Posted on 05/03/2003 2:45:26 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
The worst of the worst
The temptation is strong -- so, so strong -- to shove heaping platefuls of crow in front of the loudest anti-war caterwaulers and force them to eat their own misguided words. There are so many who richly deserve the treatment: MSNBC's Chris Matthews, who railed that invading Iraq would be "worse than Vietnam;" Hull Selectwoman Regina Burke, who refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and then accused President Bush of wearing the American flag "as a toga;" Senator and presidential wannabe John Kerry, for demanding "regime change" in Washington; former NBC reporter Peter Arnett for being Peter Arnett.
It would be easy to enumerate all those who predicted, and perhaps hoped for, America's defeat in Iraq, only to end up looking like fools, but the list would likely fill this entire page. A few examples of incredible behavior, though, do deserve citation for their sheer outrageousness, foolishness, and stupidity.
Take Eason Jordan, chief news executive at CNN. Two days after Baghdad fell, Jordan wrote that he, and his network, knew all along that Saddam Hussein was a monster. They had numerous accounts of the regime's brutality, including the kidnap and torture of a CNN cameraman by the Iraqi secret police. Yet for years, the network put forth fluffy reports that granted Iraq a moral equivalence with America. Why didn't the self-styled "most trusted name in news" report what it knew to be true? Because Eason Jordan didn't want CNN to get kicked out of its Baghdad bureau. Apparently the lives of Iraqi citizens, and the well-being of a photographer, were a price CNN was eager to pay to remain in Saddam's pocket.
A few days after Jordan's revelation hit the papers, former CNN reporter Peter Collins wrote how, while in Iraq in 1993, he was ordered by network bosses to read, on air, a list of propaganda points prepared by Iraqi officials and to read them as genuine, dispassionate CNN reportage. Collins said that after doing so, he was criticized by CNN president Tom Johnson for being "a bit flat;" i.e., for not reading the propaganda enthusiastically enough. A subsequent Collins report questioning Iraqi claims of civilian deaths caused by American bombing was criticized by fellow reporter Brent Sadler as "not being helpful" to CNN's cause.
Need more proof that CNN was Saddam's favorite network? Consider this scene: after the fall of Baghdad. Mohamed Aldouri, Iraq's UN ambassador, cleaned out his desk, left his apartment and planted a big kiss on the cheek of CNN reporter Richard Roth on the way to the airport thanking Roth for "all you've done for us".
There's probably a special place in Hell for Scott Ritter, the Marine-turned-weapons inspector-turned-Iraqi sympathizer. Upon liberating Baghdad, our military opened the gates of a Baghdad prison for children-- CHILDREN -- whose only crime was being the offspring of Iraqis who opposed Saddam. Who knew about this prison, besides the Iraqis? Scott Ritter. Last year, he told Time magazine that he knew of it, but wouldn't discuss the prison because "what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace." Ritter chose to put his own, narrow, idealistic political goals before the lives of Iraqi children. How many children died needlessly in that prison because of Ritter's silence? Apparently not enough to make him rethink "waging peace."
By the way, Scott Ritter told a French radio network earlier this year, "The United States is going to leave Iraq with its tail between its legs, defeated." Not only is Ritter a heartless ideologue, he is a lousy prognosticator.
No worse than Newsweek, though. Its March 27th "Conventional Wisdom" section stated: "Dick Cheney telling Meet the Press that 'we will be greeted as liberators' (is an) arrogant blunder for the ages." Looks like the "arrogant blunder for the ages" was Newsweek's, not Cheney's.
Some of the anti-war rhetoric was plainly hateful, and betrayed a deep anti-Americanism. A group of Vermont teenagers stoned a National Guardswoman as she tried to make her way from a store to her car (a few of the more articulate ones called her a "war bitch"). Protestors in San Francisco (see photo) called for soldiers to murder their officers. Columbia University assistant professor Nicholas De Genova told an anti-war gathering that "the only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military." Clearly excited by the thought of American blood running in the streets, De Genova said "I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus," referring to the shameful case of American soldiers' bodies being dragged through Somalia's capital in 1993.
Some opposition was pitiful. Tom Cahill, a self-described "lifetime activist," went to Baghdad as a "human shield". After the bombing started and he left, Cahill told CNN, "I didn't see much evidence of a dictatorship there except a lot of soldiers and a lot of pictures of Saddam Hussein." Asked if he thought the Iraqis would be better off without Hussein in power, Cahill forcefully replied, "No, I don't".
Some on the anti-war side were reduced to sheer silliness in their search for things to complain about. Historian John Lukacs opined against President Bush offering a salute to military officers, labeling the action "puerile." The Boston Globe complained about the increasingly common use of military acronyms (WMD, RPG, KIA, etc.). Bad for the language, the paper said.
And then there was Tina Brown, who provided a truly laughable anti-war moment. The former publisher of The New Yorker magazine was planning a glorious career in TV, but the war got in the way. Brown wrote, "No doubt the Bush White House has its own good reasons to feel cross with me, but scheduling Operation Shock and Awe to begin precisely at the moment of my new CNBC TV show seems a little excessive." Leave it to the out-of-touch, ego-inflated elitists to provide comic relief even at the most unexpected times.
And for Chris Matthews it truly is worse than Viet Nam because we did not get bogged down and because the focus of evil on the planet won in Iraq and pretty spectacularly, too.
It is unfair to attribute philosophic purpose to Scott's activities and words. He is simply a child molesting, opportunistic traitor. If we do go looking to pay some debts, I hope portions of Scott's tapes are leased to ensure that all understand what principles motivates him. The Times won't mention it, but maybe some of the European press will cover it.
Gee, I would think you're from the "Give Inspections a Chance" group.
They've hardly had a month yet.
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.