How to celebrate the fall of Saddam

April 10, 2007

Apparently, different people chose to honor the fourth anniversary of Saddam Hussein’s downfall in different ways. First, there’s the White House’s way.

As Iraq observed the fourth anniversary of the fall of Saddam Hussein yesterday, the lead item on the White House Web site, under the heading “LATEST NEWS,” was a photograph of Clifford the Big Red Dog at the annual Easter Egg Roll on the South Lawn.

“There were many children’s characters in attendance including Charlie Brown, Bugs Bunny, Arthur, and Curious George,” said the caption under the photo, which alternated with a shot of Laura Bush and two Easter bunnies on the Truman Balcony and a painting of one of President Bush’s Scottish terriers with a fiddle-playing butterfly.

The president marked the anniversary by going to Arizona to give a speech — about immigration. In his 24-minute address, he didn’t so much as mention Iraq. The vice president, secretary of state and secretary of defense had no public events on their schedules yesterday.

And then there’s the Iraqis’ way.

Tens of thousands of protesters loyal to Moktada al-Sadr, the Shiite cleric, took to the streets of the holy city of Najaf on Monday in an extraordinarily disciplined rally to demand an end to the American military presence in Iraq, burning American flags and chanting “Death to America!”

Residents said that the angry, boisterous demonstration was the largest in Najaf, the heart of Shiite religious power, since the American-led invasion in 2003. It took place on the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad, and it was an obvious effort by Mr. Sadr to show the extent of his influence here in Iraq, even though he did not appear at the rally.

True to form, Bush administration officials said thousands of Sadr followers taking to the streets to chant “Death to America” is proof of how much success we’re having in Iraq.

Indeed, it’s “progress.”

A huge anti-American protest swept two cities in Iraq today, but White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe told reporters this only underscores how much “progress” the U.S. is making in that country.

Four years since the fall of Baghad, Iraq “is now a place where people can freely gather and express their opinions, and that was something they could not do under Saddam.” Johndrove said, traveling with President Bush to Arizona.

He also noted that Moktada al-Sahr had called for “massive protests– I’m not sure that we’ve seen that, those numbers materialize.”

But the Associated Press reported this afternoon: “Tens of thousands of Shiites — a sea of women in black abayas and men waving Iraqi flags — marched from Kufa to Najaf on Monday, demanding U.S. forces leave their country on the fourth anniversary of fall of Baghdad. Streets in the capital were silent and empty under a hastily imposed 24-hour driving ban.

“Demonstrators ripped apart American flags and tromped across a Stars and Stripes rug flung on the road between the two holy cities for the huge march.”

It’s one of things I find most entertaining about the Bush gang — their total lack of familiarity with falsifiability. If tens of thousands of Iraqis take to the streets to express their hatred of us, it’s a good thing. If tens of thousands of Iraqis hadn’t, that would have been a good thing, too. Either way, everything is going right according to plan.

Indeed, it’s been a busy couple of days for falsifiability. As Robert Farley explained, “Remember now; if the Mahdi Army lies low, then the Surge is working. If the Mahdi Army fights back, then the Surge is working. If the Mahdi Army has already dissolved, the Surge is working. If Sadr cooperates, the Surge is working. If he runs, the Surge is working. If he orders attacks, the Surge is working. It’s magical, this Surge; no matter what happens, the evidence demonstrates that the Surge is working. It can’t fail!”

It even applies to domestic policy. When fewer illegal immigrants are apprehended, it’s proof that Bush’s immigration policies are working. When more illegal immigrants are apprehended, it’s proof of the same thing.

It must be great to be part of the Bush team, knowing that you’re right, no matter how wrong.

The Cheney administration should applaud the Iraqi’s for demonstrating their understanding of freedom and democracy, exercising their “right” to protest a foreign occupier.

  • Freedom to dissent is great, just don’t try protesting like the Iraqis did here in Bush/Cheneya. You’ll end up on the no-fly list.

  • it’s interesting how bush always selects the message he wants to hear. yeah, it’s great that the iraqi’s can protest now when they couldn’t before, but can’t he hear what they’re saying? this is the message he should be hearing. moron.

  • How ironic. Participating in such an event in the US gets you thrown in jail or gets your name on a ‘no-fly’ list.

    Apparently the US has yet to make the kind of “progress” that Iraq has made.

  • The violent civil war is another indication of our success in Iraq. It shows that Iraqis can work together to settle their differences.

  • So when an American voices displeasure over the war and our inept policies there that “emboldens the enemy.” When tens of thousands of Iraqis march in the streets chanting “death to America” while their leader urges Iraqis to quit killing each other and kill Americans instead THAT’S democracy in action and the beauty of free speech? That logic is so tortured it must have spent time in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib.

  • It even applies to domestic policy.

    The really scary thing is terrorism. No attacks since 9-11 means American fascism is working. Of course, if there were an attack, it would only be proof we need more fascism.

  • “Four years since the fall of Baghad, Iraq “is now a place where people can freely gather and express their opinions, and that was something they could not do under Saddam.” Johndrove said, traveling with President Bush to Arizona.”

    Regardless of what Johndrove says, I’m pretty sure that Saddam wouldn’t have stopped his people from organizing a huge anti-US rally. The real question is whether the Iraqi government would tolerate a huge anti-Iraqi government rally. I haven’t seen many of those, even though most Iraqis must be pretty unhappy with their leaders…

  • Well, if tens of thousands of iraqis who want “America” to die are considered a sign of progress, what does that make the gentlemen who flew into the side of the Pentagon? Renowned visionaries?

    Only in Das Amerika….

  • Four years since the fall of Baghdad, Iraq “is now a place where people can freely gather and express their opinions, and that was something they could not do under Saddam.” Johndrove said, traveling with President Bush to Arizona.

    I like gg’s take on this passage, but I also thought that BushCo could rework it a bit. Here is my suggestion.

    Four years since the fall of Baghdad, Iraq “is now a place where people can kill one another with impunity, and that was something the government had a monopoly on under Saddam.” Johndrove said, traveling with President Bush to Arizona.

  • A huge anti-American protest swept two cities in Iraq today, but White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe told reporters this only underscores how much “progress” the U.S. is making in that country.

    Four years since the fall of Baghad, Iraq “is now a place where people can freely gather and express their opinions, and that was something they could not do under Saddam.” Johndrove said, traveling with President Bush to Arizona.

    Frakkin’ moron. Of course this demonstration would have been allowed by Saddam – 10,00 Iraqis shouting “Death to America!”???? Just what he wanted.

    Idiots. Total, complete, fucking idiots.

  • Gg and Tom Cleaver,

    I grew up in a totalitarian system and I can tell you that not only would Saddam have allowed an anti-American rally; it would have been compulsory. Only a doctor’s certificate would have allowed you to stay home and not participate.

    What’s intereresting in this case is that it wasn’t organised top-down, but spontaneous. And that it didn’t end up in a brawl.I wonder if we’re going to see more of thoseand if, in the long term, the hatred of the occupier might not overrule the sectarian divisions.

  • Libra wrote:

    “What’s intereresting in this case is that it wasn’t organised top-down, but spontaneous.”

    I’m not sure that’s entirely true; quoting from the original article:

    “Tens of thousands of protesters loyal to Moktada al-Sadr, the Shiite cleric, took to the streets of the holy city of Najaf on Monday in an extraordinarily disciplined rally to demand an end to the American military presence in Iraq”

    When I see massive protests against Moktada al-Sadr and/or the official government, I’ll be convinced we’re making progress. Until then, I’ll stand by the point I was making (and I think Tom was, too) – if the only protests allowed are those which play into the hands of the leadership, it’s not really free speech.

    • Comments are closed.