December 20, 2003


The Sydney Morning Heraldís Paul McGeough despairs over Saddamís ďhumiliating videotaped medical examinationĒ, claims that anti-Saddam Iraqis hate Americans even more, hints at devious Vietnam-era tactics from the imperialist invaders ... it just goes on and on. This is especially noteworthy:

The number of attacks against the US is down, but this doesn't mean that the security situation is any less fraught. While the American forces are poised defensively, like a coiled spring, and while fear grips that proportion of the Iraqi people that doesn't necessarily support the resistance, it is impossible for the US to pull Iraq out of the social and economic chaos that makes many Iraqis hunger for what they remember as the day-to-day orderliness of Saddam's Iraq.

Oh, for the day-to-day orderliness of women beheaded in the street and their bodies hauled away in plastic bags. When McGeough writes of Iraqi people who don't necessarily support the resistance, it should be remembered that he didnít write a single word about the anti-terrorism demonstrations. Sydney Morning Herald readers possibly donít know they ever took place.

UPDATE. The New York Times explains why it didnít cover the anti-terror marches: nobody told the paper they were happening.

Posted by Tim Blair at December 20, 2003 01:54 AM

Which group do these idiots think is larger:

The group that opposes the US presence as an "occupation," but hid their opposition, for fear of being tarred as "pro-Saddam".

The group that opposes the Ba'athists as oppressors, but hid their opposition, for fear that Saddam would return.

Which group is more likely to come out, now that Saddam is under arrest?

Posted by: Dean at December 20, 2003 at 02:09 AM

mcgeough's christmas wish list for iraq:
1. i want them to fail
2. i want them to fail
3. i want them to fail
4. and a shiny new bicycle for saddam

Posted by: charlotte at December 20, 2003 at 02:14 AM

Cotton candy and pony rides for him too.

Posted by: Donnah at December 20, 2003 at 02:49 AM

It's obvious ordinary Iraqis can't possibly support the US occupation. Look at the US. Even here "fear grips that proportion of the (American) people that doesn't support the (Dean) resistance." Once Dean is in power these folks can come out of hiding and feel free to breathe. We hunger for the day-to-day orderliness of a Progressive/Leftist regime that tells us what to think and when, what to do and how, and makes sure that we do.

Posted by: JorgXMcKie at December 20, 2003 at 03:40 AM

Iraq under Saddam - orderly.

The U.S. under Bush - the Fourth Reich.

It's Lefty Bizarro World!

Posted by: Dave S. at December 20, 2003 at 06:25 AM

As an American, I long for the "orderliness" we used to have under Britain. "King George in '04!"

Posted by: Jerry at December 20, 2003 at 08:55 AM

Landru! Guide us!

Posted by: Bryan C at December 20, 2003 at 09:08 AM

I fail to understand what was so humiliating about showing Saddam being examined.

Did I miss something or see an edited version? Did they show the doctor giving him a rectal exam?
Was there a part where Saddam was totally nude that was not shown where I live?

Honestly, what is so bad about showing the medical exam that has everyone all upset?

Posted by: Chris Josephson at December 20, 2003 at 09:36 AM

"Honestly, what is so bad about showing the medical exam that has everyone all upset?"

I think the real answer to that question can be seen in the reaction of the Iraqi journalists when the images were first shown at the "got him" press conference, the uncontrolled sobbing and shouting (and the jubilation that followed on the streets) showed that this was a major event for the Iraqi's and a major blow for the naysayerís.

Lets not be coy here, does anyone believe that many of these people REALLY give a rats flying fat arse about Husseinís loss of dignity as result of a dental exam?? of course not, they are more interested in their own loss of dignity from having their precious "Paul Mcquagmire" and "going from bad to worse" campaigns dealt a blow.

As if its not bad enough that they have to battle the rising tide of actual Iraqi citizens that are directly contradicting their nay saying, now the naysayerís have to battle the immensely powerful video evidence of what to most Iraqi's seems to be the symbolic end to a 20 year living nightmare.

It would be interesting to see what some of the same people complaining about the indignity of the images had to say about the images that were flashed around the world at the start of the war of the mangled bodies of the coalition soldiers, some with their trousers pulled down.
Did they express the same outrage at those images ("see I told you so" and "this is all your Bush's fault" doesn't count) or is it only outrageous when the person is 'important'?

Posted by: Michael at December 20, 2003 at 12:16 PM

So, the bias of the NYT is exceeded only by its incompetence?

Posted by: Pixy Misa at December 20, 2003 at 08:08 PM

McGeough's taking offence at the "humiliating" Saddam medical underlines that the capture of the Wiz has actually unhinged the loony left. They really are loony now. How can anyone view the historic downfall of one of the bloodiest tyrants of history in such a manner? McGeough should be reminded of the end of the Ceausescus (horrific and deserved) and Mussolini and his mistress, executed and hung upside down. How does Saddam's capture come even close? This truly is insane and deluded commentary by this person.

Posted by: Dave F at December 21, 2003 at 05:40 AM

No Pixy, the incompetence of the New York Times is still greater than the bias. It's just that sometimes being completely incompetent achieves the same end result as being completely biased, ie "Don't want to report good news, well then just don't".

Posted by: James at December 21, 2003 at 04:59 PM