October 05, 2004

DEMOCRACY LATER! OR POSSIBLY NEVER!

In an interview with adoring Democracy Now! bubbleheads, Robert Fisk explains that Iraqis need the security of someone who’ll only kill you if you break the rules:

When I go to funerals in Iraq, of men who have been cruelly murdered, women, children, people say to me, look. I don't care if you got rid of Saddam Hussein. No, we didn't like him, but at least with Saddam Hussein, we had security. Our children went to school in the morning. Although we didn't have free speech, we knew that if we obeyed the rules, we would be alive. Now, that is not praise of Saddam Hussein. He was a cruel dictator. We helped to prop him up. We started him off in the first place. But if the alternative is carnage on the scale we're now seeing, what do you think that the Iraqis want? I mean, history shows that what Bush did, and what Kerry thinks he might be able to do, cannot work, especially in Iraq.

The Democracy Now! people lap this up. Ironic name, isn’t it?

UPDATE. Parker Smith has an idea so crazy that it just might work:

Something should be done to Fisk's article - maybe someone can reprint it, interleaving analytical and sarcastic comments.

In fact, there should be a name for this process - maybe we could name it after some deserving pundit!

Think it will catch on?

Posted by Tim Blair at October 5, 2004 01:55 AM
Comments

That's what people in former dictatorships have said since the dawn of time. "We missed the old tyrant. At least he wasn't strange and different!" Unlike this scary change thing. Fisk sounds like he has never heard of the common human fear and dislike of change and freedom. Then again we know he's as dumb as a doorknob.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at October 5, 2004 at 02:02 AM

...and the trains ran on time

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at October 5, 2004 at 02:15 AM

"Saddam would have kept the trains running on time, had it not been for the genocidal UN sanctions which killed 100 million Iraqi children!"

Posted by: Damian P. at October 5, 2004 at 02:25 AM

I just held my nose and read the whole thing. Note Fiskie's not-so-subtle implication that the media and government are controlled by the eeeevil Zionists.

Asshole.

Posted by: Damian P. at October 5, 2004 at 02:33 AM

"Asshole."

That is the simplest description of Fisk I have heard in a long time. He is one of those tyrannty loving leftists who by rights should be in jail for his work in a just world. Alas, the world is not just, and Fisk and his ilk are one of the reasons for it.

Posted by: FH at October 5, 2004 at 02:46 AM

Something should be done to Fisk's article - maybe someone can reprint it, interleaving analytical and sarcastic comments.

In fact, there should be a name for this process - maybe we could name it after some deserving pundit!

Think it will catch on?

Posted by: Parker at October 5, 2004 at 02:47 AM

I seem to recall a Benjamin Franklin quote involving liberty and security and how the former shouldn't be sacrificed for the latter.

Posted by: Big Dog at October 5, 2004 at 03:00 AM

I wonder if the people he spoke to were standing on one of those impenetrable tank traps that Fiskie saw on the road to Baghdad last year.

Posted by: Clem Snide at October 5, 2004 at 03:07 AM

I value my sanity too much to read the whole thing, so tell me, does he end up getting beaten by the Iraqis he talked to?

Posted by: Sean M. at October 5, 2004 at 03:18 AM

Baghdad Bob: "Imperialist running dog lies! Everyone loved Saddam! Each year he got 102% of the vote, thereby proving the support he had by Iraqi's!!

Those mass graves are infidels that attempted to immigrate in to Iraq since everyone in the Arab world wanted to live under Saddam!

Just ask this honorable man of the People Robert Fisk! He and Saddam were like cousins only closer! He would know! ..."

Posted by: Tman at October 5, 2004 at 03:19 AM

I value my sanity too much to read the whole thing, so tell me, does he end up getting beaten by the Iraqis he talked to?

No, so the article doesn't even have THAT going for it.

Posted by: Robert Crawford at October 5, 2004 at 03:30 AM

Robert Fisk, the People's Poet.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at October 5, 2004 at 04:03 AM

Damned Murcans, messed everything up for the happy, simple Iraqis!

Posted by: Rebecca at October 5, 2004 at 05:09 AM

Chomskying? Kind of a mouthful.

Sontagging? Not bad, but needs something a little shorter and punchier.

If only there was a word for it!

Posted by: Mike G at October 5, 2004 at 05:45 AM

We should name it for Mr. Fisk - Roberting!

Posted by: Parker at October 5, 2004 at 06:37 AM

Fiskification

Fiskifying

Fiskizzling my nizzling

No, it needs to be something that sounds almost... obscene.

Posted by: david at October 5, 2004 at 06:41 AM

Sure the kids went to school in the morning. (At least the boys did.) Whether they came home in the afternoon was another matter.

Posted by: Cousin Dave at October 5, 2004 at 06:47 AM

The position that certain people may not be ready or prepared for democracy, and that it is worth it to sacrifice liberty and democracy in return for security is an old one, and can at least be argued.

It does seem wholly out of place on a site called "Democracy Now!," though.

Posted by: John Thacker at October 5, 2004 at 06:55 AM

david -

Well, for the Australians and Brits, 'Roberting' would be close to 'Rogering'...

I guess I'm still rooting around for the right term, though...

[I think that was an Oz in-joke...]

Posted by: Parker at October 5, 2004 at 07:13 AM

Call it Fissing!

No, wait, it needs a plosive sound in there somewhere... I give up.

Posted by: Big Dan at October 5, 2004 at 07:23 AM

In Canada, we would probably call such a modified artile a "Timbit"

Posted by: jlchydro at October 5, 2004 at 09:36 AM

We girls loved Uday and Ousay- they had such FUN parties that we almost never went home, and when we did they gave us wonderful parting gifts -so we never for get them

Posted by: Rose at October 5, 2004 at 10:30 AM

They really should drop a letter and become "Democracy No!"

Posted by: PW at October 5, 2004 at 11:49 AM

Im sorry for the losses of the Iraqi people, and I hope things improve soon and for all time, but Saddams state, as it was, existed only at the pleasure of the U.S., Australia and England, it truly was his to lose.

In the past, if an Iraqi citizen played by the rules, no problem from Saddam. Saddam, however, was not King Of The World, just of Mesopotamia, and he ignored the fact that he too had rules to play by. We all have to answer to someone/entity.

from above:

people say to me, "look. I don't care if you got rid of Saddam Hussein. No, we didn't like him, but at least with Saddam Hussein, we had security."

The reality is that it doesn't matter what this person thinks. The nations that Saddam should have played ball with are now calling the shots, and ultimately it's calculated for the benefit of those nation's citizens, if the Iraqis benefit as well, that's just bonus.

Posted by: Thomas at October 5, 2004 at 01:55 PM

In Canada, we would probably call such a modified artile a "Timbit"

Preferably, glazed...


Posted by: cheshirecat at October 5, 2004 at 02:05 PM

When I go to funerals in Iraq,(for fun) of men who have been cruelly murdered, women, children,(livestock too, i suppose) people say to me, (you, the infidel)look. I don't care if you got rid of Saddam Hussein.(well, it wasn't exactly me, in fact, I tried to keep him here) lthough we didn't have free speech, we knew that if we obeyed the rules, we would be alive.(though missing a tongue) Now, that is not praise of Saddam Hussein.(even though it sounds like it) He was a cruel dictator. We helped to prop him up.

Posted by: nic at October 5, 2004 at 02:32 PM

oh. wait. I get it.

you mean fisking...right? Fisking


oh, crap....have I ruined it?

the joke, I mean.

Fisking...heh...

Posted by: jack at October 6, 2004 at 03:14 AM