I was not surprised to see ordinary Iraqis cheering Saddam’s capture and
firing rifles into the air. What has been surprising is the negative
media coverage and the shameless exploitation of the war for partisan political
purposes that I’ve seen since returning from Iraq in September.
It’s almost as if what we did over there never happened and doesn’t matter,”
one of my staff sergeants told me. “But what we did, and what the U.S.
military is still doing, does matter, as the Iraqis whom I was privileged
to know and befriend will tell you.
— Lance
Cpl. John R. Guardiano, a field radio operator with the U.S. Marine Corps’
Fourth Civil Affairs Group and a civilian defense editor of Rotor and Wing magazine, on how hard it would now be for the media to deny the troops’ accomplishments in Iraq.
Given
the December 14 historic capture of Saddam Hussein, Al Gore, Howard Dean
and other disgruntled Bush-hating Democrats have got to be kicking up a lot
of dirt – like angry little school boys – on their politically partisan playgrounds
right now.
Seeking to further politicize the war in Iraq – while showing substantial
favoritism toward their fellow spineless Democrats, the U.S. left-wing media’s
Baghdad Bobs also have been working overtime to spin news coverage of the
Hussein arrest – and throwing around endless conspiracy theories as they
become the willing mouthpieces of other degenerate Democrats; namely, Ted
Kennedy and Jim McDermott.
On his December 15 broadcast, Sean Hannity said the Democrats couldn’t celebrate
Hussein’s capture because their entire campaigns depend not only on economic
failure, but also on U.S. setbacks in Iraq. Staying true to form, the
lockstep leftist media have duplicitously downplayed the emerging successes
of the Iraqi war in a concerted effort to smear the Bush Administration for
cleaning up the very messes left by the political and moral corruption of
the Clinton Administration.
Feverishly re-scripting the Clinton legacy, these desperate Democrats and
their willing media allies have been trying to re-write the historic capture
by belittling its significance in this watershed moment in history.
At least the Bush Administration captured one mass-murdering terrorist.
That’s more than the Clinton Administration can claim, which took three passes
on capturing and arresting Osama bin Laden, especially when Clinton was too
embroiled in Monica-gate.
In effect, Hussein never feared the Clinton Administration because Clinton
was an enemy-appeaser, much like Howard Dean, John Kerry and the ultimate
military phony, Wesley Clark. If they were in charge, they would probably
drop a bomb, cut and run.
In fact, Clark cut and ran in Somalia, leaving behind 18 U.S. soldiers, who
were killed when their Blackhawk helicopters were shot down. In the
end, their bodies were dragged and paraded through the streets of Mogadishu.
Where was the disgraceful Clark, who claimed he never left one of his men
behind? In the Hollywood Left’s sanitized movie version, Bill Clinton
and Clark’s blood-guiltiness was conveniently omitted.
What’s more, where were Clark, Clinton and Gore when they knew about the one million Rwandans being slaughtered?
These same pitiful Democrats, who have been screaming for months about Hussein’s
whereabouts, are now resorting to re-vamping their discombobulated anti-war
talking points as a means of looking patriotic, while trying to snag anti-American
Left votes.
This is especially true of NATO-worshipper Wesley Clark, the anti-military
general – and the Clintons’ prized stalking horse – who continues to vacillate
on foreign policy and economic issues, while abusing his ego-stroking platform
to score political points – and concealing the important details about his
own questionable military record.
Not only do these nine U.N.-obsessed Democrats look like complete fools,
but their leftist media parrots also have exposed themselves as partisan
hacks that care nothing about honestly informing the American news consumer
concerning our national security.
Among the Democratic presidential candidates who’ll have to re-write their
anti-war talking points, besides Dean and Clark, are John Kerry and Dick
Gephardt.
“This president can’t find Saddam Hussein,” fumed the expletive-prone Kerry.
Gephardt blathered shortly before Hussein’s capture: “He can’t even find
Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein. They’ve vanished.”
The simple truth is the Far Left is angrier over the capture of Saddam Hussein
than they ever were over this monster’s mass murder of thousands. They
are also reluctant to find guilt with Saddam Hussein and his murderous thugs
who have physically, emotionally and psychologically scarred survivors of
their barbarism for life.
The reality is: If Dean, Clark (another recent expletive-prone candidate),
Kerry, Kucinich, Gephardt, Edwards, Sharpton and Braun were in charge, Saddam
Hussein would definitely still be in power. These spineless enemy-appeasers
hide behind the U.N. as a ruse to make it appear that they would do something
about terrorism, when, in fact, like Clinton, they wouldn’t lift a finger
to stop terrorism. Now, the leftist media are giving them free passes
for their political treachery.
Here’s just a sampling of the leftist media’s acerbic reactions, albeit denials,
of the capture of the former Butcher of Baghdad, as they belittle its historic
significance:
BOSTON GLOBE: U.S. “BROKE IN WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT”
The Boston Globe’s Derrick Z. Jackson, one of the most Far Left columnists
in the elite media, on December 17, wrote this pro-Saddam screed, claiming:
“The invasion was still a lie. The capture of Saddam Hussein changes
nothing about that. There were too many forked tongues in the road
to his lair. The way we removed the dictator, we became a global dictatorship,”
Jackson ranted.
“With no weapons, no ties, and no truth, the capture of Saddam was merely
the most massive and irresponsible police raid in modern times. We
broke in without a search warrant. Civilian deaths constituted justifiable
homicide.
“America was again above the law. We have taught the next generation
that many wrongs equal a right. In arrogance, we boasted, 'We got him!'
The shame is that we feel none for how we got him. The capture of this
dictator, driven by the poison of lies, turned America itself into a dictator.”
Since when is our U.S. military required to obtain a search warrant to flush
out one of the world’s most-wanted brutal despots in recent history?
These so-called journalists, like Jackson, prove once again that they are
nothing more than card-carrying members of the Blame-America-First crowd,
who continually shames and dishonors the profession.
But even Iraqi journalists have recognized the historic significance of the
capture, much to the chagrin of our U.S. media elites, reported WorldNet
Daily.com on December 14:
“Saddam, who admired Stalin and emulated Hitler, did not go down in a violent
blaze of glory. He didn’t fire the pistol he carried or even make a
fist. He cowered below the earth until our soldiers dragged him out.
Even as dismayed pundits struggled to find a dark lining in this enormous
silver cloud, the people of Iraq erupted in cheers. To the horror of
their European colleagues, Arab journalists could not stop shouting, “Death
to Saddam!” as the monitors in Baghdad showed a broken prisoner having his
scalp inspected for lice.”
Newmax.com recently said of Jackson’s anti-American tirade:
“The elitists of American journalism just can’t understand why Americans
despise them. But we’ll give Jackson the benefit of the doubt: Surely
his latest rant is a parody of a satire of a spoof of the addled brain of
a blame-America-first leftist pseudo-intellectual.”
Like Dean and his other Democratic presidential wannabes (again, with the
possible exception of Lieberman), if Jackson had his way, Saddam and his
two demon seeds would still be throwing blind-folded Iraqis off five-story
buildings; they’d still be murdering, torturing, raping, executing and grinding
up innocent people in shredders; and they’d still be filling the endless
mass graves our troops are discovering on a daily basis.
LOS ANGELES TIMES’ ROBERT SCHEER: BUSH WILL REGRET CAPTURE
Los Angeles Times’ columnist Robert Scheer, the Left Coast version of the New York Times’
Paul Krugman, blathered that it was the U.S. who had the burden of making
sure Saddam Hussein has a “fair” trial, calling Hussein “a high-level prisoner
of war:”
“The capture of Saddam Hussein is being treated as a celebratory occasion,
but it is one that the Bush administration might come to regret,” the Far
Left, Bush-hating columnist claimed on December 16.
“The onus is on the United States to accord this former ally and head of
state all the rights due a high-level prisoner of war, as established at
Nuremberg and The Hague…
“We have lost valuable time and resources in the struggle to quell al-Qaeda
and similar groups while creating a morass in Iraq. Hussein’s removal
was a politically motivated exploitation of our nation's anger and fear over
the 9/11 attacks."
While Scheer is busy blaming Bush for stopping a murderous tyrant, Clinton,
who never did anything to confront terrorism, is still walking the streets,
virtually innocuous to his dereliction of duty in thwarting the very terrorist
cells we are now facing.
TRUTHOUT.ORG PROPAGATES, DEFENDS SADDAM’S LIES
Speaking of anti-war rants, Truthout.org, an anti-American, anti-Semitic,
pro-Democrat Web site, has shown more loyalty to Saddam Hussein than they
have toward our U.S. troops, who are risking their lives to protect the very
freedoms they enjoy.
This Far Left cyber trash heap not only posts the anti-establishment rants of morally bankrupt New York Times
lefties Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd and Bob Herbert, it also features the
psychotic outbursts of Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd, the former domestic terrorist
who was once a high-ranking member of Ku Klux Klan. Yet, the pro-Democratic
media have never objectively reported on Byrd’s toxic invectives.
Truthout.org also seems to take a sadistic pleasure in posting U.S. casualties,
anti-Bush caricatures and graphic pictures of wounded Iraqis and funerals
of Islamic terrorists, in order to propagate their hatred toward the Bush
Administration’s war against terrorism.
Managing editor William Rivers Pitt, a Bush-hating leftist, claimed that
Saddam was never the problem and – like the rest of his leftist media buddies
– thinks the capture of the brutal despot has no significance to the war
on terrorism because allegedly “we got the wrong guy:”
“Hussein was never a threat to the United States,” Pitt claimed. “His
capture means nothing to the safety and security of the American people.
The money we spent to put the bag on him might have gone towards capturing
bin Laden, who is a threat, but that did not happen.”
But here again, Pitt’s buddy, Bill Clinton, had three opportunities to capture
and arrest bin Laden, but decided it wasn’t politically expedient to his
1996 re-election bid, never risking the possible political fallout.
As a result, bin Laden still remains at large – whom the Far Left never before
cared about capturing – with Clinton eventually opening the door to Sept.
11. And where were the leftist media then? They have never once
held Clinton responsible.
Also, does it really matter if Saddam was the first animal we trapped before
bin Laden, Mr. Pitt? If bin Laden were captured first, the Far Left
would be finding the worst in that as well. What does matter is we
have one of these most-wanted despots – and the Iraqis now know he’ll never
return to terrorize them again.
NEW YORK TIMES’ CHRIS HEDGES: IRAQIS DON’T WANT U.S. TROOPS
TomPaine.com, the government-subsidized, Bill Moyers-owned, Far Left Web site, recently interviewed New York Times
leftist staff writer Chris Hedges, who was booed off the stage at Rockford
(Ill.) College’s May commencement for his anti-war rant.
Responding to Steven Rosenfeld’s leading question about whether the media
coverage of the capture was “sensational or nationalistic,” Hedges stated:
“Well, the word that I would use is simplistic. In the sense that they,
by playing up the capture, give the illusion that somehow – if not all –
certainly a large part of our problems have been solved by taking in Saddam
Hussein.
“I don’t think the resistance movement in Iraq has very much to do with Saddam
Hussein at all. And I think it obscures the fundamental issue, which
is that Iraqis are chafing against U.S. occupation. Having spent a
lot of time in Iraq, I can tell you he was a deeply detested and feared figure.
The fact that he was removed doesn’t in any way mitigate the fact that most
Iraqis do not want to be occupied by U.S. troops.”
However, based on Lance Cpl. John R. Guardiano’s aforementioned account,
the Iraqi people clearly still want our U.S. troops to remain in their country
for the sake of their security and stability, which therefore nulls and voids
Hedges’ anti-war diatribes.
As Timeswatch.org noted when Hedges and Rosenfeld worried about Hussein justifiably
being called a “rat” and a “rodent” in the press:
“A murderous tyrant is captured, leading the people he repressed for a quarter-century
to celebrate. Meanwhile, two writers fret over the harm done by animal
clichés used to describe him. One is a left-wing activist [Rosenfeld],
the other a foreign affairs reporter [Hedges] for the country’s most influential
newspaper. The most depressing thing is, Timeswatch.org can’t tell
the difference [between who is the left-wing activist and who is the foreign
affairs reporter].”
THE NATION’S DAVID CORN: CAPTURE HAS NO DIRECT IMPACT
David Corn, staff writer for The Nation, a Far Left magazine, claimed
that Saddam’s capture wouldn’t have a direct impact on the insurgency, despite
the subsequent capture of nearly 80 of them, due to intel obtained in the
spider hole:
“The celebratory tone accompanying much of the media coverage of Hussein’s
apprehension, though, may be more triumphal than warranted. There was
no immediate indication Hussein’s arrest would have a direct impact on the
insurgency. The circumstances in which he was discovered did not suggest
he was playing a day-to-day leadership or coordinating role in the anti-America
insurgency.”
Corn, echoing the hollow assertions of Couric, disregards the fact that Clinton
was unwilling to “get” Hussein, when he “illegally” bombed Iraq in 1998 without
congressional or U.N. approval. Like the rest, Corn also failed to
note that Hussein’s capture yielded nearly 80 of these insurgents that were
directly targeting U.S. troops.
Corn, by the way, is also one of many liberal employees of Fox News – debunking
the notion that Fox News only hires conservatives; unlike CNN, which apparently
only hires liberals (with the exception of Tucker Carlson).
NBC’S KATIE COURIC DOWNPLAYS SADDAM CAPTURE
“Today” show host Katie Couric, who, at the height of the Iraq war in April,
wanted to know if Saddam “hopefully escaped to Syria,” argued on her December
15 show that his capture really didn’t matter at all.
Speaking with Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Couric blathered:
“It appears that Saddam Hussein was in no position to be calling the shots
or orchestrating the efforts against U.S. troops in Iraq. So, militarily,
how much of the enemy’s capabilities have really been degraded by this capture?”
Not allowing Lt. Gen. Sanchez to fully explain the strategic importance of
deposing Hussein, in terms even she could understand, Couric injected:
“Because this is more symbolic, General Sanchez, do you think? At the
same time, I believe it will be a concrete victory on the battlefield as
[the insurgents] begin to reassess what their future holds.”
But remaining unyielding to the reality that Saddam’s arrest provided one
of many breakthroughs in strengthening U.S. military efforts in Iraq, Couric
wondered if Saddam’s capture “may actually incite various members of the
insurgency” and “create an environment in which there is more violence against
U.S. troops.”
Despite crucial documents found in Saddam’s briefcase that led to the capture
of the nearly 80 former regime insurgents, while providing essential intel,
Couric, like Corn, remained unconvinced.
“60 MINUTES”’S SCOTT PELLEY FISHES FOR NEGATIVE RESPONSE
Reporting from Iraq, CBS News’ “60 Minutes II” co-host Scott Pelley interviewed
Col. James Hickey, who was among U.S. Army 4th Infantry Division soldiers
who captured Hussein. Col. Hickey immediately called Maj. Gen. Raymond
Odierno about the captured rat.
When Pelley asked Col. Hickey what his first reaction was when he captured
Hussein, Col. Hickey replied: “That’s great. I called Gen. Odierno
on my secure telephone from my vehicle and told him we captured Saddam Hussein.”
Appearing to be in a state of unbelief, Pelley immediately prodded Col. Hickey: “Oh, come on. Really?”
Apparently, Pelley is among the many journalists not particularly celebrating the news.
ABC’S BARBARA WALTERS CONDEMNS SADDAM’S EXECUTION
Media Research Center noted that ABC News’ Barbara Walters has come out against
executing Saddam Hussein, arguing on December 16’s “The View” that it would
evidently give the U.S. an opportunity to show the world our compassion for
mass murders:
“We condemn the suicide bombers, we condemn those who have no regard for
life, and Lord knows this man deserves, you know, the greatest punishment,
but I just sort of feel this would be a chance for us to show the regard
for life that this man didn't have.”
Of course, co-host Meredith Vieira, agreed with Walters.
NEWSWEEK’S JONATHAN ALTER: BUSH WORSE OFF AFTER CAPTURE
In the December 22 issue of Newsweek, Jonathan Alter genuflected:
“From here on, beating the ever-changing expectations spread gets tricky,
abroad and at home. Bush must now show rapid progress toward security
and democracy in Iraq, or end up worse off than he was before Saddam was
apprehended.”
But, on the contrary, what partisan Democrats and their media friends fear
the most is that Bush’s increasing successes in the war against terrorism
and the current economic boon will only further cement his likely re-election.
This is why the Democrats and their media partners in crime are distorting
the facts – for their own selfish political agendas.
After delivering a relatively fair account of the demonic despot’s capture, Newsweek’s Evan Thomas couldn’t resist waxing cynical of the Bush Administration’s resolve:
“The political value for George Bush will be measured by the minutes on the
evening news. The details of torture and oppression will be nightly
reminders of why Bush felt justified in invading Iraq. Saddam’s capture
sent the Democrats scrambling, warning that the celebrations were wonderful
but could be short-lived.”
Thomas, however, was right on one point: He and his left-wing media cohorts
have always “measured by the minutes on the evening news” the political value
of George W. Bush. The truth is, they are so blinded by their petty,
partisan hatred of Bush that they can’t see past it to objectively report
the actual news.
REUTERS REPORTER QUESTIONS “LIFE UNDER U.S. OCCUPATION”
Reuters Baghdad correspondent Joseph Logan was apprehensive about whether
our troops should stay in Iraq – and about whether they were even making
a difference:
“Joy at the capture of Saddam Hussein gave way to resentment toward Washington
Monday as Iraqis confronted afresh the bloodshed, shortages and soaring prices
of life under U.S. occupation.”
ABC’S CHARLES GIBSON: TRIAL COULD BE “EMBARRASSING FOR U.S.”
ABC’s “Good Morning America” co-host Charles Gibson, interviewing NYU constitutional
law professor Noah Feldman, worried about how a trial for Hussein could be
“embarrassing for the United States” because we allegedly “supported him
for so long.”
Echoing Gibson’s comment was ABC White House correspondent Terry Moran, who
recalled how “Secretary [Donald] Rumsfeld was over in Baghdad meeting with
Saddam Hussein years ago” and “there are allegations that the United States
provided weapons to Saddam Hussein’s regime during the Iran-Iraq war.
And all that could spill out in a big show trial.”
Nightline anchor Chris Bury repeated the boilerplate line on December 16:
“Saddam Hussein has not always been America’s enemy, and as Nightline correspondent
Deborah Amos reports, that might prove embarrassing in any trial.”
Again, no mention was given of Bill Clinton’s duplicity regarding Hussein’s capture.
ABC’S PETER JENNINGS CLAIMS IRAQIS UNHAPPY ABOUT CAPTURE
The Federalist gave last week’s “Non Compos Mentis” Award to Peter Jennings, who commented:
“[T]here’s not a good deal for Iraqis to be happy about at the moment.
Life is still very chaotic, beset by violence in many cases, huge shortages.
In some respects, Iraqis keep telling us life is not as stable for them as
it was when Saddam Hussein was in power.”
According to The Federalist, Jennings was responding to this “analysis” by ABC’s Martin Seemungal, reporting on the “mood in the street” in Baghdad:
“They [the Iraqi people] feel cheated. They’re essentially saying that
it would have been much better, they would have been happier to see him fight
because it would have justified the fear that they had for him for these
so many years.”
Later, Jennings opened World News Tonight’s Dec. 14 broadcast by saying:
“After ten months hunting him, in the end, the man who has gone from American
ally to American nemesis, surrendered without a fight.”
Still
defending Saddam Hussein, while belittling U.S. coalition forces, Jennings
also neglected to report the open jubilation of thousands of Iraqis who marched
in the streets in celebration over his capture – nor did be credit Bush or
our troops for the coup.
Jennings, however, finally admitted on his December 15 broadcast: “There
are moments in history when good triumphs over evil and this was clearly
one of them.”
But returning to his leftist script, Jennings managed to get in this final
jab: “But no one believes it will mean an end to the war and the violence
continued in Iraq today.”
In addition, Jennings also suppressed his own network’s poll that showed
an increase in Bush’s job approval rating since the capture of Iraq’s demon-possessed
despot.
CBS’S KIMBERLY DOZIER: “SADDAM GAVE IRAQIS DIGNITY, PRIDE”
Long known as one of CBS News’ most negative reporters in Iraq, according
to Ratherbiased.com, Baghdad correspondent Kimberly Dozier outrageously proclaimed:
“Saddam Hussein gave Iraqis dignity and pride. He became a symbol of defiance across the Arab world.”
Ratherbiased.com also noted that Dozier “continued her behavior, worrying
that Iraqis may be killed by ammunition fired by ecstatic Iraqis:”
“I imagine tonight across Baghdad that we might see a lot more of this celebratory
gunfire when the sons of Saddam were killed, Uday and Qusay, several people
were injured and killed by falling gunfire when celebrations broke out throughout
the city. So we’ll wait, watch and listen.”
Dozier should be more concerned about insurgents attacking our troops than
the thongs of celebrating Iraqis finally free after over three decades of
tyranny.
BOSTON GLOBE: CAPTURE ENDS “MASSIVE HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES”
Boston Globe staff writer Charlie Savage, in his December 16 story, proclaimed:
“The coming trial of Saddam Hussein will blanket world media with the daily
evocation of decades of atrocities, potentially recasting the Iraq war from
a campaign rationalized by the still-unproven threat of weapons of mass destruction
to a moral undertaking justified by ending his regime’s massive human rights
abuses.”
Notice that Savage referred to Saddam’s 30-plus years of murders as “massive
human rights abuses,” instead of calling them what they were – mass murder!
CBS’S LESLEY STAHL WORRIES ABOUT SADDAM’S TREATMENT
“60 Minutes” co-host Lesley Stahl on December 14, expressed to Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld her strangely passionate concern for Saddam Hussein’s
“humane” treatment:
“Let me raise the whole question, for lack of a better term, torture. Let’s
say he’s not forthcoming. Would we deprive him of sleep, would we make it
very cold where he is, or very hot? Are there any restrictions on the
way we treat him to get him to cooperate more than he has been?”
After the millions of innocent people he gassed, slaughtered, imprisoned,
raped, tortured and executed, Stahl is now worried about whether Saddam Hussein
is comfortable in his new surroundings, as well as his prison garb?
Maybe Stahl can knit him sweater before he fries in the lowest bowels of hell.
CBS’S HANNAH STORM INTERVIEWS BIDEN WITHOUT CHALLENGE
On December 15, CBS’s Hannah Storm prepped Bush critic, Democratic Sen. Joe
Biden, about how Saddam’s capture presents an opportunity to pursue Biden’s
propagated quest to “internationalize” the effort:
“There is a growing chorus on Capitol Hill now urging the Bush administration
to use Saddam Hussein’s capture as an opportunity to internationalize the
war effort in Iraq (which is code for U.N. support). And one of those
voices belongs to Sen. Joe Biden, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations
Committee.”
That “growing chorus on Capitol Hill,” Ms. Storm, has done more for the war
against terrorism than your fellow Democrats ever have.
NEW YORK TIMES REPORTER CALLS SADDAM “MR. HUSSEIN” 11 TIMES
In his December 16 story, New York Times reporter Ian Fisher referred to
Saddam as “Mr. Hussein” 11 times in his story, and claimed Bush’s national
address “confirmed” the ongoing violence:
“His warning seemed confirmed in the rubble, shredded cars and body parts
at the sites of the two bombings. One was at a station where United
States military investigators work, but they had not yet arrived.
“[The Army announced Tuesday that an American soldier had been killed Sunday
when his military vehicle hit a roadside bomb near Baghdad, Agence France-Presse
reported.]”
Fisher cited information gleamed from a newspaper out of France, who was a strong opponent to the Iraqi war.
NEW YORK TIMES REPORTER PROPAGATES SADDAM VENDETTA
In his December 16 story, “After 12 Years, Sweet Victory: The Bushes’ Pursuit of Hussein,” New York Times reporter Todd Purdum propagated a conspiracy theory:
“The effort to get Saddam was not carried out in the interests of national
security and restoring peace in Iraq, but instead was nothing more than the
result of a grudge match between Saddam and the former President Bush and
his son, the present White House occupant.”
Continuing the Saddam vendetta conspiracy theory, Purdum wrote:
“…The capture of Mr. Hussein in his earthen hiding place was the sweetest
kind of vindication for a president who has earned worldwide skepticism and
criticism – along with substantial praise – for his Iraq policy.”
Purdum noted that the president “has earned” all that “worldwide skepticism
and criticism,” an allegation which Purdum throws in for good measure, thus
displaying the traditional hate-America attitude so common among liberals,
Newsmax.com noted.
KNIGHT RIDDER PICKS UP ON SADDAM CONSPIRACY THEORY
Knight Ridder reporter Dave Montgomery on December 18 obviously picked up
on the same Saddam vendetta conspiracy theory and attempted to belittle the
historic significance of the capture when he wrote:
“Although the victory clearly belonged to President George W. Bush, the capture
of Saddam Hussein was also a vicarious triumph for the president’s father,
decisively resolving an international standoff that began more than a decade
ago, on the 41st president’s watch…
“In 1993, three months after the elder Bush left office, Saddam’s intelligence
operatives are reported to have targeted the former president in a foiled
assassination plot while Bush was visiting Kuwait. His son would later
describe the Iraqi leader as the “guy that tried to kill my dad.”
NEW YORK TIMES’ WILLIAM SAFIRE: WHY DIDN’T SADDAM SHOOT?
Following the leftist script of his fellow New York Times colleagues, columnist William Safire wondered why Saddam didn’t use his gun:
“I think Saddam is still Saddam – a meretricious, malevolent megalomaniac.
He knows he is going to die, either by death sentence or in jail at the hands
of a rape victim’s family. Why did he not use his pistol to shoot it
out with his captors or to kill himself? Because he is looking forward
to the mother of all genocide trials, rivaling Nuremberg’s and topping those
of Eichmann and Milosevic. There, in the global spotlight, he can pose
as the great Arab hero saving Islam from the Bushes and the Jews.”
USA TODAY: “HUMILIATING PHOTOS COULD BACKFIRE” IN IRAQ
In his December 16 USA Today op-ed, Stanley Weintraub inveighed:
“The video images of a haggard, unshaven Saddam were played over and over
on televisions around the world. The United States will pay a price
in the Islamic world for our public debasement of Saddam.”
Weintraub continued to sympathize with Hussein by further opining:
“…Still, such a disrespectful display in a society that highly values personal
dignity may generate sympathy for Saddam and disgust with us, as happened
after the grotesque display of the bodies of his sons, Qusay and Uday.
(And, in fact, the violence against our troops increased after their deaths.)
When contrasted with the end of his sons, who fought overwhelming coalition
forces to the death, how could Saddam, ignominiously captured without a struggle,
appear any more weakened than he already was?”
LEFTIST MEDIA IGNORE SADDAM-AL-QUAEDA-9/11 CONNECTION
Typically, the leftist media have ignored the one of the most important stories
to come out in light of Saddam’s capture, according to World magazine editor Marvin Olansky:
“The (London) Telegraph headline recently reported: “Terrorist behind
September 11 strike was trained by Saddam.” The gist: Iraq’s coalition
government has uncovered documentary proof that Saddam was kept informed
of the progress of Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the Sept. 11
attacks against the United States.
“Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service,
sent Saddam a handwritten memo on July 1, 2001, that summarized the “work
programme” Atta had undertaken in Baghdad and noted that Atta’s “extraordinary
effort” demonstrated his ability to lead the team that would be ‘responsible
for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy.”
Despite the mainstream media also being silent over the well-documented links to Saddam Hussein and al-Quaeda (as reported by National Review’s
Clifford May, who broke the 50-bulleted bombshell memo last month, linking
the two), they remain bent on blaming America and Bush for trying to seal
up the hornet’s nest of terrorism that the Clinton Administration allowed
to grow.
With all these leftist writers and anchors, ranting and raving about the
Bush Administration, while they conveniently gloss over the Clinton Administration’s
do-nothing foreign policies that ultimately led to Sept. 11, the Democrats
don’t have to worry about their Hillary-concocted “vast right-wing conspiracy”
theory.
Clearly, they have plenty of leftist writers only too willing to disseminate their propaganda for them.
Doug Schmitz is a conservative
columnist who regularly contributes to Etherzone.com, BushCountry.org and
has been a guest columnist for Accuracy in Media (www.aim.org.). © Doug Schmitz. All Rights Reserved.
Email Doug Schmitz
Send
this Article to a Friend
|
