January 03, 2007

Play Nice

As the whole world recognizes by now, Saddam Hussein, the brutal Iraqi tyrant, has been hanged. Whatever the future of Iraq, no longer will it be plagued by this murderous, bloodthirsty man.

Under the circumstances, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” made a quick stroll around Al Gore’s World-Wide Web, to determine what various “webloggers” and journalists had to say about the former dictator’s well earned demise. Naturally, we stopped first at The Nation, a magazine that, under the banner of “progressivism,” has shilled for its fair share of odious totalitarians.

We’re delighted to inform you, dear reader, that we were not disappointed by The Nation’s discussion of Saddam’s death. Far from it. In fact, a hack named John Nichols offers a quintessential take on this disgusting man’s downfall.

You needn’t take our word for it. Take a gander at this delightfully representative passage:

Hussein was a bad player -- a totalitarian dictator who, with tacit approval from the U.S. and other western nation [sic] during the 1980s, killed his own people and waged a mad war with Iran. He needed to be held to account. But even bad players deserve fair trials, honest judgments and justly-applied punishments. The former dictator got none of these.

Gee: The half-assed apologetics from these “progressive” folks are really awful, aren’t they? Although he must have cringed when he typed it, Mr. Nichols dared to call Saddam “a bad player.” Wow: What honesty.

“A bad player”: Does this moral imbecile believe that Saddam Hussein was a second-string outfielder for the Milwaukee Brewers? A 350-pound wannabe Casanova with one leg and a kickstand may be a “bad player,” but what kind of cretin would affix that label to a Stalinoid nightmare like Saddam Hussein? Answer: John Nichols.

In addition, dear reader, notice how Mr. Nichols can’t cast even mild aspersions in the direction of Saddam without wholeheartedly ripping on the USA: “…with tacit approval from the U.S. and other western nation [sic] during the 1980s….” Well, gee: He just couldn’t help himself; he simply had to mention that. Yes, yes, yes: America is to blame for everything, isn’t it?

Exactly which Iraqi powerhouse from the 1980s does Mr. Nichols think we should have supported? And wasn’t our policy toward Iraq dictated by our reasonable fears of Iran? Further, isn’t President Bush’s desire to establish a democracy in Iraq a move away from the policy of supporting various dubious strongmen? And, gosh, isn’t Mr. Nichols against this, too?

In short, this myopic palaver isn’t even about Saddam Hussein. It concerns The Nation’s typical hatred of the democratic West. Exactly why this is called “progressive” is anyone’s guess.

Posted at January 3, 2007 12:01 AM | TrackBack