May 13, 2004

LOYALTIES:

Hoping for the worst: Toby Harnden talks to an anti-war journalist who wants to see more Iraqis die — so that Bush will be thrown out in November Baghdad (Toby Harnden, 5/15/04, The Spectator)

The other day, while taking a break by the Al-Hamra Hotel pool, fringed with the usual cast of tattooed defence contractors, I was accosted by an American magazine journalist of serious accomplishment and impeccable liberal credentials.

She had been disturbed by my argument that Iraqis were better off than they had been under Saddam and I was now — there was no choice about this — going to have to justify my bizarre and dangerous views. I’ll spare you most of the details because you know the script — no WMD, no ‘imminent threat’ (though the point was to deal with Saddam before such a threat could emerge), a diversion from the hunt for bin Laden, enraging the Arab world. Etcetera.

But then she came to the point. Not only had she ‘known’ the Iraq war would fail but she considered it essential that it did so because this would ensure that the ‘evil’ George W. Bush would no longer be running her country. Her editors back on the East Coast were giggling, she said, over what a disaster Iraq had turned out to be. ‘Lots of us talk about how awful it would be if this worked out.’ Startled by her candour, I asked whether thousands more dead Iraqis would be a good thing.

She nodded and mumbled something about Bush needing to go. By this logic, I ventured, another September 11 on, say, September 11 would be perfect for pushing up John Kerry’s poll numbers. ‘Well, that’s different — that would be Americans,’ she said, haltingly. ‘I guess I’m a bit of an isolationist.’ That’s one way of putting it.

The moral degeneracy of these sentiments didn’t really hit me until later when I dined at the home of Abu Salah, a father of six who took over as the Daily Telegraph’s chief driver in Baghdad when his predecessor was killed a year ago. It was a — sadly — rare opportunity to speak to ordinary Iraqis in a social setting.


Poor Leftists, they've never forgiven Ronald Reagan for winning the Cold War--they may never recover from W democratizing the Middle East.

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 13, 2004 10:46 PM
Comments

We need to know the name of this moral pervert, because her opinions on any subject are worthless.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at May 14, 2004 1:57 AM

I would very much like to know the name of this Anti-American American writer. I think Americans need to know her name. I think it's just as important as seeing the photos of Abu Ghraib abuse ... perhaps even moreso.

Posted by: NKR at May 14, 2004 8:06 AM

Some folks think they know who.

Posted by: Uncle Bill at May 14, 2004 9:14 AM

Could be propaganda ... the so called unamed source. She sounds too stupid to be a leftwing journalist. On the other hand...

Posted by: genecis at May 14, 2004 10:24 AM

Good one U.B. She certainly could qualify.

I have the feeling the left-wing media and their followers are becoming desperate as the election grows near. They are grasping for straws. Iraq is working out better than the failures they predicted and they know it. In November they fear their nightmares will be "let slip" from the barn. I can't wait to see it... hopefully.

Posted by: genecis at May 14, 2004 1:29 PM

Garrels certainly thinks Iraq is a disaster. She has adopted a worldweary tone that she did not use when reporting from Moscow.

But I cannot picture her saying she is some kind of isolationist. She's pretty much a one-worlder.

Also, she does not work for a magazine.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at May 14, 2004 2:59 PM
« CONTRACT WITH AUSTRALIA?: | Main | HOMOCIDE: »