Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: LifeTrek
Here's some more from Toby Harnden's original article from The Spectator (free registration req'd for full access):
...

But what do the abominations perpetrated at Abu Ghraib really tell us about Iraq and the faltering American-led project to plant the seeds of democracy here? And why are so many people who were against the war, or are incapable of viewing any American action as anything other than evil or stupid, greeting each fresh revelation with an almost indecent glee?

The other day, while taking a break by the Al-Hamra Hotel pool, fringed with the usual cast of tattooed defence contractors, I was accosted by an American magazine journalist of serious accomplishment and impeccable liberal credentials.

She had been disturbed by my argument that Iraqis were better off than they had been under Saddam and I was now — there was no choice about this — going to have to justify my bizarre and dangerous views. I’ll spare you most of the details because you know the script — no WMD, no ‘imminent threat’ (though the point was to deal with Saddam before such a threat could emerge), a diversion from the hunt for bin Laden, enraging the Arab world. Etcetera.

But then she came to the point. Not only had she ‘known’ the Iraq war would fail but she considered it essential that it did so because this would ensure that the ‘evil’ George W. Bush would no longer be running her country. Her editors back on the East Coast were giggling, she said, over what a disaster Iraq had turned out to be. ‘Lots of us talk about how awful it would be if this worked out.’ Startled by her candour, I asked whether thousands more dead Iraqis would be a good thing.

She nodded and mumbled something about Bush needing to go. By this logic, I ventured, another September 11 on, say, September 11 would be perfect for pushing up John Kerry’s poll numbers. ‘Well, that’s different — that would be Americans,’ she said, haltingly. ‘I guess I’m a bit of an isolationist.’ That’s one way of putting it.

...

Iraq is so dangerous now that hardly any television journalists venture out of the Al-Hamra or the Palestine Hotel, where lager and post-barbecue spliffs help relieve the tension of being in a war zone. There are insurance problems and the brooding, ex-SAS bodyguards forbid any excursions. The dirty little secret is that the endless ‘stand-ups’ you see on your screens are based on no reporting at all. Those of us who work for newspapers grow our Shia beards or, in the case of the women and the occasional John Simpson wannabe, wear hijabs and trust in fate, our relative anonymity and the skill and bravery of Abu Salah and his kind to get us to Najaf and Fallujah without being summarily executed. But what we can accomplish is limited.

Into this journalistic vacuum it is all too easy for the prejudices of the press corps — tourists looking through telescopes — to flow more freely than ever and the resulting reports to be distorted and incomplete. After the horrifying videotape slaughter of Nick Berg, there will be even greater reluctance among Westerners to leave their fortified hotels and compounds.

Whatever we thought about the war before it was launched, it is imperative that the forces of Arab nationalism and Islamism that now threaten to destroy Iraq are defeated. If America fails in Iraq it will be all of us in the West, not just Bush, who will suffer. But those who would be most in peril, of course, would be the Iraqis, who deserve better than to have their country treated as an electoral playground by the American Left or Right. To wish otherwise is as sick as the grins on the faces of the Abu Ghraib torturers.

137 posted on 05/15/2004 11:37:54 AM PDT by jennyp (http://crevo.bestmessageboard.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: jennyp
This is abuse of their power and I am very sick of it!

Falling ratings on CNN and drop in profits isn't stopping them.

I know the constitution and I don't believe for a minute the Founding Fathers ever considered this type of widespread treasonous abuse of their rights. I do however think they had enough foresight to know that Americans as a whole wouldn't put up with it. Which makes me hopeful about the upcoming election.

However I am very concerned - this is a HUGE hurdle to overcome - this constant hammering.
DKK
138 posted on 05/15/2004 11:48:24 AM PDT by LifeTrek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies ]

To: jennyp

Thanks for posting that second part! Very instructive. Sounds like the VN reporters who "reported" from the hotel-top bars.


151 posted on 05/15/2004 12:57:09 PM PDT by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies ]

To: jennyp; wardaddy; Eaker; river rat
"Leftists themselves are too cowardly to actually carry out massive terrorist" attacks.

Not so. The parcel or daypack bomb left in an office or train is the ultimate coward's weapon. Plenty of leftists would volunteer to leave one at a "right wingers' picnic" and gloat over the slaughter they caused.

My prediction: in CW2 (or DW1) the right will use rifles against specific targets, the left will use bombs against groups they hate, including women and children.

153 posted on 05/15/2004 1:00:24 PM PDT by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies ]

To: jennyp

"Those of us who work for newspapers grow our Shia beards or, in the case of the women and the occasional John Simpson wannabe, wear hijabs and trust in fate"

As I surmised previously, this would explain Nick Berg's beard and maybe even his personal effects.


166 posted on 05/15/2004 3:05:56 PM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson