Nailing the Vietnam ex-analogy
The world is having a party to celebrate the good news from Iraq when the door opens and in walks Sami Ramadani, yes, that's right, the dour ambassador of the "insurgents" (aka murderers) himself, and he's carrying a copy of the Guardian bearing the headline, "The Vietnam turnout was good as well". Well, of course he's got the paper with him; he wrote the article himself, didn't he? The al Grauniad subbies like this kind of cheerful, optimistic story so they helped him out with the tag line "No amount of spin can conceal Iraqis' hostility to US occupation". Right.
Once you've read one Sami piece, you've read them all, so there's no point wasting space here quoting any of it, but the good news is that The Dude got right on the case with "Beating a Dead Parrot", a wittier headline, which was aided by a much more informative subhead: "Why Iraq and Vietnam have nothing whatsoever in common." His conclusion is notable:
"I suppose it's obvious that I was not a supporter of the Vietnam War. Indeed, the principles of the antiwar movement of that epoch still mean a good deal to me. That's why I retch every time I hear these principles recycled, by narrow minds or in a shallow manner, in order to pass off third-rate excuses for Baathism or jihadism. But one must also be capable of being offended objectively. The Vietnam/Iraq babble is, from any point of view, a busted flush. It's no good. It's a stiff. It's passed on. It has ceased to be. It's joined the choir invisible. It's turned up its toes. It's gone. It's an ex-analogy."
Sami Ramadani with his Bin Ladenist ravings has had a good run in the Guardian but his apologias for the detested "insurgency" are getting a bit tired now. He's definitely not going to be invited to any Rainy Day post-election parties. Bah!
