Posted on 07/26/2003 4:01:08 PM PDT by Pokey78
There was something wonderfully strained about how various media organisations dealt last week with the news of the deaths of Qusay and Uday Hussein. From the BBC to Reuters, there was palpable if sternly repressed dismay. One of the first headlines that the Baathist Broadcasting Corporation put out on the news was: US celebrates good Iraq news. The quotation marks around good did not refer to any quote or source in the text. They were pure editorialising on behalf of the BBC, whose campaign to undermine the liberation of Iraq is now in full swing. It was not clear to the BBC that the deaths of two of the most sadistic mass murderers on the planet was in any way a good thing, especially if they redounded to the credit of Tony Blair or President George W Bush. And immediately, of course, pundits started to criticise the American action as extra-judicial, as a violation of the law against assassination, and so on. Their immediate impulse on hearing this terrific news was: how can we spin this against Blair and Bush? Commentators on the popular American left-wing website Democratic Underground were more explicit about how they felt: Doesnt a part of you wish that Queasy and Duh-day were alive? Ill admit theyre scum and rightfully so, but anything that lands even more humiliation on Ws grotesque shrivelled face is that much the better. Its sad, really, that as despicable as they are, Saddams family seems to be the lesser of two evils when you compare them to the wretched little bastard occupying the White House and destroying America in the process . . . To be fair, this guy was upbraided by other contributors to the site. But he wasnt alone. Here are two others: What I really hate about the way our government has been taken over is that Im at the point where I almost dont want anything good to happen in Iraq, I want them to screw up, I want them to fail. Another vented: Bush and his ilk are far, far worse than Saddam and his two degenerate brats, and thats saying a lot. Yes, it is saying a lot, but the anti-war hysteria that has crept over the British and American press in the past few weeks has tended to obscure the reality of what is actually going on in Iraq. The New York Times, for example, which has become far less tendentious since the exit of its discredited former executive editor, Howell Raines, still refers to the contract killings and Baathist remnants murders of small numbers of US soldiers as an uprising. It also refers to the American and British presence in Iraq as an occupation. You get the idea. Colonial powers opposed by restless population. Far more congenial to anti-war types than: liberators still opposed by remnants of totalitarian regime. But all the evidence in Iraq points to something else: a successful war followed by slow but measurable progress in putting back together a brutalised and fractured country. Think back for a moment to what we once feared might happen in the aftermath of a war to depose Saddam. Here are some of the predictions, cited last week by Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defence secretary: civil war; destroyed oil wells; environmental catastrophe; famine; a refugee crisis; and the possibility of cleaning up after chemical and biological attacks. None of this happened in large part because of the astonishingly innovative and swift war plan. The most staggering result is that Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis are still on board for a united, democratic country. But instead of reporting on this achievement the press, which in large part opposed the war in the first place, has done all it can to turn this success into a quagmire. Yes, there are obvious problems. The electricity grid has proven hard to get back and running again. The capitulation of the Baathist thugs in the war means that many dead-enders are still at large and doing all they can to inflict damage on American troops in order to weaken resolve in the US. We overestimated the need for troops and underestimated the need for trained policemen in the aftermath of conflict. We were too slow to recruit Iraqis for internal security forces . . . and so on. These are all mistakes. But they are forgivable and they are all remediable. Steps are certainly being taken to ensure that obvious problems are tackled and resolved. But nobody can or should deny that the lives of average Iraqis are now immensely better than they were under a vicious totalitarian state. I dont know about you, but with every new mass grave being discovered, with every gruesome torture chamber unearthed, with every childrens prison exposed, the more obvious it is to me that this war was not just morally defensible; it was morally essential. By and large, it seems, understandably skittish Iraqis agree. The most reliable poll carried out in Baghdad more troubled than regions to the Shiite south or Kurdish north found a steady majority of Iraqis want the allies to stay and view the future as more promising than the past. As to security, for all its problems, the current situation certainly compares favourably with, say, the chaos in liberated Germany after the second world war where military casualties mounted as diehard Nazis made their last stand. But somehow I dont remember the western media describing those isolated Nazi remnants as an uprising. But then, in those days, the western media werent quietly hoping for the allies to fail. Why, I keep asking myself? It is perfectly legitimate to question aggressively the fallible intelligence that was used in part to justify the war. But to use such an inquiry to undermine the attempt to rebuild Iraq is to compound forgivable government failure before the war with the desperate need for allied success after it. To replay the war debate now is a fatal distraction from the vital work at hand. Even if you disagreed with the war it is utterly unfair to the Iraqi people now to use their future and their lives as pawns in a domestic political squabble. Yet some would try to do exactly that. Their agenda needs to be resisted just as firmly as the cowardly attacks by Baathists in Iraq. For they serve the same purpose: the demise of democratic promise in Iraq and the collapse of the Wests long and difficult war against terror. We can afford neither. And it is past time petty politics ceased in the face of that reality.
Andrew Sullivan standing up for the troops, our war effort - freedom - in the The Sunday Times (U.K.). Both the BBC-brainwashed and the lonely Brit 'patriots' are in for a surprise.
Thank you, Andrew Sullivan for noticing the caliber of the individuals that make up the US military - and the Brit, Irish, Aussie forces, too.
Looking forward to learning about the Poles, Japanese, Romanians, and others brave enough to defy the bullying big-talkers who defended Saddam even knowing that he terrorized the Iraqi people.
...."there was never a doubt in mind that at the end of the day it would be exactly as our people said it would be: The regime would be gone, the Iraqi people would be free." "A low point in terms of doubting, no sir, I never had it." He added that on a particularly bad day he told his staff and the commanders: "Don't ever, ever second-guess what you are doing. You are doing a wonderful job. Get your heads up and it will turn out just fine." ~ Gen. Franks tells how Iraq war plan came together , June 19, 2003.
He's going to get hammered by the VLWC. I think we can take 'em. Hugs.
Oh, I may email Andrew myself. But his article is spot-on. He illustrates the inability of the Left to see a good thing, the death of the squalid Hussein pair, for what it is-a Very Good Thing.
But Sullivan doesn't have the guts to go to the core of the issue. The Left, both online and in the press, does this kind of thing not because it hates Uday and Qusay less, but because it hates George W. Bush more.
See, the core sickness of the Democratic Left is that it is animated by hate, the kind of hate DeLay focused on two days ago. It is a hatred that surpasses anything the Left might feel against either bin Laden or Hussein. This hatred manifests itself in various ways, on DU or Truthout, for instance, or in the printed screeds of the demented Maureen Dowd. Anger, malice, contempt, slight regard, paranoia: all are on display, and all are the same fruit from the poisoned tree. Hate.
Bin Laden and Hussein are abstractions to the Left. Bin Laden is some mythical figure sitting off in a cave somewhere dispatching dark emissaries to the four corners of the globe. The farther we get away from the attacks on the U.S., the more it recedes into memory, the greater the ability of the Left to rationalize inaction and blame the messenger, George W. Bush.
Hussein is a fallen fascist dictator who shook his fist at the Americans, thus earning the admiration of the Arab Street and the American Left. To the extent that he resisted American ambition, he was to be protected. It matters not that his people were butchered in their thousands: the left has always found a way to apologize for butchery when it suited their purposes. But it was not to be: George W. Bush was the Greater Threat. So, despite all the dead Iraqis, they choose to hate Bush, and not Saddam, Uday, or Qusay.
These are vile people, these Leftists. Sullivan has barely scratched the surface.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/951897/posts
post #88
I know we aren't supposed to get into FR-DU comments but this comment made over there takes the Cake.
They knew it was a fight they could not win, against odds they could not match, with a result that could only be death, and still they fought it. No matter how they lived, they died well. They have set a glorious example to the rest of their people.
How can People think like this?
I have the link if anyone wants it.
beaversmom speaking now--guess there wouldn't be enough space on this site to post and talk about every ignorant, anti-American, traitorous comment made at DU. Sure glad Andrew took the time to make it more pubically known though. Maybe some of the fence straddlers will finally decide which side they want to be on.
There was the FR hit piece from the San Francisco Chronicle a few months ago that featured DU. I think DU may even have had a hand in formning the article.
-PJ
Andrew Sullivan in the UK Sunday Times, defending the war effort - taking on the left - press and and DU.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.