the Americans want regime change in Iran, the British would have to go along with/that too, correct?

Jefferson Morley: As of the end of May 88 British soldiers had been killed in Iraq. As the British are responsible for Basra and the southern part of Iraq, they are in a less conflictive area. American soldiers have the much tougher assignment of the Sunni triangle. Yes, that was part of Bush and Blair's agreement.

Right now, there is some distance between British and U.S. policy toward Iran. The Bush administration favors "regime change" but lacks the tools--military and diplomatic--to achieve it. The British still believe that a denuclearized Iran could have a place in the international community.

_______________________

San Antonio, Tex.: Why is the corporate culture of the London Sunday Times such that the British newspaper continues to scoop American media?

Since the second link to the Azzaman newspaper doesn't work (much like the link to Andrew Bacevich's op-ed today doesn't work correctly and links to an op-ed about the House bill to prevent desecration of the American flag), can you please detail for us what types of corruption within the Iraqi government or by the U.S. occupying force are being alleged?

Also since British envoy Sir Jeremy Greenstock didn't stay in Baghdad for more than six months, leaving at the end of March 2004, how much control/input do the British have in managing Iraq and the flow of rebuilding contracts, or about the Iraqi provisional government (INA vs. INC)?

Jefferson Morley: Good question. In the journalism culture, I think there is too much deference to the news as defined by White House, executive branch agencies and the Congress in a time of one party government. British journalists are less dependent on U.S. government sources and so have a more detached view of what's really going on.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: I really don't know enough of the details of the people being held at Gitmo to have an informed opinion about whether it is necessary to hold them. To be supportive requires that we trust the government that they are doing the right thing. It would help if our government could say something more than that these are bad people that hate us? One thing I am uncomfortable about is when the supporters of Gitmo use the analogy that we kept German POW's until the end of WWII and that these POW/detainees will be kept for similar duration. What does that mean in the context of the 'war on terror?' What event will signal the end of this war? And, even if such an event could be defined, if these guys are as bad and extreme as being described, should they ever be let go?

Jefferson Morley: You ask some good questions and the lack of transparency around the Gitmo process makes them hard to answer. There are people who say that some detainees will be held for the rest of their (and our) lives. Certainly, if they are convicted they should be held for the rest of their lives but we really don't know what the custodians of this (il)legal system intend. Similarly, it is hard to know what event would signal the end of the war on terrorism. It won't be the death or capture of Osama bin Laden who, after all, is a non-factor when it comes to Iraqi-based terrorism.

_______________________

Brandywine, Md.: Since the none-sense that led to the Iraq war, and then the media's babying of the Bush administration in fear of being called anti-American, or do not support the troops, it has been very hard for me to believe what comes out of the American media. I have become so skeptical that I have to make sure that if I read or hear a story on the news, it has been corroborated overseas as well.

Why has the American media stopped asking the hard questions when it came to contradictory statements, lies, misinformation, lies, etc. that came out of the White House. Are you guys afraid that you will be shut out of the inner circle of receiving news if you question?

I honestly believe that there is no longer any fair and balanced coverage in our media anymore. I would like to get that feeling that when I watch the news or read the news, that I am not being lied to in some way.

Jefferson Morley: I sense your impatience and share it to some extent. But I'm also a defender of journalists and The Post.

Remember that the media is not a political party. A lot of your complaints are really complaints about the lack or the weakness of a political opposition in Washington. During the Vietnam era, Sen. William Fulbright held hearings about Vietnam and grilled witnesses and educated the public about the realities of policymaking.

We don't have that kind of debate going on in Washington today. To blame the media solely for this paucity of debate is understandable but unfair.

_______________________

Rolla, Mo.: To date, you have been the only reporter/chat host willing to pursue this issue vigorously. Last week, Dana Priest, lead intelligence/national security reporter hosted a one hour plus chat without answering a single DSM question, very curious. This coming after the condescending critique by Dana Milbank of Rep. Conyers' meeting/hearing. Then, bloggers start threatening boycotts, protests of The Post, and voila, we have Howard Kurtz discussing it yesterday and page one coverage today.

I think the foreign press recognized early on:

Old news = bad intel

New news = (maybe) fixed/conjured intel

Jefferson Morley: Thanks for your comment.

Please understand that the Post is not a monolithic place.

Different people have different takes on the news. I haven't talked to Dana Priest about the DSM. She's a great reporter and I don't understand her lack of interest but we will talk about it the next time we meet.

That said, bloggers and boycotts didn't get me and Walter Pincus and Glenn Frankel and Howie Kurtz to write about the DSM story. They helped keep the discussion alive but the new facts are what generated our coverage.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Jeff,

Do you expect the President to identify IRAQ with 9/11, as did the Secretary of Defense? Why isn't it important to note that Iraq had no known relationship with 9/11? It is all a lie to keep folks afraid...and in line behind the chicken hawks who started this war.

Jefferson Morley: I think the president will link the war in Iraq to 9/11 because the two are connected in his mind.

It is important to note that Iraq had no connection to the 9/11 attacks.

It is also important to note that President Bush's position has evolved. He implies there is a connection--"We went to war because we were attacked--but does not assert one. And this connection, it seems to me, is intellectually legitimate. The reality of 9/11 meant that an outlaw regime like Iraq had to be viewed in a different way. The president doesn't always dwell on nuances but his argument shouldn't be caricatured either.

_______________________

Freeport, N.Y.: Thank you for offering this forum. Re your comment "It is ironic that overseas reader may be better informed about our actions than we are. For a democracy, it is a disturbing sign and the U.S. press needs to take it as a wake up call" it isn't just the U.S. press that needs a wake up call, it's the American people. It is difficult to fault U.S. MSM entirely when our celebrity-addicted culture is more responsive to a story on the Michael Jackson trial vs. a story on whether or not we were misled into going to war against Iraq. The ratings driven MSM is simply giving people what they want. Europeans are far more inquisitive about politics than Americans, who just seem to take our freedoms for granted.

Jefferson Morley: Yes. I think many complaints about the dread MSM would be more appropriately directed at the political opposition and the general public.

_______________________

Burke, Va.: Have there been discussions about a way out of Iraq in the foreign press?

Also - how likely is it seen that the U.S. will attack Iran - it seems crazy to me, but then Iraq seemed crazy to me.

Jefferson Morley: The key word here is "timetable."

Opponents of the U.S. presence talk about a setting a "timetable" for the departure of U.S. and British troops (most of the other "coalition" partners have already left or scheduled their exit).

But beyond setting a date, there has been very little talk of how this might actually be accomplished. One Egyptian daily has talked about "internationalizing" the military presence in the country. This is an interesting possibility but I don't yet see a lot of interest in explaining who might actually do it.

The possibility of a U.S. attack on Iran is very real. The administration has repeated stated that an Iran with nuclear weapons is unacceptable. Iran has been equally forthright in saying that it has the right to develop nuclear energy. The gap between those two positions was probably widened by the Iranian election results.

_______________________

Minneapolis, Minn.: On Iran's "election-" assuming the results of the Iranian elections are valid and the former mayor of Tehran is President (there is no reason to believe otherwise I think), would this not signify the possibility of the E.U. and the U.S., and possibly even China and Russia, coming together on a more grand scale diplomatically? It would seem to me that, with the elections done and the political landscape set, now would be the time for European leaders and the Bush administration to really engage Tehran with a unified message. thoughts?

Jefferson Morley: I don't think Iran's election results necessarily unify the interests of outside powers. China still has no interest in facilitating projections of American power. Russia still has an interest in helping Iran develop its nuclear industry. The Europeans and the Americans have had a temporarily unified policy since the Bush administration decided to let the Europeans take the lead in exploring the possibility of a negotiated deal. But time is running out.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: As an average American (whatever that means), I can't help but wonder why we as Americans should care about the Downing Street Memo. What is done, is done. It won't bring 1,700+ fallen soldiers back, recover the $200+ billion we have spent so far. Politicians lie all the time. Perhaps we have become too cynical to really care whether President Bush planned the attack or not. My impression is that many Americans do not care what others in this world think of the U.S. in the first place. If anything, this memo will re-enforce the notion that the U.S. is despised, thus, feeling more apathy towards world opinion.

Jefferson Morley: Perhaps "we" have become too cynical? Do you include yourself in that judgment? If the Iraq war was based on a false premise, then what do we as a nation do about that? If the insurgency lasts 12 years as Defense Secretary Rumsfeld says is possible, then we might have 20,000 dead soldiers in a decade time. Will the the results be worth the sacrifice? That's the question we face. You too.

_______________________

Greenville, S.C.: The release means that the Pakistanis needed to get at least some of their nationals out of Gitmo for their public's consumption. The United States decided that even if these were bad guys they would be held in Pakistan so a deal was cut. My point primarily is that the image from the left that Gitmo is a "black hole" containing oppressed innocents is distorted. Knowing and reporting that deals like this are done helps put the "desecration" and abuse allegations in context, and it shows that the Bush administration has not set up a mindless system to arrest the innocent. It also helps to know what the price and benefit of a solid relationship with the not too admirable government in Pakistan means.

Jefferson Morley: Your realism about the Gitmo releases is refreshing. But is your point that the Bush administration has let dangerous men go free for the sake of bolstering public relations for Pakistan's authoritarian regime? I think I might be less cynical about the Bush administration than you are.

_______________________

Can I Follow up?: Re: graphic imagery and people's feelings about them...

First, I'm not suggesting you force people do look, but at least give them the option. Second-the graphic horror of 9/11 did not stop the media/press from displaying those images over and over. Why not now?

Jefferson Morley: Fair points.

Here's another comment on the same subject

_______________________

Alexandria, Va. : I have mixed feelings on graphic images coming from the war. I have a fairly good idea what's going on and I don't need pictures to help illustrate it. Still, I won't watch gory movies so maybe I am a wimp. The thing that keeps swirling around in the back of my head is a discussion that a friend of mine and I had just after 9/11. She was overseas and said that the press coverage there did not dub or censor the thumps that people kept hearing in the background prior to the towers collapsing. Those thumps were people landing after jumping from one of the towers. You know, I really don't need to hear those sounds to know something incredibly tragic just happened.

Jefferson Morley: Too true.

My point is that a editors who don't take reader's sensibilities into account--who would publish graphic war photos regardless--isn't being responsible.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: I feel that economic development is a huge factor in explaining why the Bush administration is so content to remain in Iraq unilaterally regardless of the hardships being faced by our Armed Forces. Because of this, we should appease our own economic interests while asking the global community for Armed Forces help.

Is there any chance the Bush administration with take a multilateral approach to peace-keeping in Iraq?

Jefferson Morley: There is not much chance that the Bush administration will take a multilateral approach to peacekeeping. For one thing, there are no other nations that are interested in helping, at least not now.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Re: "...He implies there is a connection--"We went to war because we were attacked--but does not assert one. And this connection, it seems to me, is intellectually legitimate..."

Considering that a number of people in the U.S. believe that Iraq was involved with 9/11, do you really think it is right for Bush or others in his administration to use statements like that?

Jefferson Morley: I didn't say it was right. I said it was defensible.

The press needs to hold the president accountable and get him to clarify the meaning and the basis of his statement.

_______________________

Ellicott City, Md.: Remember that the media is not a political party. A lot of your complaints are really complaints about the lack or the weakness of a political opposition in Washington. During the Vietnam era, Sen. William Fulbright held hearings about Vietnam and grilled witnesses and educated the public about the realities of policymaking.

We don't have that kind of debate going on in Washington today. To blame the media solely for this paucity of debate is understandable but unfair.

So, What exactly was The Post's response to the Conyers hearing?

Jefferson Morley: The Post's response to the Conyers' hearing was an opinion column by White House correspondent Dana Milbank. I share the Post ombudsmen's view that this was poor coverage of an event of considerable reader interest.

_______________________

Escanaba, Mich.: Good afternoon.

Regarding your reader's comments about the media broadcasting graphic images of war...I think they're being hypocritical.

They had NO problem broadcasting graphic images of tsunami victims day after day. I think their decision not to broadcast graphic images of war is purely political. If people actually saw that war was much more than just pretty lights, they would withdraw their support and that's what the media fears since the media seems to support politicians (of any stripe) that support the war...

Thank you for allowing my say...

Jefferson Morley: Thanks Escanaba.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: What do you think the Bush administration is doing, if anything, behind the scenes to achieve greater success in Iraq? Despite the sound bites Bush offers to the press, I am sure he is aware of the situation on the ground in Iraq and that eventually the war will damage his (and Republican) popularity.

Surely Bush isn't as oblivious as the Left (of which I am a part) thinks he is. What's the deal?

Jefferson Morley: Good question.

Chuck Hagel says the Bush administration is making it up as they go. I think there may be something to that. The behind the scenes negotiations with violent Sunni factions that have inflicted mass casualties on U.S. soldiers is one sign of an ad hoc approach. You would think that the administration would categorize such forces as "terrorists." If the administration is negotiating with terrorists, what is is seeking to achieve?

_______________________

Winnipeg, Canada: How much of effect, if any, do you attribute to American actions in Iraq on the results of the recent Iranian election of a hard-line conservative? Also, could identifying Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil" have helped to produce an attitude among Iranians that they needed to elect someone to "stand up" to America?

Jefferson Morley: I don't think so. The Iranian commentary suggests that Ahmadinejad won because of his appeal to lower-income Iranians around domestic issues of the economy and morality and not foreign policy issues.

Iranian public opinion around foreign policy issues does not neatly divide in ways that we might think. Moderates may be just as zealous as conservatives about asserting Iran's right to nuclear power. The vote for the conservative Ahmadinejad is seen by some as a vote against the mullah-dominated political establishment.

_______________________

Albany, N.Y.: I distinctly recall Rumsfeld saying, in 2003, that it may take as long as six months to get things straightened out in Iraq. Now he's saying we could be there 12 years.

I cannot think of a single prediction made by this administration regarding Iraq (or anything else) which was anywhere close to the actual outcome. Can you think of any?

Given this, I really can't see why anything Bush says would help. He no longer has any credibility at all.

Jefferson Morley: Sure, the administration said that Saddam Hussein would lose power and be put on trial. That happened and is happening.

Other than that, very little has turned out the way the Bush administration predicted.

_______________________

Brooklyn, N.Y.: Re: Robert Mugabe and Thabo Mbeki

Liberal American newspapers like The Washington Post and the NY Times rightly criticize the repressive and deadly tactics of Robert Mugabe. These newspapers also call on leaders like Thabo Mbeki to lead the way in appealing to Mugabe to be less of a dictator.

But what these newspapers (which are my favorite two in the country) don't do is explain in depth why Mbeki won't publicly rebuke Mugabe. I want to understand the mindset of a leader like Mbeki. It is not good enough for The Post and the NYT to simply say, "Mbeki is wrong." Mbeki's not an idiot, so why is he reluctant? Educate me!

Jefferson Morley: I think the American coverage has made clear that Mbeki doesn't want to criticize Mugabe because he doesn't want turn on a fellow revolutionary who ousted a racist, colonialist government, no matter how brutal and incompetent he may be.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: The Post's editorial board not only feels that The Post's coverage of the memo is excessive, but even doubts that it's newsworthy; that it provides no "new facts" to those available a number of years ago. What fact or other data point(s) do the Downing Street Memos provide, if any? Why are they newsworthy? In other words, some of us may agree that the story was wrongly handled by The Post's newsroom - it should never have made print in the first place as it's not newsworthy.

Jefferson Morley: The Downing Street Memo(s) have lots of new information in them, chief among them:

That the chief of British intelligence came away from a meeting with U.S. officials in July 2002 convinced that the Americans were seeking to "fix the facts and the intelligence" around a policy of going to war against Iraq.

These meetings and the British account of them was not known before the Times of London story.

You can say, I suppose, that these aren't significant facts. But you cannot plausibly say that they are not facts or that they aren't new facts.

Otherwise, the word "fact" has no coherent meaning.

The Post newsroom editors sensibly avoided taking the overly rhetorical stance of the editorial page that this new fact wasn't a new fact.

Glenn Frankel's A1 story today presents a lot of other new facts.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Re: Follow-up to Bush's behind the scenes Iraq diplomacy

Mr. Morley, you wrote "Sen. Chuck Hagel says the Bush administration is making it up as they go. I think there may be something to that."

This is precisely the views held by the American Left that I am convinced cannot be true. There's no way that men as intelligent as President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld can be that short-sighted. No one who rose to power as president of the U.S. AND got re-elected could do so with that kind of naivete.

Jefferson Morley: I would like to share your view. But Mr. Hagel, a conservative Republican from Nebraska who hardly qualifies as a member of the American Left, thinks they are that naive. That deserves to be taken seriously.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: "Other than that, very little has turned out the way the Bush administration predicted."

I must say, it is refreshing to see a journalist willing to wear his political ideology so forthrightly on his sleeve. Do you wish more journalists were as forthcoming?

Jefferson Morley: Well, I like to be refreshing but I don't think its a matter of ideology. The Bush administration's record is there for all to see. It is a matter of fact.

_______________________

Jefferson Morley: Our time is up. In fact, we've gone on for much longer than the alloted hour.

Thanks for all the questions.

See you next week.

_______________________

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.