Sunday May 4th 2003
Saddam, Peaceniks and frikkin' lefties are big losers in Bush's 'War on Iraq'

     There was something bloody comical about the sight of  'anti-war' tossers, sorry,  protesters who gathered in Northern Ireland for the abbreviated Bush-Blair summit meeting. They were opposing a war that is pretty much over. They demonized the victors - who are fighting in a moral cause - and not the losers, who fight to preserve an immoral rule. These protesters' silence during the deposed (and hopefully dead) Saddam Hussein's three decades of murder and mayhem makes them irrelevant anyway.

   In toting up the winners and losers of this war, the top loser (after Saddam Hussein and his regime) must be the political left. From Hollywood's pin-up peaceniks like Martin Sheen and Michael Moore to European, ahem,  'leaders', the impotent United Nations and other aging dopey assed peaceniks and their illegitimate progeny, the left has suffered a stunning and decisive defeat. These losers were wrong from the beginning because their view of humanity and of good and evil is flawed. Evil must be opposed, sometimes by force. As freed Iraqis begin to testify to the horror and degradation imposed on them by Saddam Hussein, the loony left will be hard pressed to explain why they were again on the wrong side of history. Their credibility is on a par with the Iraqi information minister who claimed that no coalition tanks had entered Baghdad at a time when the tanks could be seen and heard over his fucking shoulders!

   Other losers include the Chinese, Russian and French governments, each of which supplied more arms to Saddam Hussein than any other nation. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (cited in Michael Gove's April 8 column in the London Times if you need in independent voice), between 1973 and 2002 Russia provided 57 percent of Saddam's arms imports, France 13 percent and China 12 percent. The United States supplied just 1 percent at most and Britain even less than that. War critics are just plain mis-informed and wrong when they claim that the United States and Britain are primarily responsible for Saddam's weaponry. No wonder the French, Russians and Chinese opposed coalition efforts. They didn't want their complicity and duplicity discovered. Maybe they can get jobs cleaning the friggin' toilets later, eh?

   Some in the American and (especially) British media were complete losers because they regularly painted a doomsday scenario -- from their predictions of a Vietnam-like quagmire to questioning the wisdom of every military move. ABC's Peter Jennings was especially guilty of extreme negativity about coalition policies and progress, but he was no worse than the entire BBC! This lot of typically British whingers appeared to be in need of anti-depressants, to say nothing of a copious injection of truth serum!

   The notion that free nations can and should do nothing about oppressed people was a big loser. At a joint news conference with Prime Minister Tony Blair, President Bush said "free nations have a responsibility to confront terrorism [and] promote human rights across the world." I call this the Jimmy Carter approach, but with a set of fucking balls.

   The winners in this conflict are many, starting firstly of course with the people of Iraq, who have an opportunity (if they will seize it) not only to claim freedom for themselves but also their posterity and to serve as an example to the region, as they once did in times gone by.

   President Bush endured the most personal invective to emerge triumphant. At the Hillsborough Castle news conference the president said, "There is a question in Europe about whether I mean what I say. Saddam Hussein now knows I mean what I say."  Well said, and now so does the rest of the world.

   Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, along with the commander of the coalition forces, Gen. Tommy Franks, are winners also. They ignored criticism that their plan was flawed, that there were not enough troops committed to the task and that casualty rates would be unacceptably high. None of this media guess work proved true.

   All of the 'expert' blokes in dresses (clergy), academics and guest commentators who predicted America would lose the war of public opinion and that this 'adventure' would produce 'a thousand Bin Ladens' are also wrong. Why shouldn't it produce a thousand Winston Churchills. You know... people who actually WANT freedom from religious and political dictators who think that giving folks a chemical bath is a good laugh?

   History (at least so far, fingers crossed) has been on the side of freedom, the side President Bush is on. If he is able to expand and realise these freedoms in the Middle East (and maybe even in Northern Ireland), this president (so reviled by European eunuchs) will be the biggest winner of all. Maybe the world actually will be a better place because some had the balls to get rid of this tyrant, and it will be ultimately better for the bleating cowards who sucked his knob by supporting him on the streets and arming his forces.

Stogie Bear Archives...