Friday, January 12, 2007
Sec. Rice Attacked by Sen. Boxer Over Childlessness
-By Warner Todd Huston
Is it not outrageous that Senator Barbara Boxer (Dem, Cal) verbally attacked Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for not having children as Rice appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday to discuss the Administrations position on Bush's Iraq military "surge" plans? Is this an acceptable criticism of a political official? Is the fact that an official might not have children reason to doubt their capacity for policy making or ability to advise an administration?
Is this the Democrat's new era of niceness, their less rancorous way of governing?
I was shocked to see this intemperate verbal assault by Boxer in the New York Post, but I became curious to see how other MSM sources treated the outrageous comments of the unbalanced Boxer. So, I did a little search of the reactions of the press.
(Full excerpts of the sections in each story that detailed Boxer's outrageous behavior follows)
I said "full excerpts" as if there would be a lot of stories about Boxer's attack, didn't I? In fact, few of the dozens of stories of Rice's appearance before the committee even mentioned Boxer's foolish attack.
As you can see, only the New York Post seemed too interested in the outrageous Boxer. The rest of our "News" sources barely mentioned it and it seems that no original writing was spent on the issue with every major news source just aping the AP's two subdued accounts.
As contrasted with the above AP reports, here is how the Post started off their report on the exchange:
Only the Post, so far, seems willing to highlight Boxer's unsuitable comportment as a Senator.
It was also curious to me that most of these stories about Rice being "grilled" before the Senate committee -- even the ones that did not mention Boxer -- also went on to describe how well received Defense Secretary Robert Gates was as if to assure the reader that Rice's mistreatment was some how "balanced" by Gates' easy day on the Hill.
Still, it is amazing how Boxer has basically gotten a pass by the MSM for her boorish, uncivilized, and completely illogical attack on Secretary Rice's childlessness.
This must be just another example of how the Democrats are going to be more bi-partisan and less rancorous and how the MSM is going to help them achieve that... or, rather, how they aren't and how the MSM is going to help cover it up for them?
Sadly, the American public is ill served by the MSM, once again.
*This same AP report showed up in several sources. For instance CBS News, The Guardian Unlimited and the Kansas City Star, among others, used this AP report.
**This same AP report showed up in several sources. For instance, the San Francisco Chronicle, Houston Chronicle, and the Guardian Unlimited, among others, all used this report.
Is it not outrageous that Senator Barbara Boxer (Dem, Cal) verbally attacked Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for not having children as Rice appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday to discuss the Administrations position on Bush's Iraq military "surge" plans? Is this an acceptable criticism of a political official? Is the fact that an official might not have children reason to doubt their capacity for policy making or ability to advise an administration?Is this the Democrat's new era of niceness, their less rancorous way of governing?
I was shocked to see this intemperate verbal assault by Boxer in the New York Post, but I became curious to see how other MSM sources treated the outrageous comments of the unbalanced Boxer. So, I did a little search of the reactions of the press.
(Full excerpts of the sections in each story that detailed Boxer's outrageous behavior follows)
- CBS News- *AP report (Lawmakers Grill Rice Over the Iraq War )
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., noted Rice has no children of her own to lose overseas. "Who pays the price?" Boxer repeatedly demanded. "You're not going to pay a particular price," she told Rice, because the secretary has no "immediate family" at risk. - Miami Herald- **AP report (Congress treats Gates with kid gloves)
But the gloves came off for Rice.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., noted Rice has no children to lose overseas. "Who pays the price?" she repeatedly demanded. "You're not going to pay a particular price," she told Rice, because the secretary has no "immediate family" at risk.
I said "full excerpts" as if there would be a lot of stories about Boxer's attack, didn't I? In fact, few of the dozens of stories of Rice's appearance before the committee even mentioned Boxer's foolish attack.
As you can see, only the New York Post seemed too interested in the outrageous Boxer. The rest of our "News" sources barely mentioned it and it seems that no original writing was spent on the issue with every major news source just aping the AP's two subdued accounts.
As contrasted with the above AP reports, here is how the Post started off their report on the exchange:
WASHINGTON - Condoleezza Rice came under a shocking Democratic attack yesterday - as a childless woman who can’t understand the sacrifices made by families of U.S. troops in Iraq. In a bitter personal assault on the secretary of state during her appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, anti-war Sen. Barbara Boxer fumed that Rice didn't comprehend the "price" of the war.
Only the Post, so far, seems willing to highlight Boxer's unsuitable comportment as a Senator.
It was also curious to me that most of these stories about Rice being "grilled" before the Senate committee -- even the ones that did not mention Boxer -- also went on to describe how well received Defense Secretary Robert Gates was as if to assure the reader that Rice's mistreatment was some how "balanced" by Gates' easy day on the Hill.
Still, it is amazing how Boxer has basically gotten a pass by the MSM for her boorish, uncivilized, and completely illogical attack on Secretary Rice's childlessness.
This must be just another example of how the Democrats are going to be more bi-partisan and less rancorous and how the MSM is going to help them achieve that... or, rather, how they aren't and how the MSM is going to help cover it up for them?
Sadly, the American public is ill served by the MSM, once again.
*This same AP report showed up in several sources. For instance CBS News, The Guardian Unlimited and the Kansas City Star, among others, used this AP report.
**This same AP report showed up in several sources. For instance, the San Francisco Chronicle, Houston Chronicle, and the Guardian Unlimited, among others, all used this report.
Labels: Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Iraq, Islam, Publius Forum, Warner Todd Huston
Monday, January 08, 2007
We Must Negotiate with Iraqi Terrorists and Insurgents Say 'Experts'
-By Warner Todd Huston
Chronicle staff writer, Robert Collier, wants the US to "negotiate" with the radical, Islamist, terrorists and the old guard Saddamists that are vexing Iraq's attempts to move into the 21st century preventing them in their laudable attempt to build a nation answerable to Iraqis of every stripe.
"U.S. must negotiate with insurgents and militias, experts say", Collier breathlessly informs us. His "experts", though, leave much to be desired for reliability.
Collier seems to think the insurgents and terror outfits should be treated as if they are merely interested parties, as if they were the same kind of political party or faction we are used to in the west. Someone has not taken the time to inform Mr. Collier about exactly what these factions want in the Middle East, sadly.
Collier brings up what seems an interesting point in how to get people to the negotiating table he so wants to set.
Unfortunately, as he moves forward with his piece he proves he doesn't understand the situation at all. He fails to realize that the parties who are funding the radical Islamists come from sources that have neither the desire, nor the ability to come to any negotiating table in Iraq. The people funding and driving the terrorists are not generally even Iraqis. They are often foreigners and ideologues that require that their enemies fall without any "negotiations" to the matter. And, those who are pushing the internal insurgency are out of power Saddamites who similarly aren't interested in "negotiating" but just simply want all their power back and do not care a fig how they do it. Or they are local militias and warlord leaders who have little interest in national political discussions.
In other words, the factions are varied, but few are interested in any negotiations.
Worse, nearly every person he quotes or relies on to inform him of the situation in Iraq are either "name withheld for security reasons" or people who cannot be officially linked to any power base or group. So, it is curious why Collier seems to think they represent anyone or should be relied upon for solid intel on the situation in Iraq... at least solid enough to base policy upon?
Collier introduces us to the pontifications of, in the Paper's words, "Two Iraqi correspondents for The Chronicle, who asked not to be identified for security reasons". He also quoted a former Saddam era functionary who has been out of power for years: "Mudafar al-Amin, who was Iraq's ambassador to Britain from 1999 until the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003..."
After reading the entire, long report by Mr. Collier one cannot help but be struck with the fact that this "former Republican Guard general" that Collier is so taken with is merely angling to regain his own lost power.
In fact, nearly everything this "general" says is calculated to bring back Saddam's former army officers to a position of power. It's amazing that Collier was so bamboozled by this supposed insider.
Collier doesn't seem to understand the success of the clear and hold strategy that US forces have employed a policy that should be first considered to set the groundwork for building the nation's political infrastructure before moving to any kind of "negotiations". Every place that the US military has brought overwhelming force into play, and then firmly held, has stabilized allowing the stage to be created for local parties to come with a newfound desire to negotiate.
The purpose of the clear and hold strategy is to promote stability. Once an area has been cleared of insurgents, the people of a community may begin to expect a certain amount of personal safety in their daily activities and will, then, be more able to accept their national government and their political processes, giving them the credence and legitimacy that a populace must invest to sustain a working government.
Instead, Collier seems to be suggesting we give all insurgents upfront legitimacy without even determining if they do, indeed, have any standing from which to negotiate. He seems to think we should just accept to his negotiating table any former general who claims to still represent an army. This would not promote unity but would only increase fractionalization.
He also relies on the proclamations of an NGO created in 1994 that claims to want to spread peace about the planet. The International Crisis Group has been saying for some time that we should "negotiate" with anyone and everyone in Iraq, but seems not to have any real ideas who those individuals might be. Naturally this group wants to rely on the UN to start these palliative negotiations. I wonder if the ICG can give us a list of any successes the UN has had with such "negotiations" the past?
Both Collier and NGOs like the ICG fail to understand that "negotiating" leads to little of consequence with these types of foes. Why should they acquiesce to the central government's demands, for instance, if their own power base is wholly legitimized? What would cause them to willingly give up the power that has been handed them by a slot at any official "negotiations"? If their tenuous claims to power are supported they are far more likely to strive for more, especially if the central government cannot exert its own claims to power over them.
That is why the clear and hold strategy is so successful. Without something to temper the insurgent's insatiable grasp for power, some reason for them to feel it necessary to come to the negotiating table needy of compromise, negotiations are a complete waste of time.
But here comes the ICG and the SanFran Chronicle willing to hand any insurgent a free pass to legitimate power. All they need do is kill a few hundred civilians and attack a US convoy or two and, viola! They are an instant "leader" that should be "negotiated" with.
This idea of Collier's is a sure plan for worsening conditions, more in-fighting and further sectionalizing of Iraq's worst hotspots as well as a return to power for people who are responsible for the rapes and tortures of uncounted Iraqi citizens for decades. On top of that it invites more external meddling by al Qaeda and Iran.
No, instead of sensible analysis, what Collier gave us was an example of staff writer trying desperately to make news with his "exclusive" sources and to drive the agenda as opposed to reporting on anything. It is an attempt to make the reporter relevant but is not any serious policy discussion at all. Collier also represents the inability of certain people in the west to understand the threat that faces us in Iraq.
Collier reveals that he is not on the side of the Iraqi people, the US military, or the American people if he wants to reward and legitimize murderers, warlords, and strongmen instead of strengthening an evolving Iraqi government.
Thanks but no thanks for the "help" Mr. Collier.
Chronicle staff writer, Robert Collier, wants the US to "negotiate" with the radical, Islamist, terrorists and the old guard Saddamists that are vexing Iraq's attempts to move into the 21st century preventing them in their laudable attempt to build a nation answerable to Iraqis of every stripe.
"U.S. must negotiate with insurgents and militias, experts say", Collier breathlessly informs us. His "experts", though, leave much to be desired for reliability.
Collier seems to think the insurgents and terror outfits should be treated as if they are merely interested parties, as if they were the same kind of political party or faction we are used to in the west. Someone has not taken the time to inform Mr. Collier about exactly what these factions want in the Middle East, sadly.
Collier brings up what seems an interesting point in how to get people to the negotiating table he so wants to set.
In interviews with Chronicle correspondents in Iraq and by telephone with a Chronicle reporter in San Francisco, two dozen Sunni and Shiite hard-liners revealed a paradox. None could fully explain how to bring his side's sectarian killings under control, yet all emphasized that peace cannot take hold without the approval of those holding the weapons.
Unfortunately, as he moves forward with his piece he proves he doesn't understand the situation at all. He fails to realize that the parties who are funding the radical Islamists come from sources that have neither the desire, nor the ability to come to any negotiating table in Iraq. The people funding and driving the terrorists are not generally even Iraqis. They are often foreigners and ideologues that require that their enemies fall without any "negotiations" to the matter. And, those who are pushing the internal insurgency are out of power Saddamites who similarly aren't interested in "negotiating" but just simply want all their power back and do not care a fig how they do it. Or they are local militias and warlord leaders who have little interest in national political discussions.
In other words, the factions are varied, but few are interested in any negotiations.
Worse, nearly every person he quotes or relies on to inform him of the situation in Iraq are either "name withheld for security reasons" or people who cannot be officially linked to any power base or group. So, it is curious why Collier seems to think they represent anyone or should be relied upon for solid intel on the situation in Iraq... at least solid enough to base policy upon?
Collier introduces us to the pontifications of, in the Paper's words, "Two Iraqi correspondents for The Chronicle, who asked not to be identified for security reasons". He also quoted a former Saddam era functionary who has been out of power for years: "Mudafar al-Amin, who was Iraq's ambassador to Britain from 1999 until the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003..."
After reading the entire, long report by Mr. Collier one cannot help but be struck with the fact that this "former Republican Guard general" that Collier is so taken with is merely angling to regain his own lost power.
The former Republican Guard general, for example, estimated that al Qaeda's attacks represent "only 10 percent of the resistance," and he said that if the Hussein-era army were remobilized, it could "easily" stamp out al Qaeda and other terrorists.
In fact, nearly everything this "general" says is calculated to bring back Saddam's former army officers to a position of power. It's amazing that Collier was so bamboozled by this supposed insider.
Collier doesn't seem to understand the success of the clear and hold strategy that US forces have employed a policy that should be first considered to set the groundwork for building the nation's political infrastructure before moving to any kind of "negotiations". Every place that the US military has brought overwhelming force into play, and then firmly held, has stabilized allowing the stage to be created for local parties to come with a newfound desire to negotiate.
The purpose of the clear and hold strategy is to promote stability. Once an area has been cleared of insurgents, the people of a community may begin to expect a certain amount of personal safety in their daily activities and will, then, be more able to accept their national government and their political processes, giving them the credence and legitimacy that a populace must invest to sustain a working government.
Instead, Collier seems to be suggesting we give all insurgents upfront legitimacy without even determining if they do, indeed, have any standing from which to negotiate. He seems to think we should just accept to his negotiating table any former general who claims to still represent an army. This would not promote unity but would only increase fractionalization.
He also relies on the proclamations of an NGO created in 1994 that claims to want to spread peace about the planet. The International Crisis Group has been saying for some time that we should "negotiate" with anyone and everyone in Iraq, but seems not to have any real ideas who those individuals might be. Naturally this group wants to rely on the UN to start these palliative negotiations. I wonder if the ICG can give us a list of any successes the UN has had with such "negotiations" the past?
Both Collier and NGOs like the ICG fail to understand that "negotiating" leads to little of consequence with these types of foes. Why should they acquiesce to the central government's demands, for instance, if their own power base is wholly legitimized? What would cause them to willingly give up the power that has been handed them by a slot at any official "negotiations"? If their tenuous claims to power are supported they are far more likely to strive for more, especially if the central government cannot exert its own claims to power over them.
That is why the clear and hold strategy is so successful. Without something to temper the insurgent's insatiable grasp for power, some reason for them to feel it necessary to come to the negotiating table needy of compromise, negotiations are a complete waste of time.
But here comes the ICG and the SanFran Chronicle willing to hand any insurgent a free pass to legitimate power. All they need do is kill a few hundred civilians and attack a US convoy or two and, viola! They are an instant "leader" that should be "negotiated" with.
This idea of Collier's is a sure plan for worsening conditions, more in-fighting and further sectionalizing of Iraq's worst hotspots as well as a return to power for people who are responsible for the rapes and tortures of uncounted Iraqi citizens for decades. On top of that it invites more external meddling by al Qaeda and Iran.
No, instead of sensible analysis, what Collier gave us was an example of staff writer trying desperately to make news with his "exclusive" sources and to drive the agenda as opposed to reporting on anything. It is an attempt to make the reporter relevant but is not any serious policy discussion at all. Collier also represents the inability of certain people in the west to understand the threat that faces us in Iraq.
Collier reveals that he is not on the side of the Iraqi people, the US military, or the American people if he wants to reward and legitimize murderers, warlords, and strongmen instead of strengthening an evolving Iraqi government.
Thanks but no thanks for the "help" Mr. Collier.
Labels: Iraq, Publius Forum, San Francisco Chronicle, terrorism, Warner Todd Huston
Friday, January 05, 2007
AP: Some 'Capt. Hussein' Proof? Yet, More Questions Remain
As last reported on Publius' Forum, the AP has been under fire for a November '06 report that 6 Iraqi Sunnis were burned alive in sectarian violence a claim that was never adequately proven and is hotly disputed by both Iraqi Government and US Military officials. And, as many Bloggers investigated (such as Michelle Malkin and Patrick Frey of Patterico's Pontifications among many more), the identity of the AP's lone source seemed impossible to establish.At last it seems some light has been shed on the existence of this capt. Hussein as we get the story from Michelle Malkin's site. Michelle has been the chief bulldog in efforts to reveal the AP's mysterious source.
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - The Interior Ministry acknowledged Thursday that an Iraqi police officer whose existence had been denied by the Iraqis and the U.S. military is in fact an active member of the force, and said he now faces arrest for speaking to the media.
It looks like we just might have an answer -- though it is not yet assured that this person is, indeed, the "capt. Jamil Hussein" the AP used as a source. Still, the revelation that such a man actually exists seems to answer to the doubts that the AP actually had a live source for this story.
But it's only a start toward solving the controversies surrounding this AP story.
There are still many questions that dog this story and the AP is not out of the woods yet where it concerns the truth of whether 6 Iraqi Sunnis were burned alive or not. And that, not the existence of this capt. Hussein, has always been the central point to the dispute. The existence of the source always was a sidelight, a distraction, to the story, not the main problem.
There is not a shred of proof that the 6 burning Iraqis incident ever happened and this is an issue that the AP has still not satisfactorily addressed. There's no independent source, no burnt bodies ... little of the story has checked out other than the source, at long last. And THAT has taken over a month and a lot of recrimination and controversy to straighten out.
Central points of this story
- Did the incident ever even happen and where is the proof?
- Why does the AP publish news stories based on only one witness with no corroboration?
- How long has the AP been publishing stories on the word of only one witness?
As I wrote in my first report on this issue on NewsBusters:
And, it has always been a staple of journalism that more than one source be required to publish a story reported as "fact". After all, if only ONE source is ever needed for a story, then anyone can publish anything as "fact" merely upon any single person's say so.
The AP's inability to substantiate their source was but a small part of the questions the AP faces overs its credibility here.
Expect the AP to wash its hands of this issue, though, imagining it is a closed case now that we seem to have proof of the existence of capt. Hussein.
As for the rest of us, there is a long way to go before we could be satisfied that the AP is practicing due diligence in their reporting.
Labels: AP, bloggers, Iraq, Michelle Malkin. Media bias, Old Media, Publius Forum, Warner Todd Huston
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Iraq, Doing FAR Better Than Reported
-By Warner Todd Hsuton
The story goes on to describe how an Iraqi cell phone company is poised to make 500 million dollars this year and how soft drinks and cars are big sellers all across Iraq. Other reports recently have hinted at how well the satellite TV business is booming in Iraq, as well.
With the volatility of the MidEast, not just Iraq but the region over, Iraq is no worse than any other country in the region as far as it being safe to create and sustain a business. And it is fast becoming one of the most desirable places to do so with the stability and friendliness to business the US has offered potential investors.
We report when they get it wrong, and now we can report when they get it right...
And it's about time some American news source describes how well most of Iraq is doing since the US led overthrow of Saddam's regime. It is a fact that escapes too many in the western media who's only goal seems to be to attack America in general and George W. Bush n particular.
WHILE the American political elite is using Iraq as an excuse for fighting internal political wars, a different reality is taking shape in parts of this war-torn nation. Wherever some measure of security is assured - that is to say in more than 80 percent of Iraq - towns and villages long left to die a slow death are creeping back to life.Nowhere is this slow but steady return to life more startling than in Um Qasr, in the southeast extremity of Iraq on the Persian Gulf. Four years ago, this was a jumble of rusting quays, abandoned houses and gutted buildings. By the spring of 2003, its population had dwindled to a few dozen, along with hundreds of stray dogs. There was even talk of abandoning it altogether.
The story goes on to describe how an Iraqi cell phone company is poised to make 500 million dollars this year and how soft drinks and cars are big sellers all across Iraq. Other reports recently have hinted at how well the satellite TV business is booming in Iraq, as well.
But here is an important thing to keep in mind...
But what about continued terrorist attacks? Most foreign investors coming to make money in Iraq shrug their shoulders. "Doing business in any Arab country is always risky," says a Turkish investor who has set up a trucking company and a taxi service. "In some Arab countries, you risk nationalization or straight confiscation by the ruler. In other Arab countries, you must give a cut to one of the emirs. Here, you face possible terrorist attacks. But such attacks are transitory."
With the volatility of the MidEast, not just Iraq but the region over, Iraq is no worse than any other country in the region as far as it being safe to create and sustain a business. And it is fast becoming one of the most desirable places to do so with the stability and friendliness to business the US has offered potential investors.
Unfortunately, this story of the economic success of Iraq will never make most of the western media because it doesn't fit in with the desired goal of destroying president Bush and the USA.
At least, once in a great while, we do get a story here and there that tells us some truth. Good going New York Post.
Labels: Iraq, Publius Forum, Warner Todd Huston
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Saddam the Merciless EXECUTED - AP Misusing Words to Report it!
-By Warner Todd Huston
Just deserts were dished out to one Saddam Hussein last night. Few deserved it more than he.
There is no reason for me to recount his many crimes against humanity here, but it is a good thing he has paid for his evil -- and paid with his life.
That is all need be said about that...
But, in reading the AP's story by Abdul-Zahra, something else comes to the fore that is vexing to anyone looking for truth in the media. Of course, truth is always in short supply from our friends at alAP, but with Abdul-Zahra's report we see a constant misuse of the English language.
There is no need to reproduce the entire report here, but I'd like to focus on the misuse of certain words that seems to offer exculpatory sentiment for the murderer Saddam and shows how the AP seems not to know what words mean.
The report starts out with this sentence:
Vengeful? Is Abdul-Zahra trying to lead us to feel that this execution isn't justice, but is mere vengence?
"Grim" end? Is that the sort of sorrowful terms we use to describe the execution of such a murderous dictator: grim? And, naturally, we cannot talk about the execution of Saddam for his crimes without making it seem all a wasted effort because his actions still "vex" U.S. presidents! Even in execution, this AP writer is trying to hand a triumph to Saddam.
Next our intrepid AP reporter got a sly dig against the death penalty by placing Saddam's use of political murder and torture next to a legitimate death penalty.
Obviously, to writer Abdul-Zahra, there is not much difference between a measured and legitimate usage of the death penalty and Saddam's obscene murders.
Lastly, Abdul-Zahra showed complete ignorance of what the word "honor" means:
A grateful people honor a well-known person for his life's work by naming schools after him or displaying his portrait. But a dictator places them about the country by HIS OWN ORDER. Those "thousands of portraits, posters, statues and murals" were decidedly NOT erected in his honor all over Iraq. They were forced there by his thugs to aggrandize a tyrant by his own order.
"In his honor" is not the right verbiage to use in that case at all, Mr. Abdul-Zahra. Do you even know the difference?
Does the AP's editors?
Just deserts were dished out to one Saddam Hussein last night. Few deserved it more than he.There is no reason for me to recount his many crimes against humanity here, but it is a good thing he has paid for his evil -- and paid with his life.
That is all need be said about that...
But, in reading the AP's story by Abdul-Zahra, something else comes to the fore that is vexing to anyone looking for truth in the media. Of course, truth is always in short supply from our friends at alAP, but with Abdul-Zahra's report we see a constant misuse of the English language.
There is no need to reproduce the entire report here, but I'd like to focus on the misuse of certain words that seems to offer exculpatory sentiment for the murderer Saddam and shows how the AP seems not to know what words mean.
The report starts out with this sentence:
Clutching a Quran and refusing a hood, Saddam Hussein went to the gallows before sunrise Saturday, executed by vengeful countrymen after a quarter-century of remorseless brutality that killed countless thousands and led Iraq into disastrous wars against the United States and Iran.
Vengeful? Is Abdul-Zahra trying to lead us to feel that this execution isn't justice, but is mere vengence?
It was a grim end for the 69-year-old leader who had vexed three U.S. presidents. Despite his ouster, Washington, its allies and the new Iraqi leaders remain mired in a fight to quell a stubborn insurgency by Saddam loyalists and a vicious sectarian conflict.
"Grim" end? Is that the sort of sorrowful terms we use to describe the execution of such a murderous dictator: grim? And, naturally, we cannot talk about the execution of Saddam for his crimes without making it seem all a wasted effort because his actions still "vex" U.S. presidents! Even in execution, this AP writer is trying to hand a triumph to Saddam.
Next our intrepid AP reporter got a sly dig against the death penalty by placing Saddam's use of political murder and torture next to a legitimate death penalty.
Iraq's death penalty was suspended by the U.S. military after it toppled Saddam in 2003, but the new Iraqi government reinstated it two years later, saying executions would deter criminals.
Saddam's own regime used executions and extrajudicial killings as a tool of political repression, both to eliminate real or suspected political opponents and to maintain a reign of terror.
Obviously, to writer Abdul-Zahra, there is not much difference between a measured and legitimate usage of the death penalty and Saddam's obscene murders.
Lastly, Abdul-Zahra showed complete ignorance of what the word "honor" means:
While he wielded a heavy hand to maintain control, Saddam also sought to win public support with a personality cult that pervaded Iraqi society. Thousands of portraits, posters, statues and murals were erected in his honor all over Iraq.
A grateful people honor a well-known person for his life's work by naming schools after him or displaying his portrait. But a dictator places them about the country by HIS OWN ORDER. Those "thousands of portraits, posters, statues and murals" were decidedly NOT erected in his honor all over Iraq. They were forced there by his thugs to aggrandize a tyrant by his own order.
"In his honor" is not the right verbiage to use in that case at all, Mr. Abdul-Zahra. Do you even know the difference?
Does the AP's editors?
Labels: Huston, Iraq, Publius Forum, Saddam
|
