NY Times: How dare you ‘rush’ to hang ‘Mr. Hussein’!
posted at 4:36 pm on January 1, 2007 by Ian
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Newsbusters‘ Noel Sheppard sums up the New York Times’ defense of Hussein:
Assume for a second that it is 1945, and it has just been learned that Adolph Hitler is dead. Would America’s media offer this madman the respect of referring to him as “Mr. Hitler?” Well, if the newspaper in question was the New York Times, the answer might definitely be “Yes,” for in a New Year’s day article about the supposed “rush to hang” the former genocidal leader of Iraq, the Times regularly referred to the now demised despot as “Mr. Hussein”.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Damn. The NYT sucks as much this year as last year.
Wade on January 1, 2007 at 4:44 PM
Nothing the NY Times does surprises me anymore. They lie, distort and fabricate. Not to mention print classified information. What does get my goat is the fact that they get away with it. No one in the Bush administration seems to have the cajones to nail these despicable asses to the wall and put them where they belong … in jail.
darwin on January 1, 2007 at 4:44 PM
At least the NYT is consistent in their stupidity. He spent what, almost 3 years of trials and pre-trial motions, had lawyers from all over the world, and was given the closest thing to a fair trial possible under the circumstances.
And to top it all off he not only admitted to the atrocities but bragged about them.
The real question the NYT and their MSM buddies should ask is what was it about Saddam that made it impossible to do anything other than hang him.
MoxArgon on January 1, 2007 at 4:45 PM
What’s the diff? One day, thirty days? What the hell do they care? Oh, right, I forgot who we were talkin’ about here. NYT’s favorite son, Saddam. Hence the term “enemedia”.
“Rush to war, rush to hang” I’m in a rush to flush the NYT down the toilet.
Tony737 on January 1, 2007 at 4:46 PM
I suppose the New years resolution for the NYTs is to be even more anti-American than they were last year. Good start …
darwin on January 1, 2007 at 4:46 PM
Rush to war, rush to hang, rush to get the facts wrong. New year, same crap from the Times.
JammieWearingFool on January 1, 2007 at 4:47 PM
NYT: Consistenty committing sedition and treason.
Go them.
why aren’t they in jail yet?
I don’t get it.
One Angry Christian on January 1, 2007 at 4:51 PM
No one want’s to be the guy to bear the “Going against free speech” cross.
Even though teason is on the books.
I wonder what would happen if individuals pressed charges?
Ringmaster on January 1, 2007 at 4:58 PM
Because this is america, where very few “only wish I could have been there to kick him in the face before and after he fell”. You see, that’s just not what we are about.
THeDRiFTeR on January 1, 2007 at 5:04 PM
The Times’ 1953 obit of Stalin is a classic example of journalistic necrophilia. But at least back then, they never referred to a man who killed somewhere 20 and 60 million people as “Mr. Stalin”.
Ed Driscoll on January 1, 2007 at 5:16 PM
The Times is way out of line on this one, no doubt. But all the WWI analogies are really starting to make me sick. If WWII was anything like Iraq, we’d all be speaking German and saluting the fuhrer. There is no comparison between Iraq and WWII, both in terms of what was at stake and how it was handled.
John on January 1, 2007 at 5:28 PM
The New York Times is a clear and present danger to the Republic. There’s no need to ask whose side they on . . . it’s blatantly obvious that they do not support the United States of America.
rplat on January 1, 2007 at 5:28 PM
why is there so much hysteria? They hardly print conservative opinions.
Ouabam on January 1, 2007 at 5:31 PM
I could almost wish that this story by the Slimes indicates that they favor Saddam. I think we know that can’t quite be true. Sadly, it’s much, much worse than that.
It’s about continuously condemning every action in the world that is a success for a non-Democrat administration. Had Clinton accomplished Saddam’s demise, the story would be much different. We all know this.
Were the New York Crimes guilty of misplaced affection toward a tyrant who, for most of three decades “maintained stability in the region” through thousands of civilian deaths per month, they would be simply fools. Complete fools, but nothing more. The sad fact is, they are truly treasonous in their tactic, as it is designed with but one goal: To demean, weaken, and if possible destroy a sitting President and his party.
There is a world of difference between disagreeing with policy and using your “protected” status to actively engage in war against your own government. To passionately, consistently, and immorally spin every possible story to the detriment of President Bush for the purpose of turning the hearts and minds of the public is surely an act of war.
It is well past time that their motives and actions bring consequences.
Freelancer on January 1, 2007 at 5:31 PM
MR. Hitler Regrets
MORE
sugiero on January 1, 2007 at 5:34 PM
Happy New Year, Mr. Hussein!
Loved your costume! All wrapped up in that bed sheet with the noose necklace!
Exquisite!
shermacman on January 1, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Kinda reminds me of that infamous 2003 Dan Rather interview with “Mr. Hussein”…Dan’s head was so far up Saddam’s bum.
As for the Gray Lady, does this come as any suprise?
JetBoy on January 1, 2007 at 5:36 PM
The NYT is not exactly like Spike Jones, when he dignified the worst Nazis by addressing them as “Herr Goebbels” and “Herr Goering” in Der Fuehrer’s Face.
Is it now?
Shy Guy on January 1, 2007 at 5:47 PM
we? Do you have a frog in your pocket or are you really so arrogant that you honestly think you speak for all of us? I know many many marines who would have loved to kick him in the face, along with members of the air force, army, national guard, and many MANY civilians who think our enemies should be subdued … not coddled.
You wanna hold hands with Islamofacists? Cool. Just remember they’re going to be in the sites of people with really big guns and high yield explosives propelled at an extreme velocity.
Europe is using that feel good touchey feely logic. It seems to be working out grand for them between the two madrid bombings and france finding itself in the cross hairs as well.
America SHOULD be about destroying people who love genocide and killing civilians, and personally I’m ok with laughing at genocidal dictators getting what’s coming to them.
You can disagree with me. You can even find it disgusting. I really could care less. What you can’t do is speak for me.
I’m an American too bub, so keep that presumptuous self righteous pseudo do-gooder blanket statement to yourself. I’m not sleeping under it with the pc masses.
One Angry Christian on January 1, 2007 at 5:48 PM
A day before they wrote something like “…he was voted the 2nd time with 100% of the votes”.
Do they believe this? Ceausescu was voted in every time with nearly 100% – I was there – we literally voted under the gun, with armed soldiers standing by the door. The voting was mandatory too.
Hitler was also voted in by 100% of the Austrians (the Anschluss).
I’m getting really tired of harping on the MSM and the NYT. They are what they are, we know it and how can that change?
So long as there are enough idiots to support them, it will continue. Mr. Sulzberger is derelict in his financial duties but as long as the board and the shareholders don’t care, nothing we can do. It’s a socialist/tyrant-loving and anti-American rag.
Entelechy on January 1, 2007 at 5:49 PM
Eh the New Times are a bunch fo fools what else is new ?
Who cares what lies they print anymore they are a dying extinct creature full of hatrid.
William Amos on January 1, 2007 at 5:52 PM
Anyone who says that the murderer of millions and the execution of said murderer is morally equivalent is not someone who is capable of objective news reporting. Why aren’t these people mourning Saddam’s victims?
Rose on January 1, 2007 at 5:59 PM
And the main stream media can’t understand why more and more people are turning to bloggers for information…go figure.
Guardian on January 1, 2007 at 6:08 PM
At least the Iraqi government has the wisdom to recognize the difference between enemy propaganda and the rights to a free press. This from Yahoo News:
Seems to me that the only difference between this station and the NY Times is the clothing.
Guardian on January 1, 2007 at 6:17 PM
20 years from now, GWB will be praised as the liberator of millions, and the slayer of tyrants. He will be loved for the fact that he was an leader who did the right thing regardless of political expediency, if not for his skill with words. Another president will be remembered for that, and for failing to see the gathering storm as he philandered, studied polls, and preened.
And nobody then will remember or care what the NYT wrote about GWB, except as it is cited for the comfort those words gave to tyrants, and the dismay they brought to the newly freed and their liberators.
Just you watch.
drunyan8315 on January 1, 2007 at 6:17 PM
The MSM is hopelessly and unforgivably on the wrong side. The AP wonders why Americans think the US death toll in Iraq is too high.
flipflop on January 1, 2007 at 6:24 PM
I’ve been noticing this trend in the NYT for a while now–articles about celebs routinely refer to them as “Mr. Sorkin,” “Mr. Boreanaz,” “Mr. Boyle,” “Ms. Heaton.” I can’t say for a fact that it’s a new practice, as I don’t regularly read the NYT except what gets linked from other sites I read, but it both a) seems new and b) apparently, as shown by the Hussein thing, is applied across the board.
FWIW. It’s pretentious as hell and grossly insulting to Saddam’s victims when used in this context, but not more insulting than the sentiments expressed, and at least apparently they have “house style” to fall back on.
Anwyn on January 1, 2007 at 6:25 PM
What’s so special about “Mr”? He certainly wasn’t a woman.
MoonbatMedia on January 1, 2007 at 6:27 PM
And Hitler loved dogs. Even the worst of the world’s monsters can exhibit human qualities. What seems to be forgotten most easily is that a common talent of sociopaths is the ability to exude considerable charm. That we are so receptive to it, and that it is so utterly meaningless to them, is part of what makes them so dangerous.
Blacklake on January 1, 2007 at 6:27 PM
Just the last name is more routine usage, MoonbatMedia. “Mr.” gives an aura of respect, even … what’s the word I want … obsequiousness.
Anwyn on January 1, 2007 at 6:28 PM
I thought the use of “Mr.” was maybe from their style manual. But here’s a snippet from an article covering the Bushes’ visit to pay respects to Gerald Ford:
flipflop on January 1, 2007 at 6:32 PM
Ugh.
I wonder if they differentiate style between types of article, or between authors? Have to do some further comparison I guess.
Anwyn on January 1, 2007 at 6:35 PM
Iraq govt to probe filming of Saddam hanging
WTF?
JammieWearingFool on January 1, 2007 at 6:37 PM
I have no idea about the use of “Mr.” So I just picked a random article and in the article you can see plenty of first names used.
Capitalist Infidel on January 1, 2007 at 6:37 PM
right after the ball drops in time square the NYT stock drops just like it
Btw reading them refer to him as Mr. hussein makes me sick
Defector01 on January 1, 2007 at 6:39 PM
So it is “Bush and Ford” but “President Nixon” – how to sort this out? It’s not like they’re in love with Mr. Nixon…
Entelechy on January 1, 2007 at 6:40 PM
Newsbusters article sounds a lot like my post at HotAir on Dec 30th,
MSM warms to brave, courageous Saddam
fogw on January 1, 2007 at 6:45 PM
The “rush to execute” meme 1st appeared in Salon.com;
Scheer is infamous for interviewing Dhimmi Carter for Playboy.
Terp Mole on January 1, 2007 at 6:53 PM
Am-nasty Int’l flings the “rush to execute” meme;
Terp Mole on January 1, 2007 at 6:59 PM
“Part of it was that the Americans, who turned him into a pariah and drove him from power,”
Yes, NYT, we drove him from power, but not after America turned him into a “pariah”. America did not “make him” gas the Kurds and Iranians. Did not “make” him feed live human beings into a commercial meat grinder feet first. Did not “make” him throw people off buildings. Did not “make” him dig large holes and fill them with hundreds of thousands he feared didn’t “Love” and “Adore” him. Did not “make” him order a woman killed because she offered him a glass of water he feared was poisoned.
I have to stop listing all the things America didn’t “make him do”, that turned him into a “PARIAH”, because I don’t have time to list the thousands of items.
God, when are we going to get a President with the “Balls” to charge them with “Treason”.
Helloyawl on January 1, 2007 at 7:10 PM
Entelechy, kedves, I have a femme-troll making ethnic slurs about my Central European origin. Liberals are such lovers of diversity until….
You need to tell people more about Ceausescu, as many on this blog are young and green, and know little of history.
Many do not know anything about this typically eccentric and brutal dictator, and how he won every election ever held in Romania for a generation.
I still remember that photo of his crumpled body lying in a shabby courtyard, after some of his former associates turned on him. That was only 17 years ago, but…
Janos Hunyadi on January 1, 2007 at 7:11 PM
Given the NYT’s collapsing revenues, one would think they would be more concerned about the noose around their neck instead of Saddam’s.
.
GT on January 1, 2007 at 7:15 PM
I wish you all here at HotAir the best New Year that will bring you health, happiness, success, and all that is good in 2007.
Layla Gonzalez on January 1, 2007 at 7:35 PM
Wade on January 1, 2007 at 7:41 PM
Ditto, Helloyawl, although I’m more sanguine about Bush that you seem to be. Maybe it’s because we don’t get to pick the Best Possible President, but only get a choice between A or B ( and maybe C ).
When Bush disappoints me, I think of Kerry……
I have to stop listing all the things America didn’t “make him do”, that turned him into a “PARIAH”, because I don’t have time to list the thousands of items.
Janos Hunyadi on January 1, 2007 at 7:46 PM
….botched the quote / copy / paste thing again….
Janos Hunyadi on January 1, 2007 at 7:47 PM
Once you understand that most of the MSM and several of our country’s ex presidents, and a ex vice pres as well as more than a few sitting congressmen, are owned by Saudi Arabia and the UAE (both Sunni) you can understand why the left and the MSM act this way and yes they would have left Saddam in power even as he dumped hundreds of thousands of his own people in mass graves in the desert. It’s a sad day when ex Presidents of our nation make millions of dollars as
consultantsagents of foreign powers.Buzzy on January 1, 2007 at 7:51 PM
Saddam’s sons were killed and the argument became about whether we should have taken them prisoner instead.
Saddam was captured and he became an old man in a hidey hole that we disgraced.
Zarqawi was killed and the cries came up that it was done “not in my name”, that he was beaten, that he should have been captured alive.
Now Saddam is dead and the trial and method weren’t good enough.
What will happen when we finally find Osama? I’ve no doubt finding him will be the first step in turning him into yet another US “victim” and anti-Bush rallying point.
MayBee on January 1, 2007 at 8:18 PM
and of course this is the big story on every nightly news program with angry saddam protestors used to show the iraqi public in general. The MSM might be the cause of this by needling where there is nothing and giving an already pissed off group a reason to get even angrier
Defector01 on January 1, 2007 at 8:43 PM
Drunyan is right, history will look back at W as the man who started the ball rolling in the “War against those who would destroy our country and enslave our people”. He liberated millions and he turned enemies into allies. When the whole M.E. is free, Bush will get the credit. Just like Reagan, who liberated millions of Eastern Europeans. Remember how the left treated *him*?
Lefties: Always taking sides with our enemies, always on the wrong side if history.
Tony737 on January 1, 2007 at 10:08 PM
Can’t get sucked in this time. Michelle and Allah will be quoting the NY Times the very instant they find something to agree with, so blanket condemnations will only make us look stupid later.
Gosh, Rich Lowry must be searching the pages for mitigating stories even now…
Jaibones on January 1, 2007 at 11:06 PM
Janos, ignore her. She hasn’t heard yet or perhaps understands too well that the ‘unwashed’ and ‘ignorant’ and poor of the former Eastern bloc stand in the way of the EU constitution, as it was first composed, the EU PC and other crap.
This bloc is a thorn to the Western European elite and ours are not always deaf/blind. You just watch – the formerly oppressed will always fight harder against idealistic propaganda and bureaucracy. It will take a few more years for them to get out from under, economically.
Where were these bleeding hearts when I often feared that even my thoughts could be monitored?
The NYT should hark back at another ‘charming’ and good-looking dictator’s trial and execution, Dec. 22-25, 1989. That’s when Ceausescu was caught, tried and shot, all within 3 days, along with his misses. No one cries after them. Not many will cry after Saddam, after a few days, either.
And Janos, my Eastern bloc buddy, please take your own advice and ignore the trolls. Shower them with facts and/or challenges, but don’t play their game. It’s futile. I learned by feeding this futility when I first joined this thread.
Entelechy on January 1, 2007 at 11:27 PM
Sometimes we all need simply to agree to disagree.
Emmett J. on January 1, 2007 at 11:36 PM
I agree, it just goes to show you that this ideology is stronger than the dollar to them. They aren’t in business for the dollar..which is weird.
A note about the swiftness of the justice:
I wish california would learn a little from this. The sickos they put out of their misery have to wait for over 20 years for their death penalty sentence to be carried out costing the tax payers tons of money.
Highrise on January 2, 2007 at 12:21 AM
Igen, kedves, but can one ignore a troll while showering them with facts and/or challenges? The femme is a ‘he’ in a Flock of Seagulls sort of way, and I’m amused rather than offended. He is the opposite of Voltaire ( nice call on that one, BTW )
The MSM coverage of Saddam continues to be a disgrace. Their moral relevance always Shines Worst when they elevate thug-dictators after their death. Watch what they will do when Castro finally Achieves Room Temperature…..
As several people above noted, calling him “Mr.” now is hard to take
Janos Hunyadi on January 2, 2007 at 12:36 AM
You’re right about that, Janos. The beautification will be sickening.
BacaDog on January 2, 2007 at 1:10 AM
….nuff said….
Janos Hunyadi on January 2, 2007 at 1:59 AM
It will be:
Entelechy on January 2, 2007 at 2:22 AM
You are ‘prevesti’ Entelechy. Must be that roman-nemet, non-Cigany ancestry. I myself can detect even trace amounts of paprika from a hundred meters, and zither music always, always makes me smile
Really, seriously, the death of Castro will cause CNN and the other Usual Suspects to make even more of a disgrace of themselves than they have with MR. Saddam: swooning, weeping, sighing about what was and what might have been….
Janos Hunyadi on January 2, 2007 at 3:36 AM
Pinch Sulzberger (Arthur the III), has always been a HATER of America. He hates the military since the Vietnam War.
Every times the a-hole editors of the New York Times do something like this, whether it is committing treason by exposing secret anti-terrorism programs, of stupid adoration of our enemies like this, I wonder why Sulzberger isn’t on death row awaiting execution for treason.
georgej on January 2, 2007 at 6:37 AM
The New York Toiletwipe is lumbering towards extinction. Anti-American leftist-progressive self-important blithering idiots.
hillbillyjim on January 2, 2007 at 8:15 AM
Why, yes, feeling any sympathy whatever for “Mr. Hussein” IS a sure sign of moral idiocy. Why do you ask?
mojo on January 2, 2007 at 10:23 AM
The Times is reporting what was widely reported elsewhere, that the US representatives were cautioning a slower approach, presumably fearful of the Shiite celebratory flavor (as opposed to the wiser move of a more somber, and Iraqi presence). So the big news here is that the Times referred to him as “Mr”? In his lifetime, Hitler was often referred to as “Herr Hitler” in the media.
Details, details.
honora on January 2, 2007 at 10:26 AM
NYT, always angry because we meddle in someone else’s political arean, but they become upset when Iraq takes care of their own. They are the experts on “rush to judgement” they never met a story attacking the administration that they didn’t trample each other to get it on the front page. Remember the swift program? And the evil administration spying on our enemies? And that evil Foley, oops, they sat on that for more than a couple of months, no rush there, had to wait for the elections. Protect the kids, beat the Republicans..kids, defeat evil…kids, defeat evil…kids, defeat evil…yep, sacrifice the kids, let’s get the evil.
right2bright on January 2, 2007 at 10:29 AM
The only thing Americans insisted on was a certain modicum of dignity. That is, left to their own devices, the culturally preferred method would have been to shoot him a few times, mangle his body, then drag it through the streets and finally hang up what was left in the center of the city for a week so that the carrion birds could have their quality time with the corpse.
The New York Times is showing it’s blatant ethnocentric bias by trying to impose it’s own worldview over the traditional practices of people of color and other ethnicity.
naliaka on January 2, 2007 at 10:32 AM
The only thing Americans insisted on was a certain modicum of dignity.
The New York Times is showing it’s blatant ethnocentric bias by trying to impose it’s own worldview over the traditional practices of people of color and other ethnicity.
naliaka on January 2, 2007 at 10:32 AM
And these would be the people we expect to nurture the flower of democracy? Does cognitive dissonance make you dizzy or do you just get used to it?
honora on January 2, 2007 at 10:38 AM
Interesting sentiments from someone who thinks Iraq was better off under Saddam, than the democratic path they are taking now. You are hardly the person to lecture someone on “nurturing the flowers of democracy”. Choosing a difficult journey to freedom over a brutal, vicious, torturing, murdering dictator is something you will never have to face…it has already been done for you. And lives have been lost for your freedom to whine about others struggles.
right2bright on January 2, 2007 at 10:52 AM
Heads up Sparky. I have never stated that Iraq was better off under Saddam–straw man alert!!!! Can’t win the argument you opponent is makin? No problemo, put words into their mouth.
And try not to sound like such a self righteous, pompous asshole.
honora on January 2, 2007 at 11:13 AM
I’ve always been amazed, well, amazed is not the word, saddened, at the notion some have put forth in the drive-by media that freedom is an imposition. In othere words, who are we to impose freedomon someone else. As though thinking for yourself, believing as you wish, speaking freely as you wish, seeking greater economic opportunity, practicing religion in a violence-free manner, living where you want, owning your own property, choosing your own government and those running it, as though somehow these things are an imposition. True enough, we have people in our own country who shun independence and would rather surrender freedom for so-called security. But does anyone believe until now that Iraqi’s have had that choice? This experiment in freedom may very well fail, there are no gaurantees. All we can do is give them the opportunity to succeed. This is hardly an imposition, rather it is a choice named opportunity. Few if any Europeans gave us rebels and rustics a chance at freedom and self-determination before we won our independence. So much for the opinion of experts, who by the way are usually those with the most to lose when others gain their freedom. We don’t know yet whether Iraq and the greater Middle East will accept representative govt. We don’t know if the people will accept religious freedoms, economic freedoms, social freedoms. We don’t know because they’ve never experienced it. Freedom to those who’ve never known it can be a scary stranger. All I ask is that our nation and it’s people allow them the opportunity to choose freedom, or reject it. Those who are critical of this idea I simply ask this simple question; do you actually think what we were doing prior to this was working? No, it was not. In our illusion of peace was the growing anger, hatred and frustration with oppression that was being blamed on the U.S. Note what we agree on, friend and foe alike, the oppression of the population. The disagreement is on whom to blame. We will be to blame if we don’t give these people a chance to choose, to choose their own destiny. And let us not fool ourselves, it may sometimes be a choice we don’t like. But, it will be their choice, not the choice of tyrants, terrorists, or other various thugs and criminals. Give them choice and get out of the way….
ritethinker on January 2, 2007 at 11:26 AM
I get it, post whatever you want, then when someone pins you down throw up your hands and yell unfair and call them names. Escuse me Honora, I do not store a copy of everything I read on these blogs, but I distinctly remember you posting that Iraq was better off under Saddam than it is now. It ticked me off then, I just (within days) had a nephew come back from Iraq and he told me the story of investigating the torture chambers of Saddam…your post brought up a huge anger in me. And I blasted you then. Now that you are backing away from it, it shows that either; you post to be controversial, you do not believe what you post, that you have a very short memory, or you are embarrassed by your past statement.
If you want to deny what you wrote, you have that right. I am satified that you no longer believe what you wrote and that Iraq is on a better path. I have a feeling that as postitive events unfold in the coming years in Iraq (and middle-east), many others will take your tact, and begin to deny the negative comments they have written.
right2bright on January 2, 2007 at 11:46 AM
I get it, post whatever you want, then when someone pins you down throw up your hands and yell unfair and call them names.
It ticked me off then, I just (within days) had a nephew come back from Iraq and he told me the story of investigating the torture chambers of Saddam…your post brought up a huge anger in me. And I blasted you then. Now that you are backing away from it, it shows that either; you post to be controversial, you do not believe what you post, that you have a very short memory, or you are embarrassed by your past statement.
If you want to deny what you wrote, you have that right. I am satified that you no longer believe what you wrote and that Iraq is on a better path. I have a feeling that as postitive events unfold in the coming years in Iraq (and middle-east), many others will take your tact, and begin to deny the negative comments they have written.
right2bright on January 2, 2007 at 11:46 AM
This blog has a feature whereby you can go back and look at past postings. Have at it. I believe I may have stated that we (US) was better off with Saddam in power than we are now, which is pretty much indisputable.
Like I said, have at it.
honora on January 2, 2007 at 12:04 PM
many others will take your tact, and begin to deny the negative comments they have written.
right2bright on January 2, 2007 at 11:46 AM
Oh would it were so. Chuckle. I believe you mean “take your tack”.
honora on January 2, 2007 at 12:07 PM
Dear honora, did Saddam NOT deserve what he did to his predecessor? Being dragged behind a truck was part of it – and that man was disposed violently out of his position by a coup, not a lawful, democratic process. Eye for an eye?
The Left spends a lot of time beating everyone else over the head for being culturally insensitive, without acknowledging that they themselves have a rigid, ethnocentric world-view. MY way or the high way. They deserve to be smacked with their own bat. They are arguing that the Iraqis shouldn’t be allowed to handle their own business. How chauvinistic is that? Since you read my posts, you did not recognize the SARC in that one?
WHat purpose does it serve now for the NYT to whine about Saddam’s execution? The man is dead, good riddence. A lot of Iraqis can begin moving on, begin what healing can be humanly done to cope with the loss of beloved family members – brutally murdered during a reign of terror that was made worse by capricious behavior – one never knew day to day whether a normal life was going to be destroyed by a simple wrong gesture or glimpse of an eye. THe NYT is indulging in prune-faced sour grapes – nothing constructive – the behavior of spoiled brats who didn’t get their way. One a soul at that paper understands what it was like to live under that man and his bloodthirsty crew, including his sociopathic sons, if they truly did, they wouldn’t make a peep about the appropriateness of Saddam’s execution.
I have no cognitive dissonance with the fact that a man was hanged for his crimes. It doesn’t make the Iraqis incapable of democracy, as your comment implies. Seems they have a better sense of the hard responsibilities that come with maintaining civilization against the barbarians – better than the coddled, selfish children at the NYT.
naliaka on January 2, 2007 at 12:09 PM
Well, honora at least you are beginning to walk that backtrack trail. Keep digging. We were not better off as a country or a world with Saddam in power, and neither was Iraq. If you believe that the torturing and death of thousands, along with promoting the destruction of our values, stabilzes our country or world than so be it. If you believe that the US was better off with Saddam in control, while murdering his people, than good for you.
A world without Saddam is a better world for all. If you do not believe that…so be it.
Does the words “cognitive dissonance” ring a bell? I think you have just defined it.
right2bright on January 2, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Maybe she meant that Kofi and son were better off with Saddam in power (which is indisputably true).
thirteen28 on January 2, 2007 at 12:43 PM
Oh man, I misunderstood her posting again. I loved that “Oil for dead bodies” program. Thanks for pointing that out thirteen28, sometimes I am such a self righteous, pompous asshole.
right2bright on January 2, 2007 at 1:12 PM
No problem! Always glad to point out what a great humanitarian that Kofi guy was, who, along with Saddam, selflessly did sooooo much to help the Iraqi people (right honora?).
thirteen28 on January 2, 2007 at 1:32 PM
was better off with Saddam in power than we are now, which is pretty much indisputable.
That is ignorant opinion/propaganda pretending to be fact. If the Left repeats it enough, it will become “reality.” But, a delusion is just a “lie.” From the perspective of certain New Yorkers drinking lattes at their comfy desks, there is no discernable difference in the comfy, violence-free coccon around them, but for the Iraqis who had to live with arbitrary murder and torture every single day, it is indisputable that they are better off. It seems the big problem is the inconvenience that is created by Saddam’s departure for the necessity for “reporters” to have to learn a whole bunch of new names, go through the hard slog of researching, interviewing and getting to know the new players in the Iraqi future. Looks like lazy inertia is the name of the game at the NYT.
naliaka on January 2, 2007 at 2:34 PM
The problem is not that the NYT “reported like all others” about this or that fact, or that we dwell on them overusing “Mr. Hussein”, when in fact they name Bush and others, without the Mr. all the time.
The problem isn’t even that they bemoan the primitive way in which Saddam was executed, the ritual, before and after…
The issue is that they overtly decry his departure and have written at least 10 superfluous articles about every single insignificant idea/move related to the last few days. The only article they’ve yet to write is “Mr. Saddam let a last fart in defiance of the Persians and the Americans”.
Other than that, they covered all the bases. And they’re not even subte about it. Even the European media has done better than them in covering atrocities and the fact that a monster departed and joined the rest of them wherever they hang out now.
Entelechy on January 2, 2007 at 3:50 PM
Honora will claim that you mis-quoted her, she wrote “pretty much”, which means not quite as much as a “complete much”. So she is not sure it is indisputable, or even sure it is better or worse, it pretty much covers her from being pretty much wrong.
Us conservatives just don’t understand, we are pretty much confused.
One thing is for sure, Saddam is pretty much dead, and we are all completely much better.
right2bright on January 2, 2007 at 4:23 PM
BTW, your posts are really good. I always end up reading them twice.
right2bright on January 2, 2007 at 4:30 PM
right2bright on January 2, 2007 at 4:30 PM
You didn’t make me pretty much laugh, I laughed completely and felt indisputably better!
naliaka on January 2, 2007 at 4:38 PM
This was just SO juvenile… Now, look who’s a pompous a$$hole.
tickleddragon on January 2, 2007 at 6:11 PM
Thanks, one of the great parts of Hot Air is seldom do we point out grammatical errors. The ideas are what we like to consider. I am more interested in yours and others thoughts, not how
best,well,good,their spell check woiks. BTW you mispelled asshole.right2bright on January 2, 2007 at 6:18 PM
honora prefers jackass!
Entelechy on January 3, 2007 at 12:46 AM
right2bright-
Not to be obessive about the possessive, but you forgot the apostrophe on your “others“. (It should be “others’“.) And, also, that “yours” of yours should be singular, as the removal of the phrase “and others” (sic) will show.
Otherwise, I completely agree with you that those who seriously take the tactic (and tack to their own trivial wind) of nitpicking about spelling and grammar are compleat axeholes.
The NYTimes has become an organ as vestigal as the appendix, and appears about to burst with its accumulated seditious rot.
(A little linguisitic note for the “Mr.” versus “Herr” quibbler: during the lead up to and during WW II “Herr” -literally “Mr.” in Deutsch- was considered a slightly goofy word in common English, so calling Der Schicklegruber “Herr Hitler” was meant somewhat comically (alliteration always being a little silly) and emasculatingly (i.e.- “her”). While, to afford the slobbering psychopathic scumbag Sad(istic)dam(ned) with the false dignity of calling him “Mr. Hussein” -and not simply “mass-murderer Hussein”- is to betray the (as long as he was anti-Bush) dictator-loving sympathies of the Ashen Whore -formerly known as the “Grey Lady“- NYT.)
profitsbeard on January 3, 2007 at 1:03 AM
(Although I added the apostrophe to “others‘“, above, it appears to have disappeared en route to HotAir, rendering the faux correction incorrect and somewhat risible.
(”obsessive”, however, was simply mispelled.)
Herr Hussein must be cursing me from Gehenna.
(I can only hope that the white hot helminths infesting his simmering soul don’t writhe any less for it.)
profitsbeard on January 3, 2007 at 1:11 AM
Thanks, I think.
right2bright on January 3, 2007 at 10:42 AM
Comment pages: