Bush wants Saddam to hang, but we must resist (Euro-gag)

The Guardian (U.K.) ^ | 12/20/03 | Max Hastings

[claudiustg]

All these wood heads come out to speak up for Saddam. Who spoke for his victims? Who is speaking for his victims now?

[Shermy]

Blah, blah, more cultural-imperialistic Euro-lefty identity crisis.

[SW6906]

You can just see him with his nose in the air, looking down through his bifocals at the end of his nose as he says all of this crap......

[SandRat]

Saving that one for "Jacko" are you?

[Travis McGee]

GMTA!

[CaptRon]

If there's one thing that has always enraged me about the left it's that they really know what someone whom they have never met is really thinking. I guess it's because they are so much smarter than the rest of us slobs.

[section9]

No, in point of fact, Max Hastings is not a wanker, and that's what makes this such a painful read.

Hastings was one of Britain's premier war correspondents and landed with the troops during the Falkland Islands war. His strategic understanding of this war is colored by his hatred of Bush and the "neo-cons" (shorthand for "Jews"-notice he doesn't hesitate to give a gratuitous slam at Sharon, the bete-noir of choice for Jew-baiters everywhere). He will never have anything good to say about our struggle as long as Bush is president, though the survival of our civilization be at stake.

Saddam will be killed because his killing is just. Like most Europeans these days, Hastings stops short of the necessity to inflict on Saddam the maximum penalty for his crimes. In short, like most Europeans, Hastings has lost his nerve.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Tempest]

Wow British liberals are just as annoying and ignorant as American ones!

[wimpycat]

This guy has so many "issues", I don't know where to begin. I can only borrow a phrase from my father-in-law the shrink and say he's, "Loco. Loco perdido."

[Paul Atreides]

Can we hang this wanker, too?

[vbmoneyspender]

absolutely incredible.

[Husker24]

, I believed that the Americans would achieve nothing until they committed soldiers who liked and respected the place and the people, rather than loathing and despising them. So it seems again in Iraq.

I would find it hard to like and respect people that were shooting at me.

[TheDon]

It's so cute how these folks keep prattling on about Saddam's fate as if they have anything to do with it, and as if Saddam's fate isn't already determined.

[Grampa Dave]

Isn't it amazing how liberals around the world rally around despots and try to protect them from harm and shame. The will attack GW and Tony 24/7 for protecting the people they were sworn to protect.

There is a true mental illness that infects liberals around the world.

[Atchafalaya]

Yeah, "Soviet policy in Afganistan in the 70's appear dextrous"; give me an effing break! The Soviets tried to out brutalize the Afgani's and got their ass handed to them.

[risk]

The[y] will attack GW and Tony 24/7 for protecting the people they were sworn to protect.

Indeed. We learned about appeasement in 1940, but if we had rallied to stop Hitler in the Sudetenland, or if the world had stopped Japan's march into China, there would be a Max Hastings to question our illegitimate use of force. I'm sure he would have praised Neville Chamberlain and the Munich agreement!

For men like Hastings, our will to be strong as the best defense of freedom is the beginning of our downfall. How can he afford this luxury in the wake of the Cold War, and given the utter destruction of Europe during WWII? Why should the Anglosphere apologize for being an ultra superpower when it made choice after choice that led it to this destiny, each one predicated on the idea of the sacredness of individual freedom?

Hastings may have lost his nerve, but the rest of us are free, defiant, and appreciative of our leaders Blair and Bush, whose roles in defending western civilization are historic and temporary, whose tenure in office will come to an orderly end someday through free elections, and whose duty was committed in the name of their offices rather than for personal accomplishment. The next elected leaders will carry on their tasks because they will understand immediately why the mantle of responsibility rested so heavily on these shoulders.

We will elect leaders who will fight for our freedom and our prosperity because we ourselves are free. Hastings can come along for the ride, like so many before him.

[sargon]

Bush is a long-standing enthusiast for capital punishment, who believes there is nothing like a good hanging to purge the soul.

What socialist bombast!

[Democratshavenobrains]

Must be a British DUer, he has all the qualifications:
-hates Bush as a person
-compares Saddam to Jesus
-uses the word neocons

[tjwmason]

Must be a British DUer, he has all the qualifications:
-hates Bush as a person
-compares Saddam to Jesus
-uses the word neocons

For some reason which I doubt that I will ever understand, he is frequently referred to as being a right-winger (albeit centre-right) over here.

My main problem was that this was not an article, it was a set of random unconnected statements hung onto the Christmas tree of pseudo-reason regarding the capture and forthcoming trial of Saddam.

His opposition to President Bush wishing to have Saddam hanged is semi-valid. In that Saddam must be given a fair trial before sentence is passed, and that trial must include the possibility of his being aquited, however, given the evidence, it is fair to assume that the trial will convict. Thus to oppose Bush's desire to see Saddam hang, is merely to oppose judicial killing; Hastings dresses this up in pseudo-decency, but at no point states why he opposes the death penalty.

He states "Yet those of us who reject judicial killing can support no sentence other than life imprisonment." This a patently true, and utterly meaningless at the same time; essentially he is saying 'if your oppose the death penalty, then you oppose the death penalty' fine but WHY, and so what?

His main attack seems to be on Tony Blair (I usually relish such attacks as the Prime Minister is a loony-socialist, but on Iraq, he makes sense so I will defend him). He claims that as the P.M. opposes the death penalty (which it is fair to assume that he does), he should oppose the death penalty being imposed by an Iraqi court, nay more so by a SOVEREIGN Iraqi court. The leftists told us to keep out of Iraq because it was a sovereign country, but now claim that we should interfere once it becomes a sovereign country once again, and reconciles itself with its past, by bringing its former leader to justice. P.M. Blair is merely saying that Iraq (once sovereign again) should try Saddam; it has been made clear that due to the official opposition of the British government to capital punishment, there can be no official British presence as a part of the court; that is taking a principled stance on the death penalty, shouting from the sidelines will do nothing, and would merely be counter-productive. To seek actively to impose a prison sentence would be outright imperialism.

Hastings has every right to oppose capital punishment (though he advances no argument to support his proposition) if he wishes. But his attack on Tony Blair is meaningless, and is held up merely by the animus which the Guardian's readership has for America and for President Bush especially. This is an emotive piece which does not deserve any respect; though that is the style which Hastings has been developing for some time.

[risk]

Is there any chance that Tony Blair is still maturing? He's only 48 you know. Ronald Reagan was 41 when he became a Republican, as far as I can calculate. Without knowing much about British politics, I have high hopes for Tony's future. He's got to be asking himself why so many liberals are siding with Saddam, Osama, and Arafat right now.