Sunday, February 16, 2003

The NYT (almost) redeems itself

Every once in a while, the New York Times commits a gaffe and publishes a story that supports the argument for action against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. In this case, the story is "Looking at the Enemy as Liberator" which reveals the opinions of Iraqi emigrants who escaped to Jordan. This is really gripping reading as the Iraqis, free from Hussein's secret police, say what they really think about the Iraqi dictator:

Almost to a man, these Iraqis said they wanted the Iraqi dictator removed. Better still, they said — and it was a point made again and again — they wanted him dead. The men, some in their teens, some in their 50's, told of grotesque repression, of relatives and friends tortured, raped and murdered or, as often, arrested and "disappeared."

This just in: the French ambassador has called for more inspections and further noted that "everyone loves magic tricks."

But their hatred of Mr. Hussein had an equally potent counterpoint: for them, the country that would rid them of their leader was not at all a bastion of freedom, dispatching its legions across the seas to defend liberty, but a greedy, menacing imperial power.

Ever hear the one about not doing something to the hand that liberates you?

This America, in the migrants' telling, has enabled the humiliation of Palestinians by arming Israel; craves control of Iraq's oil fields; supported Mr. Hussein in the 1980's and cared not a fig for his brutality then, and grieved for seven lost astronauts even as its forces prepared to use "smart" weapons that, the migrants said, threatened to kill thousands of innocent Iraqis.

Gee, maybe we should disengage from the Middle East and let the United Nations take control

The men refused to accept that their image of the United States might be distorted by the rigidly controlled Iraqi news media, which offer as unreal a picture of America as they do of Iraq. But when it was suggested that they could hardly wish to be liberated by a country they distrusted so much — that they might prefer President Bush to extend the United Nations weapons inspections and stand down the armada he has massed on Iraq's frontiers — they erupted in dismay.

What? What's wrong!?

"No, no, no!" one man said excitedly, and he seemed to speak for all. Iraqis, they said, wanted their freedom, and wanted it now. The message for Mr. Bush, they said, was that he should press ahead with war, but on conditions that spared ordinary Iraqis.

Make up your mind!

No comments: