Saddam Hussein’s Capture Leads to Damage Control

Many left wingers who opposed the liberation of Iraq are worked into a tizzy. Up until last Sunday they could mope about Bush’s inability to capture Saddam Hussein, but now that charge is no longer valid. They can still harp on the WMDs of course, but the whereabouts of Saddam was their most damming charge. Let the damage control begin!

Howard Dean has based much of his candidacy on Bush hatred. Don’t expect that to change, as he discounts Saddam’s capture. The capture of Hussein has not made us any safer, claims Dean. Keep talking like that, Governor. If you do win the nomination, it could be a fun fall!

Dean wasn’t the only presidential candidate to discount Saddam’s capture. Dennis Kucinich released this brief statement . It wasn’t nearly as kooky as I had hoped. By the way, I know I’ve posted this before, but if you haven’t been to Kucinich.com, by all means check it out. It’s even funnier than Kucinich’s Kucinich’s actual campaign site.

The mainstream media didn’t take long to get back to their gloom and doom coverage either, as evidenced by this report from the Media Research Center. I’m not surprised. This just goes to show that what Bernard Goldberg wrote about in Arrogance is true.

Though Dean and Kucinich are certainly funny, no one can match the humor of left wing editorials, many of which try desperately to convince us that Saddam’s capture is no big deal, and, even more funny, it would have been better off if he hadn’t been captured (though, to be fair, it may indeed have been better if he hadn’t been captured for left wing extremists).

One of the best was this column in the Boston Globe, reprimanding us for breaking into Saddam’s hole without a search warrant. The Roane County News also had a funny column (sadly, it isn’t online) about Saddam’s capture which seemed to imply that we would have been better off had we not captured him, since the trial will be a long and arduous process. Perhaps the writer feels we should just allow murderers and rapists to run free, so as not to put their victims and families through the terrible process of a trial. The writer then goes on to argue that it would have been better if the GI who captured Hussein had just thrown his grenade into Saddam’s hole. So I guess there’s no value in interrogating Saddam? You can’t make this stuff up!

I hope these columnists will continue to argue Saddam’s capture is a bad thing. The logic they are forced to use to justify this position is hilarious. Keep up the good work, gentleman.

Leave a Reply