Gerard Jackson
BrookesNews.Com
Thursday 21 August 2003

That the left's fetid anti-Americanism dominates Fairfax Press was brought home with nauseating force by Paul McGeough's claim that the mass murders who bombed Baghdad's Canal Hotel and the Jordanian embassy were part of "the Iraqi resistance" movement (Iraqi resistance fighters send a bloody message — get out and stay out, The Age 21/8). Putting these sadistic thugs in the same category as the likes of those Czech and Polish patriots who bravely resisted the Nazi invaders for five bloody years is exactly what one expects from fervent anti-American reporters.

The full import of what McGeough said should turn the stomach of any decent person. By calling these psychotic thugs "Iraqi fighters" McGeough is legitimising their murderous activities and insinuating that they are operating with the support of the Iraqi people. If legitimising these killers is his intention then it would help explain why he ignored the fact that they have a policy of murdering ordinary Iraqis, including women and children.

McGeough quoted Ali Shukri, an adviser to King Hussein of Jordan, who claimed: "So far this resistance is only Sunni. If the Shiites or even a part of them get involved, Iraq will go up in fire and there will be nothing the US, Britain or the UN can do about it."

What McGeough and his newfound pal didn't say is that the terrorists have mainly focussed their operations in and around Baghdad. The north and the south of the country still remain comparatively quiet. Moreover, they deliberately ignored the views of ordinary Iraqi's. They also did not explain why the mass of Iraqis would support those who are trying to terrorise them.

A July opinion poll that You.Gov carried out in Baghdad reported that the residents wanted US and British troops to stay in the country for at least a year. CBS News Correspondent Elizabeth Palmer reported on 19 June that 65 per cent of those polled in Baghdad want the US to stay until Iraq was stabilised. Only 17 per cent wanted the allies to leave.

Not only does McGeough ignore Iraqi public opinion, he also has the chutzpah to claim that the thugs who are trying to terrorise the population are part of a "nationalist-driven resistance" movement. Just in case anyone should think that McGeough's refusal to condemn these barbarians as terrorists is an oversight, he also referred to the terrorist IRA as one of several "nationalist movements". (He seems to subscribe to Reuters' view that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter).

If there was any doubt whatever about where McGeough's sympathies and those of his equally repulsive editors lie they were put to rest in Baghdad without a map (Sydney Morning Herald 23/08).

Without a trace of shame he denied that the murderous thugs who bombed the UN were terrorists. Obviously trying to justify his pro-terrorist views he falsely claimed that the war to overthrow Saddam's sadistic regime had been "discredited".

To this political pervert these savage attacks bear "many of the hallmarks of other national resistance movements", including the terrorist IRA and PLO. Without realising it he revealed his paper's terrorist sympathies with the statement:

"The Herald is one of only a few news organisations to have interviewed members of the resistance. They made no pretence about the thousands of foreigners, all of them Arab, who have joined the fight. But they denied any active participation by al-Qaeda, Ansar al-Islam or Saddam Hussein."

(According to his own logic McGeough would have to argue that the Werewolves, Nazi fanatics who waged a vicious terrorist campaign against Allied troops in occupied Germany, were just simple "nationalists").

Notice three things: His refusal to call these murderers terrorists; his admission that most of them are foreigners and his willingness to believe anything they tell him. That intelligence is gathering increasing amounts of evidence linking al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Islam to Saddam and the current wave of terrorism was completely ignored by this media collaborator.

McGeough claims that these terrorists have the support of the Iraqi population. If this is so why don't they lay down their arms and stand for election? This is a question that McGeough never asked. Is that because he knows the answer? His refusal to address this point might explain why he never quotes Iraqi polls that support the Allies.

He thinks quoting Jessica Stern's article in the New York Times justifies his pro-terrorist stand. Now Stern said that "the bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad was the latest evidence that America has taken a country that was not a terrorist threat and turned it into one." That it could prove the opposite is something that the Wall Street Journal drew attention to. But perhaps McGeough only reads Bush-hating papers. He certainly works for one.

It doesn't say much for terrorist expert Stern and terrorist apologist McGeough that they ignored Saddam's financial support for Hamas and PA terrorist bombers. That Saddam not only set up a terrorist training base at Salman Pak, just south of Baghdad, he also allowed Ansar al-Islam, a group allied with bin Laden, to operate in the north of the country is ignored. In addition, Saddam sponsored the Abu Nidal Organization and the Palestine Liberation Front. Notwithstanding these facts the likes of Stern and McGeough still deny his terrorist links.

Only a rag as ideologically corrupt as the Sydney Saddam Times would publish McGeough's despicable attempts to deligitimise the destruction of a vile regime and replace it with democratic institutions.

It's no exaggeration to suggest that leftist journalists are now acting as fifth columnists. No matter what the consequences are for ordinary Iraqi's and the war against terrorism, they are determined to bring about America's defeat.

Gerard Jackson is also Brookes' Economics Editor