Robert Scheer's weekly canard-filled column is up at the (self-proclaimed) liberal-bias-free Los Angeles Times
The Fact That Hussein's Gone Doesn't Make Lying RightRobert Scheer once edited the diaries of Che Guevara. Now it seems, the sickness of the political far left can best be defined by its refusal to admit that the world is better off without Saddam.
There was a time when the sickness of the political far left could best be defined by the rationale that the ends justified the means. Happily, support for revolutionary regimes claiming to advance the interests of their people through atrocious acts is now seen as an evil dead end by most on the left.
we don't know what the future holds for Iraq. Our track record of military interventions in the Middle East and elsewhere would lead any competent historian or Vegas bookie to conclude that a stable secular dictatorship is about the best outcome we can predict.As an exercise to the reader, please compare and contrast the following:
Of course there is nothing that Scheer can say in Saddam's defense, so he is reduced to spreading the lie that the good guys are lying.
It was OK to lie about the nonexistent evidence of ties between Hussein and Al Qaeda.Evidence of these ties was found in Baghdad by independent journalists. The only lie about Iraq and Al Qaeda was when Scheer lied by distorting what Donald Rumsfeld said about them.
It was OK to lie about the U.N. weapons inspectors, claiming they were suckered by Hussein.Hans Blix Nov. 15, 2002: "[The Iraqis] certainly did not give accurate answers to the questions they should answer. It could happen again," says the Swedish dipomat on the eve of his departure for Iraq.
It was OK to lie, not only to Americans but to our allies in this war, about "intelligence" alleging that Iraq's military had chemical and biological weapons deployed in the field.Madeleine Albright Nov. 12, 1998: "The thing to remember, Margaret, is at the end of the Gulf War, as part of the cease-fire agreement, [Saddam] agreed to dismantle all his weapons of mass destruction. That was the deal he made; and like everything else, he violates his deals."
In the world of Robert Scheer, the only government that doesn't lie is the government of Saddam Hussein.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 24, 2003 02:58 PMI'm certainly not the first to point out that the "lies" told by the anti-war movement to cow the public into preventing the overthrow of Saddam were at least as egregious as the extent to which the Bush administration overstated its case on WMD.
250,000 dead Iraqis in the first three months, yada yada yada.
So, if both sides were equally dishonest in their prewar arguments (and that's being generous to the likes of Scheer), which is worse: a lie told to protect Saddam or a lie told to overthrow him?
Posted by: Bill Herbert on June 24, 2003 06:28 PMAmazing.
Actually, as I recall very well, the rationale for the war as given by Bush et al, including a (somewhat less than convincing) presentation by Colin Powell before the UN, was that Iraq had or was developing WMD, and in order to prevent them from falling into the hands of terrorists, he had to go. Any talk of "regime change" was predicated on this threat.
(Of course the whole WMD thing was never credible in the first place, as the Japanese cult Aum Shrinrikyo made their own nerve gas, and an organization like bin Laden's, with far greater resources, could no doubt do the same, perhaps also for biological weapons.)
Deposing Saddam because he is a bad man, and has done and will no doubt in the future do more bad things, or in order to get rid of the sanctions, which harm the Iraqi people (an even better argument, which was never really made), are and would have been much better arguments. The trouble is, these aren't what was pushed by Bush in the run-up to the war.
And it is just amazing to watch now as self-appointed apologists for the Administration scramble to make these other ex post facto justifications.
So get off it. Bush said we had to get rid of Saddam because of the WMD, so now it's only fair to ask: Where are they?
Deal with it.
And I completely agree with Blix: Funny how the US was so sure the WMD were there, with seemingly no idea where. Nor did the US want to allow the UN inspectors more time (although I do understand, believe me, that the Iraqis were supposed to divulge the locations, and not have the UN inspectors hunt for them), but now that the US has free rein, and can pretty much go anywhere in Iraq anytime it wants, the US asks for more time to find the WMD. While I understand the challenge that finding the WMD may pose, this is just a tad hypocritical, and Blix was right to point it out.
But OK, fine. Take as much time as you want; in the end we will all see what is found.
And in any case, good riddance to Saddam.
Posted by: EH on June 25, 2003 04:37 AMEven more amazing:
Nests of Islamofascists all through Syria, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan on 9/11/01 (remember that?), cheerfully sucking up oil money and Wahabi or worse ideology. Unable or unwilling to use their talents to create a life for their own citizens, they work up jolly plots and schemes to raise hell with the horrible Americans.
Faced with all the above, and with the utter haplessness of the UN in addressing even the symptoms, let alone the causes of those murderous ideologies, GWB & Co. have done exactly the right thing in reducing first Afghanistan, then Iraq, instead of waiting for the next oh-so-ingenious and oh-so-anonymous mayhem directed against our open society.
If Bush did direct attention to WMDs in Iraq, it sure wasn't invented out of thin air - everyone from Chirac to Al Gore to Bill Clinton to Hans Blix spent years calling attention to the same thing. The same creatures who told us three months ago we were entering quagmires, and about to slay hundreds of thousands of civilians and lose brigades of our own soldiers, are the runaway winners of the purplefaced liars contest. And the character of Saddam, plus his well-financed capabilities of exporting death and torture beyond his own dungheap, were reason enough to neutralize him.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on June 25, 2003 09:40 AMDespair not; all is not lost.
When the Democratic presidential candidate enters the White House in 2005, he can reinstate Saddam and right the terrible wrong that has been done to the people of Iraq....
Posted by: Barry Meislin on June 26, 2003 07:16 AMYou warmongering neoconservative cabalists just won't face the incontrovertable logic of your moral and intellectual superiors. To wit:
1. WMD has not been found as of 10 weeks after cessation of hostilities in Iraq.
2. Therefore, all people who claimed Iraq stockpiled WMD (Bush Cheney, Powell) are liars (except those who were against the war, like Albright, Blix, Clinton and Chirac).
Why is it that you warloving neonazi zionists are incapable of understanding this ironclad logic? And why do you keep bringing up non-issues like Saddam's lies, or the hundreds of mass graves in Iraq? I mean, its not like they were killed by Americans or anything.
Furthermore:
1. Sean Penn was in negotiations to star in a movie for $10 million.
2. Sean Penn criticized the war in Iraq.
3. Negotiations for Sean Penn's movie deal fell through.
4. Therefore, concentration camps are being set up in Virginia where Ashcroft intends to silence all who dare speak out against this fascist regime.
C'mon people! Wake up! Its so obvious its staring you right in the face! Rage Against the Machine, dudes!
Posted by: BushisworsethanHitlerSatanandKennyG on June 26, 2003 04:56 PMIn Europe, people would consider Scheer to be one of the few honorable, dissenting Americans, along with Chomsky and Sontag, if they knew who he was. All of his canards are 'well-worn truths' over here - which are supposedly hidden from the ignorant Americans by our totalitarian media.
Posted by: kid charlemagne on June 27, 2003 06:33 AM