License to Massacre

Skyrocketing to the top of the prime-ministerial polls, sleek-but-shallow Brit politician Nicholas Clegg apparently misses Saddam.  And Clegg’s not alone in the resurgent dictators’ fan club.

The shiny young face of the UK’s usually lagging third party, the Liberal Democrats, Clegg may upend British politics in the May 6 elections.  One key to his stunning rise has been his dismissal of the “special relationship” with the US as out of date and worthless.

President Obama’s cool with that, but it’s hard to see who would respect a decoupled-from-Washington UK in the morning.  Anti-Americanism plays well in Britain, though.  (What, no Obama effect?).

Anti-Americanism is the first refuge of the scoundrel.

Still, the real danger from Nick Clegg isn’t that he’s going to change everything, but that, behind the campaign flash, he’s the most ideologically backward party leader Britain’s seen since the 1970s.  He damns Cold-War thinking, even as he wallows in it.

And Clegg isn’t alone.  Around the world, bright-young-thing politicians are turning back the clock.  While fashionably damning nukes, they embrace the worst practices of the past with enthusiasm.

To wit: Clegg made a very public point of calling the intervention in Iraq “illegal.”  To the likes of Clegg (a perfect name for a Dickensian villain), it was legal for Saddam to torture, rape and massacre his own countrymen—under the bloody notion that whatever happens within a country’s borders is that state’s business alone.

Of course, Clegg and Co. also overlook Saddam’s two wars of aggression against neighboring states, while averting their polished gazes from the budding democracy in Iraq.  Clegg’s point is just that “America is bad.”  It’s lazy, destructive—but effective—politics.

Does Clegg truly believe that Saddam deserved to remain in power?  Or that the world would be a better place if he still ruled?

At 43, Clegg’s even younger than our own new-model president.  But the two men have in common a heartbreaking (and bone-breaking) sympathy for murderous dictatorships–as long as the dictator’s roots are on the left.

The immoral notion that a strongman can seize power, then do anything he wants to his countrymen with impunity because his state’s borders are sacrosanct—what I’ve called “the sovereignty con”–has excused immeasurable suffering.

President Bush, for all his practical errors, grasped that a genocidal dictator’s claims of sovereignty are bogus, that the only true legitimacy comes from the will of the people.

Bush did a great thing inexcusably badly in Iraq.  Still, for a few years, dictators shaped up.  In the end, though, a critical new ideal—that dictators can be held accountable for their inhumanity—was discredited by incompetence on the ground and the stunning bias of the media—whose propagandists, once suckled by Saddam, would sacrifice the lives of others to “get Bush.”

The Bush-haters won (Congratulations!  Why not visit a few mass graves on your next eco-friendly vacation?).  Now we’re back in the old, monstrous tradition of tolerating dictators.

The establishment media are fine with that.  When a journalist of authentic conscience, such as the Washington Post’s Jackson Diehl, does get into print with a column describing “Daniel Ortega’s Sandinista thugocracy” in Nicaragua, he gets a grand total of six column inches.

Where’s the outrage, either from our elected leaders, or from wannabes such as Clegg, or from the media over Hugo Chavez’s destruction of Venezuela’s once-proud democracy?  At this month’s Nuclear Vanity Summit in D.C., Obama literally embraced Argentina’s corrupt and scheming President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner.

Clegg’s pure white-bread, but Obama would be the perfect man to take on African dictators, such as Zimbabwe’s barbarous Robert Mugabe.  And what has our president done for human rights in Africa?  Nothing.

This convenient, murderous belief that what happens in Country X stays in Country X condemns billions of human beings to political slavery and, too often, to death.  It means that we continue to pretend that Afghanistan and Somalia are an actual countries, or that the brutal oppression in Eritrea is nobody’s business but that of the country’s dictatorship.  Or that Tehran’s butchers have every right to gun down, imprison, rape and torture protesters.

Well, Nick Clegg, who has an unexpected shot at becoming Britain’s next prime minister, may miss Saddam.  But Iraqis don’t.

As for the US, it seems that the only borders we don’t regard as sacred are our own.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/GaryRumain Gary Rumain

    Sounds like Clegg is prepared to bow to arselifters. O'Bummer's no different. They should get along.

  • Rebecca

    all you need to know about <a href = "http://waysoloseweightfast.co.uk">ways to lose weight fast<a/>.for more info,pleae visit:"http://waystoloseweightfast.co.uk&quot;

  • Michael

    I'm no fan of Clegg, and will be voting Tory, but this:

    "One key to his stunning rise has been his dismissal of the “special relationship” with the US as out of date and worthless."

    Is simply inaccurate. In fact the whole article is ridiculous to anyone with any knowledge of British politics, and seems to be making stuff up out of whole cloth in order to support a particular view of American politics.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/southwood southwood

      So "the whole article is ridiculous" is it ? Well, not to me. What is ridiculoys about it. If this little fascist upstart gets any power Britain will go even further down the pan. And, yes, I'm a Brit, too, old chap, a citizen of probably the most dumbed down, inane, stupid, frivolous country in Europe and that is saying something. BTW Brown and Cameron complete the three stooges show.

  • gamalpha

    The Brits with their anti-American hate deserve Obama

    • Jim C.

      America deserves Obama. We elected him and, mark my words, will do so again.

  • Informer

    uk is finished…..soon it will be under water and history…bunch of idiots ….i dont even eel any sorrow…hope they will be gone forever soon

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/aspacia aspacia

      I sure don't! Most of our founder's ideals stem from British philosophy. Jefferson copied John Locke's Treatise for our Declaration of Independence. He changed one word: property to happiness.

  • Marty

    Yes, the UK is finished, in great part thanks to its islamization. Attending the 2012 Summer Olympics? If so, you'll get to enjoy the sight of the nearby new mosque built to accommodate 70,000 worshippers (and paid for with saudi arabian money). Regardless of which party or parties governs the UK after the elections, count on the government to continue to concede democracy to muslim fanatics intent on installing sharia law. Welcome to dhimmitude.

    • Sign This

      I didn't know making 2.8% of the population is 'islamization'.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/southwood southwood

        Are you another sleepwalker ? When will the stupid Brits wake up. 7/7 didn't do it, Geert Wilder's ban didn't do it, PC bending over into contortions to please Muslims and marginalize Christians isn't doing it. When Islam starts ruling the UK then they will know all about it. It won't happen, are you thinking ? The 2.8% are fighting for it to happen while the rest of the Brits concede it to them more and more. WAKE UP !!!

  • Oh spare me

    So, I'd imagine the writer would support US intervention against Afghan warlords, former Northern Alliance members and now members of the Afghan government, with a penchant for corruption, murder, and pederasty? How does the author feel about the recent amnesty bill for war crimes passed by the Afghan parliament? Furthermore, what does the author feel about recent mass graves of civilians found in Columbia, placed there by the Columbian forces who were basically getting paid by the head for killing people. I would also ask his opinion of that collection of repressive degenerates referred to as the House of Saud?
    And about dealing with thugs, G.W. Bush once said he looked in Putin's eyes and saw a man he could work with. Shivers down the spine on that, I look in Putin's eyes and I see a vampire, but to each his own. And John "kill evil where ever it exists" had no problems meeting and talking with Qadafi recently.
    And before you go calling me an Obamabot, Demo or a leftist, don't try to box me in your little paradigm. It's just a great big, single party with a cheap dog and pony show for the masses.

    • brenanc

      Mr. Peters has already gone on the record against US attempts at nation-building in Afghanistan. Check out an article of his entitled, "Taliban from Outer Space."

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/JosephWiess JosephWiess

    The shiny young face of the UK’s usually lagging third party, the Liberal Democrats, Clegg may upend British politics in the May 6 elections. One key to his stunning rise has been his dismissal of the “special relationship” with the US as out of date and worthless.

    Okay, sure. If you don't want us, then we'll leave you alone until you call for our help again, like you did in WWI and II. It seems to be our lot to help Europe dig its way out from under the heels of tyrants, and we're also doing the same thing in the middle east. Maybe if we let the rest of the world simmer to itself, then they'd appreciate our freedoms.

    To wit: Clegg made a very public point of calling the intervention in Iraq “illegal.” To the likes of Clegg (a perfect name for a Dickensian villain), it was legal for Saddam to torture, rape and massacre his own countrymen—under the bloody notion that whatever happens within a country’s borders is that state’s business alone.

    Okay, so under Clegg's thinking, a tyrant can take over England and start raping and torturing people, and we wouldn't have to lift a hand to help. But, we would, since we realize that England is our friend and we have that special relationship.

    I know that the only reason scum like Clegg get power is because education has fallen into stupidity, and nobody reads history and understands it. Henceforth, they are always doomed to repeat it.

    When a tyrant takes office and the people cry for help, then there should be help. Unfortunately, our president is a coward and moral weakling, not to mention a devoted marxist. Like Saddam, Obama is a weasel who's only there because people were stupid enough to vote for him.

    • brenanc

      Good point about the UK and Europe.

      Who's going to help the United States get out from under the heels of our tyrant?

      • Jim C.

        Wait–is Obama a weakling, or a tyrant? Will you dodobirds please make up your minds?

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/RightWingStuff RightWingStuff

          Weak on Freedom – Strong on Tyrant.
          And if you don't agree with me you're probably a racist homophobe with Democrat leanings. I love Red Eye.

          DTOM! http://RightWingStuff.com

          • Jim C.

            Bad answer. How can he "tyrannize" if he is "weak"?

            ("tyranny" to today's pop conservative: losing an election)

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/RightWingStuff RightWingStuff

            Same answer as above – if you don't acknowledge it it still doesn't make it any less valid.

  • zotrules

    This whole article is a sham! How can you claim that Clegg is antiamerican? Just because he values somethings over some other things? Just because he doesn't deem America as an urgent priority in Britain's affairs?
    This is an article fit for people who are obsessed and fixated to the idea that America should be a necessity, a "must" and number ONE in the view of everybody. Unless you see America this way, you should most probably be an antiamerican. Well, this is simply lame!
    Nick Clegg fair and square won the last two debates, and in all honesty, Clegg and his policies showed to be the fairest, while the other two scarecrows didn't have a clue what to say but mumble about. So, before you attack somebody, take at least a couple of minutes to review his stance or what he's got to say; independently of a stupid article like this.

  • 9-11 Infidel

    Another great article from Col. Peters. The thugs in Africa are no better than Tachel Carson, sho single-handidly removed the one thing that was helping to keep millions of Africans from the scourge of misquito-borne disease: DDT. She allied her dumbass self with Margaret Sanger who made as her goal the eradication of the Black Race. The three are in a cabal with the likes of Mugabe. And how is it that Agent Zero and his allies are so blind to the realities of dictatorships around the world? Could it be that the Annoited One secretly wishes to be like them? And WTF is Clegg's problem anyways? Is he just so smart he's stupid?

    • 9-11 Infidel

      That line should read The thugs in Africa are no better than Rachel Carson who….

  • Turbeaux

    I agreed with the ouster of Saddam. On the subsequent altruistic occupation to win hearts and minds of Muslims, which is literally impossible, I didn’t.

    The reason I agreed with the ouster of Saddam was because he had repeatedly broken UNSC Resolutions with impunity and had to be given a final ultimatum or be removed, since our credibility and prestige as the world’s hegemon was on the line, and also because Saddam had repeatedly refused to comply with those UNSC Resolutions, we had good reason to believe that he represented a potential threat to our national security.

    Unlike Ralph Peters, however, I don’t believe that Saddam’s atrocities against his own people or with respect to Iran or anybody else, for that matter, was a sufficient enough cause to risk the lives of our young men and women, as their lives should only be put at risk to protect the lives, livelihoods, and national security of the American people, or otherwise to rectify a situation like we faced with Saddam, and I hope that we are never put in such an untenable position like that ever again.

    In addition, I disagreed with the occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan because altruism should never be a valid reason to deploy the military and put the lives of our troops at stake. If it is to aid a country that is in distress, such as earthquake ravaged Haiti, that is a different story, because the lives of our troops aren’t being put at risk.

    In any event, unlike Peter’s and with all due respect, I don’t believe our military ought to ever be deployed to free oppressed people from out of control dictators around the world.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Indioviejo Indioviejo

      Turbeaux, I totally agree with your opinion. We should not be in Iraq nor Afghanistan. Our boys are better and worth much more than any muslim that has ever lived. As Glenn Beck said the other day, Don't mess with the USA or you will get your butt kicked.

  • michael

    What do FrontPage, former Radio Tirana and Radio Moscow have in common?
    At times, brilliant, incisive analysis, at times utterly unbalanced deviance.
    The ongoing concern : many readers and listeners have too few independent news
    sources to differentiate. Today it is Clegg. An oblique aside reference to the US, which
    went largely unnoticed, is elevated to "key". Not so. No way. The majority in the UK value our traditional special relationship with the US. We do not forget. Close friends may on occasion differ, but the friendship remains untarnished. Clegg may yet become "deputy sheriff", but his influence on international affairs would be minimal, and on domestic UK issues not much more. Few share his idealistic leaning towards the European Union and he knows it could lead to his nemesis. The current decisive issue is : "The economy, stupid". The UK-US special relationship remains special.