I DIDN'T support the Iraq war and I oppose the death penalty - but the nonstop outrage and criticism of the trial and execution of Saddam Hussein is puzzling.
Somehow, most of our nation's newspapers and magazines overlooked the core of this story: An evil dictator was brought to justice - the people he tortured, murdered and oppressed turned around and put him on trial, then carried out the sentence.
How often does this happen in our world? Pretty much never.
Yet The New York Times (in news and opinion pages alike) has relentlessly criticized nearly every aspect of the process, only paying lip service Saddam's heinous crimes.
USA Today's editorial board criticized the trial and execution and then assessed the whole episode as basically inconsequential. (Tell that to the millions of Iraqis who suffered under Saddam).
Oddly, most of the complaints ignored the many problems with the death penalty. Instead, critics were consumed by how unfairly Saddam was allegedly treated. Particularly distressing to this crowd was the "taunting" of the Butcher of Baghdad. Huh?
...
The criticism that took the cake came from the usually reasonable Brian Lehrer at WNYC, who posed this question to his listeners: "If pardoning Richard Nixon was good for the nation's healing, then how could executing Saddam be good for Iraq?"
Well, gee: Saddam is responsible for the torture and deaths of millions. Nixon ordered a break-in and wiretapped phones, then tried to cover it up. The differences in the magnitude of the crimes seem painfully obvious.
Read it all. The left fantasizes daily about executing our own leaders, yet are so concerned about what happened to Saddam. They're pathetic.
No comments:
Post a Comment