Wednesday, December 22, 2004

Saddam, Hero of the Left?

You have to scroll down in Wretchard's latest post to get to the truly scary stuff: Namely that Europeans are refusing to investigate mass grave sites because they don't want to turn up evidence that can be used against Saddam Hussein.

Couple this news with an earlier Wretchard post about Paris Match correspondents who were essentially embedded with Iraqi terrorists and went on a mission to report on the terrorists' attempt to shoot down a civilian cargo plane.

And add to this mix the fact that Clive Stafford-Smith, a British "human rights lawyer," is helping Saddam's legal defense. Then finally, figure in that, as Charles Johnson reported, Stafford-Smith is a beneficiary of the George Soros Foundation.

Now, let me just ask: How long is it before Saddam Hussein becomes not an embarrassing, unspoken ally of the left, but an actual hero to them?

It will happen in Europe first, obviously. I suspect that in the run-up to his trial, he will be transformed from monster to victim in the mind of the left. Then, as the trial unfolds and Iraq's mass graves are placed in context next to the abominations of America's Abu Ghraib, he'll mutate from victim to folk hero. Not the sort of fellow you'd invite to dinner, mind you, but an okay sort. Certainly good enough for those people. Before the trial's conclusion, Saddam might be the next Che Guevara.

The real question is: Will this view then infect the American left, too?


Bizarro Jack said...

You've got to be kidding.

A lawyer wants to defend SH because he thinks the check probably won't bounce, and thats the end of the story. I dont know crap about George Soros, but if there is one person in the west who will honestly stand up for Saddam Hussein (exception being legal counsel, which is its own self-justifying entity), that can hardly reflect on the left.

You're being overly fanciful here and I don't think that's something you often do.

p.s. when I say "the west" I am disincluding France.

Grady said...

I thought Mr. Last was kidding too until I read his link above to a comment by David Adesnik. Mr. Adesnik is concerned that some criticism unjustly vilifies the president rather than terrorists who truly deserve condemnation. I wonder if Mr. Last is concerned that this line of criticism will cause some to forget about the atrocities authorized by Saddam Hussein in their support for justice in the Abu Ghraib controversy? What part of the American left is Mr. Last referring to?

I live in the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area and am surrounded by liberals. I've never heard a liberal characterize Saddam Hussein as anything but a tyrant and responsible for massive numbers of civilian murders.

Hmm, are you joking? Are you bored and looking for some blog action? Well, I'll take the bait for argument's sake.

It is entirely consistent to condemn atrocities under Saddam's watch and atrocities commited by the United States. Condemning both does not equate our leadership with that of Saddam Hussein. Nor does it equate American atrocities with those commited by Saddam Hussein.

As much as I wanted to see Mr. Bush defeated last month, I certainly do not put him in the same moral category as Saddam Hussein. Nobody I know believes that Mr. Bush = Saddam/Hitler, etc. But I am still outraged by the activies that occured at Abu Ghraib. I am dismayed because Americans committed crimes. Further, I expect our actions to correspond to the high moral standards trumpeted by our president as reason for removing the Iraqi dictator.

We took the moral high ground in the Iraqi invasion so we ought to stay on course. And if anyone developed policies advocating the Abu Ghraib atrocities, they should be removed to keep our cause just.