Posted on 01/23/2005 6:17:57 PM PST by Brian Allen
If you want to know why Coalition troops have started to call journalists “roaches” then look no further than the likes of Paul McGeough. Although his Iraqi reports always toed the anti-American line that comes perilously close to defending terrorism, his last article could have been written by Zarqawi himself (The Age, Few take Iraq elections seriously, 21 January).
We are told that Iraqi’s are “seething [with] anger at the failure of the US-led effort to rebuild this country.” Does this leftwing hack seriously believe that one can rebuild a country within two years? While this creep slimes the US for the apparent ‘lack’ of economic progress he deliberately chooses to ignore the salient fact that terrorists — he calls them the “resistance” — are desperately trying to sink the economy.
In any case, McGeough’s claim about the economy is a brazen lie. (See Chrenkoff who produces a regular report on progress in Iraq. It contains the kind of facts that leftwing journalists like McGeough prefer to spike rather than report).
Anyway, it is grossly dishonest of him to insinuate, as he did, that America destroyed the country. What serious destruction that took was caused by Saddam over a 20-year period. But blaming Saddam for anything is not part of McGeough’s political agenda.
To belittle the coming election, which he opposes, he said that “the Americans and the puppet regime they have installed are cooking the books.” Another of his lies. Now notice how he is trying to deligitimise the present government by suggesting that its strings are being pulled by President Bush, thus making them quislings, which is exactly what Zarqawi’s terrorists would call them.
This is not the first time McGeough has done this. In the The strange, sad death of the American way (18 June 2004) he sneeringly called it “the saddest little "sovereign" government the world has seen in a while.” A sadistic and aggressive tyranny is overthrown to be replaced by a government that is going to hold free elections and he not only thinks this is sad he even questions the government’s sovereignty.
How am I supposed to take this? Am I supposed to conclude that, according to his leftist logic, that the murderous Saddam is Iraq’s legitimate ruler and not the current government? It certainly looks that way.
McGeough being what he is couldn’t just stop at making sneering comments he actually had to libel the interim Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi, as a murder (They saw no evil, heard no evil, and certainly will not speak of it, 12 August 2004). His article no sooner hit the streets than the blogosphere shredded it and him, leaving him completely without a defence. Now he’s back to his old tricks. Unfortunately, lying seems to be second nature to McGeough.
It isn’t until we get to the middle of his article that we discover that it is his intention to discredit the election. This “balanced” and ‘honest’ journalist’ would have us believe that the election results will be illegitimate because, according to him, about 40 per cent of the electorate lives in four provinces where terrorists — sorry, Paul baby, I mean the “resistance” — have forced the government to abandon voting.
What McGeough’s argument amounts to, regardless of his fatuous analogy, is that the terrorists should be allowed to determine the election results. Fortunately, history and logic are on democracy’s side in Iraq — even though the media are not.
Let us turn to the hated United States for a lead in this matter. In November 1864 Abraham Lincoln won a second term as president. He did this even though less than 50 per cent of the electorate was able to vote because of the Civil War. Of that 50 per cent or so Lincoln got 55 per cent.
Therefore, out of an electorate of 14 million Lincoln received about 3,800,000 votes. Must we now conclude, Mr McGeough, that because 9 million Southerners, including slaves, couldn’t vote that Lincoln’s administration was illegitimate or just plain illegal?
But this is exactly where McGeough’s thinking leads us. (I have always said that most journalists, particularly leftwing ones, are not that bright. McGeough has once again confirmed that observation).
As a footnote to Now for the wrath of the oppressed, 29 June 2004, the leftwing Age disingenuously claimed that “… Paul McGeough insists that he is capable of writing balanced copy and should be allowed to do so.” This lying leftwing anti-American bigot couldn’t write “balanced copy” if his life depended on it.
Fairfax Press defends Saddam's terrorists exposes McGeough's disgusting efforts to equate Zarqawi's terrorists with the likes of those Czech and Polish patriots who bravely resisted the Nazi invaders for five bloody years.
Gerard Jackson is Brookes' economics editor
If you ever wanted to give terrorists a boost, this is the way to do it. Very sad that the old media has sunk so low.
The legacy media's sneering at America and contempt for people seeking freedom in Iraq are two of the reasons more and more Americans are turning their backs on them. Its hard to respect an institution - heck, the ONLY institution that always insists as a matter of habit its customers are ALWAYS wrong. Patrick Geough is a good example of why people discount most of what they read in the papers or watch on TV. They do have an agenda.
Lefties have their head threaded on wrong. Their failed logic, places one to be in a "damed if you do..." situation every time.
Hint, Hint.
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.