March 05, 2006

"Lots of us talk about how awful it would be if this worked out."

Bill Quick just posted this piece from back in 2004, in which Glenn Reynolds is quoting the Daily Telegraph's correspondent Toby Harnden. And I'll post it too, because few things have shown more clearly what's really going on:

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.

Moral degeneracy is exactly right. Made more puke-worthy because these people often cover their hatred of America (whenever it's so sunk in evil as to not elect Democrats) with fake pacifist or humanitarian malarky.

Posted by John Weidner at March 5, 2006 02:26 PM
Comments

I've met a number of 'these people' - and I'd like to point out an error in your aside, "whenever it's so sunk in evil as to not elect Democrats."

That's not the case. 'These people' don't like America no matter who is in charge. They dislike Democrats only slightly less than they dislike Republicans.

Admittedly, they were only disgusted with Pres. Clinton, whereas they actively hate Pres. Bush - but that's mainly because Bush is an outright patriot.

What they mainly want is for the US to be small, innoffensive, and preferably third-world (with them as the elite).

Posted by: Kathy K at March 5, 2006 04:50 PM

There's much to Kathy K's comment.

I remember when folks complained about Jimmy Carter being too conservative. After all, he had that awful Zbigniew Brzezinski, he didn't listen to Cyrus Vance, etc., etc.

'Course, those folks were the ones who truly went apoplectic when Ronald Reagan was elected....

Posted by: Lurking Observer at March 6, 2006 01:31 PM

Yes, Kathy is definitely on to something. This really isn't about Bush. Its about America and America's place in the world.

Posted by: Mike Plaiss at March 6, 2006 04:52 PM
Weblog by John Weidner