John on March 17, 2006 at 6:31 pm
The London Times has a telling piece interviewing two Iraqis about the current situation. One is nearly despondent cab driver named Abu Yasser who thinks civil war is imminent:
I cannot relax, I suffer tension all the time. If civil war comes I will lock myself in my house and rot there. I would rather die than kill someone. I hate to say it, but we were better off under Saddam.
The other, named Noor, is still hopeful and is decidedly not part of the blame America crowd:
Noor is less willing than most to blame the American scapegoat. “We were not ready for democracy,” he said. “Under Saddam the Iraqis had no respect for the law; they were afraid of the law. When Saddam went they had never known what freedom meant. So they behaved like outlaws.”
So given the split, guess which one the author of the article seems to sympathize with? We know which one the editors at the Times sympathize with since the article is titled “I hate to say it but we were better off under Saddam.”
The writer supports Abu Yasser’s position by offering a list of “better off before Saddam” statistics, such as the number of animals in the Bagdad zoo. He ends the piece with a list of casualties and a cost breakdown of the invasion which is more than a little similar to one Daily Kos ran a few months back.
This could have been a balanced story. It could have even been a positive story. Instead, the headline and the throughline are taken from the words of someone who seems even closer to the edge of a nervous breakdown than David Gregory.
Category: MSM & Bias |