PRESS COVERED UP FOR SADDAM, BUT NOW WHAT DO THEY THINK

CNN's Eason Jordan tells in a New York Times editorial about horrors of the Saddam regime known by CNN, but never reported, including torture and dismemberment. The reason for the cover-up wasto keep reporting, but what really is there to report about Iraq if not these horrors? The machinations of the "inspection regime" or the faux elections? Yep, it's a good thing that CNN was there to get those stories and to relay government propaganda about the horrible sanctions while keeping quiet about murder. Eugene Volokh has the goods on Eason Jordan's ugly cover up last year.

Sure, I have some sympathy for the failure to reveal what he knew out of fear that CNN staff, many of whom were Iraqi, might be killed. Protecting those you know is certainly the easier course compared to protecting those you've only heard about, but I hope there's plenty of guilt.

Still, after reading Jordan's NYT editorial, I have a few questions for the author.

1. You wrote an editorial, so why not editorialize? Tell us what you think about the Bush policy now and whether you think Hans Blix could have stopped these horrors.

2. Did you withhold the information because you are like Scott Ritter, who refused to tell the world about the "horrific" children's prison because he didn't want Americans stopping those horrors?

3. If Enron or Exxon kept quiet about how an employee "was beaten and subjected to electroshock torture in the basement of a secret police headquarters" for weeks so that the Company wouldn't lose some profit opportunities, would CNN refuse to report it?

Just wondering.

MORE TEHRAN EMBASSY STORMING

This time, Iraqis take their own. Lest we confuse this embassy attack with approval of the U.S. policy of Iraq Regime Change, Reuters clears it up in their headline: Iraqis Storm Embassy in Tehran, but Still Hate U.S.. They fled Saddam's oppression for the Fascist Islamic Theocracy of Iran. Of course they hate the United States . . . despite all the liberating of Muslims we've been doing (Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq).

THE IDIOT FAMOUS

Why is that people who have become celebrities because of some talent or perceived talent for pretending believe that they can use their fame to push their policital views on us, and then not have their fame punished when we are revulsed by their views? Look, we wouldn't know what Tim Robbins thinks about the Iraq War if he hadn't done a decent job pretending to be "Meat" in Bull Durham. So, he uses his celebrity that was sparked by his work in that movie to get headlines about how horrible he thinks George W. Bush is and how the Iraqi people aren't worth our effort. Fine. He shouldn't complain when those of us who disagree with him refuse to enhance his fame and contribute to his unique ability to be heard saying stupid things. That's what happened in Cooperstown.

But when Rod Paige says something positive about Christianity, and nothing negative about any other faith or value system, he gets pummeled by the Left and you don't hear a word about his right to free speech.

PEACENIKS: RAILING AGAINST THE LIGHT?

By many accounts, and with the grace of God, the war in Iraq is over. Even Iraq’s ambassador to the United Nations has effectively admitted this.

This news, however, seems lost on the "anti-war" movement. The left-wing Indymedia sites are still discussing plans for upcoming rallies, and Craig Rosebraugh, the former spokesman for the the terrorist-group Earth Liberation Front, has called on anti-war protesters to take "direct actions'' against U.S. military establishments, urban centers, corporations, government buildings and media outlets.

In other words, the leftists are still protesting a war that appears to be already over, except for the clean-up.

I'm not sure why this is. Some of it is the fact that their movement is actually anti-America, not anti-war. But I have to suspect that some of it is simply residual energy. These clowns built up so much anticipation for a quagmire, during which they would protest like it was 1969, that now they have no way to dissipate their orgiastic, America-hating energy.

Luckily for them, I have a suggestion:

Take a cue from what liberal actress Janeane Garafalo promised to do if the United States "goes in, liberates Iraq [with] people in the street, American flags, hugging our soldiers."

Apologize.

That's right.

Apologize to President Bush for calling him a reckless cowboy, for claiming this war could not be won, for claiming he was waging an unjust war, for claiming it would be a massacre.

Apologize to the soldiers they attacked, called baby killers and called for the deaths of.

Apologize, most of all, to the Iraqi people, for efforts at continuing the regime of their mass-murdering oppressor, Saddam Hussein.

And, if they can't do that, if they don't have the integrity to admit they were wrong, then they should take the advice of some
ecstatic Iraqis said on a banner directed towards the Human Shields:

Wankers go home.

AWAITING JANEANE GAROFALO'S APOLOGY

An e-mail reminds me of this exchange from a March 6 The O'Reilly Factor (thanks to Martin):

O'REILLY: If you are wrong… and if the United States - and they will, this is going to happen - goes in, liberates Iraq [with] people in the street, American flags, hugging our soldiers… you gonna apologize to George W. Bush?

GAROFALO: I would be so willing to say, "I'm sorry". I hope to God that I can be made a buffoon of, that people will say, "You were wrong. You were a fatalist". And I will go to the White House on my knees on cut glass and say, "Hey, you and Thomas Friedman were right… I shouldn't have doubted you"…

O'REILLY: Nobody will call you a buffoon because I will protect you.

GAROFALO: Thank you, sir.

For some, Reality Bites.

DEPARTMENT OF USELESS RHETORIC

On a day when war has proven its continued reliability and effectiveness in ending oppression and replacing slavery with freedom, presidential candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Syria) proposes a "Department of Peace" and a "Peace Academy." I'm not making this up. The Peace Academy would "make recommendations to the president on the protection of human rights, said Kucinich, who said his bill has the support so far of 47 members of the House of Representatives."

Graduates of the Military, Naval and Air Force Academies are today restoring human rights to the people of Iraq, so I don't see what a bunch of bookworms in birkenstocks at this "Peace Academy" could have done to help. Write a thesis or two? Doing nothing is likely what their contribution would have been, which is exactly the contribution of Kucinich, Kerry, Sharpton and the other Democratic presidential aspirants.

But, I might favor this Peace Academy, if only to see their annual football games against Army, Navy and Air Force. Ouch.

The Farcification of the Democratic Party continues.

DOES THIS MEAN THAT RUSSIA WANTS NEXT?

The speaker of parliament in Syria's satellite state, Lebanon, claims that Saddam is in the Russian Embassy in Baghdad. If true, we should thank our Russian friends for apprehending the villain and preparing him for extradition on war crimes charges.

IF WE CAN DO IT, WHY CAN'T THEY

Anti-war and (as we have argued) anti-American protestors have been fortunate to be able to loudly express their disapproval of the decision of the United States, the United Kingdom, Austalia, Poland and others to go to war in Iraq. That right to dissent is something that has not been enjoyed by the Iraqis -- until now.

Emboldened by the sight of U.S. troops taking control of the capital, they not only dared to loot but also to celebrate Saddam's fall, to vandalize his image and to call him a criminal - offenses that just days or weeks ago could have brought arrest, imprisonment, torture, even death at the hands of the secret police.

The protestors in the streets of Oakland and New York worked to deny the Iraqis the same rights that they enjoy. But now, because Bush and Blair had the guts to do what was right despite the carping of the Euroweenies, Socialists, Marxists and their useful idiots in the United States, the Baghdad streets are full of Iraqis expressing their profound disapproval of Saddam's murderous reign. Good for them.

IT'S ABOUT THE CHILDREN

Coalition troops freed over a hundred Iraqi children today who had been imprisoned because they refused to join the Baath Party. Meanwhile, narcissists continue to navel gaze and belly-ache about the Oakland police. Andrew Sullivan brilliantly hammers home the point:

On the same day [as the freeing of the children], James Carroll of the Boston Globe asks this question: "Does your nation any longer know that it, too, is part of the human family? That that family is now warning of a fatal loss of trust in the ideal for which the American flag has so long stood? Are that flag, and all who have carried it, honored by what is being done under its sign today?" Carroll's answer is no. Maybe he should usher those kids back into prison himself.

WHERE IS SCOTT RITTER?

Remember former UN Weapons Inspector, and fan of underage girls Scott Ritter? Ritter, a former hawk on Iraq - turned Saddam apologist - was a media darling and favorite on the speaking circuit prior to the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Ritter made some statements on the U.S. plan to liberate Iraq prior to the start of hostilities. Let us take a look at them.

"The United States is going to leave Iraq with its tail between its legs, defeated. It is a war we can not win."

"Every time we confront Iraqi troops we may win some tactical battles, as we did for ten years in Vietnam but we will not be able to win this war, which in my opinion is already lost."

"We do not have the military means to take over Baghdad and for this reason I believe the defeat of the United States in this war is inevitable."

That is just a few of the things he was saying. With the truth showing him to be fully and completely wrong is it any wonder he hasn't been making the rounds on the talking head shows.

There is one thing Ritter has going for him. He can still thank heaven for little girls.

SUPPORT THE TROOPS,
BRING THEM HOME NOW

That's the fervent wish of the Left, but here's a picture they don't want you to see. These dancing, celebrating, smiling, happy Iraqi women and children will be slaughtered by Saddam's thugs if the Left gets their wish. Just like in 1991.

MORE PROOF: THEY AREN'T ANTI-WAR
THEY'RE JUST ANTI-AMERICA

"Anti-war" demonstrators in San Francisco have asked that the police not wear American flags when policing protesters because the colors make anti-war demonstrators uncomfortable.

Bonnie Weinstein, co-founder of Bay Area United Against War, said flag-wearing cops "might seem like kind of a threat...it's obviously meant to annoy people."

In other words, the protesters admit our flag, the American flag, "annoys" them.

So much for their "dissent is patriotic" argument.

POST WAR IRAQ: THE U.N. DESERVES A ROLE

In post-war Iraq, there will be several factions making their cases to lead the provisional government. There will be the exiles, like the Iraqi National Congress, and there will be those who remained in Iraq, fighting the regime. From Kurds in the north to Shiites in the South, many will want their say. But no one has said anything about whether those who liked the status quo will have a voice in the new provisional government. Rightfully, the job of sticking up for the Fedayeen Saddam and the Ol' Boys from Tikrit belongs to those who have worked so tirelessly on Saddam's behalf prior to the war. Yes, we've found a role for the United Nations in post-war Iraq and it won't be much different than its role during the pre-war phase.

WE'LL TAKE FRANCE'S APOLOGY NOW

President Bush is proven right on Kyoto (global warming may be happening, but not because of humans, see the much warmer Middle Ages) and on Iraq's WMDs. Merely understanding the voyages and settlements of the Vikings in Greenland and having some sense for the nefarious nature of Saddam would have led the Euros to the right conclusion on these matters, but instead, Chirac and Schroeder had to be schooled in these matters by a cowboy.