News Sections
Bush as Saddam magazine cover stirs controversy
CTV News Video
Watch: See all Videos in the Player
Font-size:
Share
Print
Comments(24)
CTV.ca News Staff
Date: Sun. Sep. 23 2007 9:11 PM ET
The cover article on the latest issue of Maclean's magazine, titled "How Bush Became the New Saddam,'' is stirring up controversy south of the border.
Bush is depicted on the cover dressed as Saddam Hussein, complete with a moustache, beret and military attire.
Freelance journalist Patrick Graham, who wrote the story, said the idea came from a comment made to him during a recent trip to Iraq.
"An Iraqi friend of mine was laughing, saying, 'The Americans are the new Baathists in Iraq'," Graham told CTV's Question Period on Sunday, referring to the party once ruled by Hussein.
"When I said that to my editor, they thought through what the implications were. They read my piece, and they put that together."
In the U.S., bloggers on the left and right have been hotly debating the merits of the comparison.
"Graham legitimately documented the danger and violence that still exists in Iraq, but nowhere in his article was he willing to concede anything positive about the country's progress,'' complains Lynn Davidson on one U.S.-based conservative blog.
"(His) one-sided portrayal of Iraq made the New York Times' coverage look fair and balanced.''
Still, Suneel Khanna, communications director for Maclean's, told ABC News that the magazine has not received any complaints from its 10,000 American subscribers.
Graham defends article
Graham, who spent more than a year in Iraq following the U.S. invasion, returned recently to document the progress.
Before leaving in the fall of 2004, Graham had written an article describing the insurgency and the tribal culture in Anbar province.
"It was a very influential article and it helped, I think, influence the way in which the Americans developed their surge strategy," said Graham.
"So when I went back I was really curious because the people that I knew who had been in the insurgency were now fighting with the Americans."
Graham said the switch was an extraordinary development.
"What I realized after I got there (the second time) was that the Americans had really switched sides and that they were carrying out the old Baathist strategy in Iraq and that's one of the reasons why the insurgents and a lot of Sunni Iraqis had switched sides."
Graham said he discovered that the surge strategy was essentially the Saddam strategy -- which was to contain the Kurds, confront the Shia using tribal Sunnis, and to confront Iran.
"They basically created a home grown insurgency in Anbar, which they've now won over, and now they're not admitting to themselves what they're doing -- which is taking up where Saddam left off," said Graham.
He said it's important that the U.S. admit who their new allies are and understand the implications of their strategies or they will "screw up again."
User Tools
User Tools
About the tools
Need to get in touch with CTV? You can email the CTV web team using the 'Feedback' button.
-


Font-size
Print Article
Comments(24)-
Feedback
Share it with your network of friends
Share this CTV article or feature with your friends. Click on the icon for your favourite social networking or messaging system, and follow the prompts.
Most Viewed News Stories
Most Talked about Stories
I applaud the budget, even though Health Care and education may stay unscathed. Sadly this cannot last and I worry to later this year where cuts will become enviable. If anything, this provides the Wildrose Alliance plenty of ammo when an election is called.


Comments are now closed for this story
Gil Mounsey
said
Bush has indeed become the "Saddam". But I also hold others responsible (Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Blair). Bush, is after all, a fool but driven by ideology.
Marty
said
A Canadian in Norway
said
M.Porto
said
JLM
said
I think that most who argue that Bush is acting as a war criminal would justify this stance by pointing out that (as pointed out in Graham's article) there was no al-Qaeda presence in Iraq, or proof of WMD, leaving no valid reason for Bush to invade Iraq in the first place. The invasion has been a disaster, killing his own troops, civilians and Iraq army officials, as well as elevating and fueling anti-American sentiment in Iraq. Accusing people who do not agree with the invasion of another country with no valid reason of being "morally bankrupt" or "naive" is offensive and proof that you haven't actually read the Maclean's article. I, for one, appreciate varying views and honest journalism, and would much rather read a Maclean's article (whether I agree with it or not), than watch propaganda on American stations all day.
Gary
said
Shareen
said
Jeremy
said
CK
said
Khai
said
Richard
said
But if the Americans are indeed using the minority Sunni to confront and control the majority Shia (Saddam's strategy ) what happens to "Democracy in Iraq".
It would appear that Democracy in Iraq equal an Islamic state like Iran. The US should have thought of that before going in.
leanne
said
Lisa
said
Gabriel DG
said
"With the Americans struggling to cope with the problem of Iraq, the last thing they needed is an ally saying that Bush is no different then Saddam."
The comparison is an analogy and nothing more. The problem of Iraq is one the US willingly caused itself.
When Saddam was in power, yearly deaths accounted for about 10 000 lives. Since the US has been in Iraq, there are and estimated 80 000 civilian deaths; not counting Military casualties of Americans, Canadians, British, etc. That is one thing you never see reported on CNN or Fox News...
Whether or not you agree that the ends justify the means, let us not ignore the FACTS. In those facts lies the Bush allusion to Saddam.
Marty
said
I didn't say people who don't agree wth the invasion of another country 'with no valid reason' are morally bankrupt or naive; I stated that those who would argue he is a war criminal are. Though I guess it's easier to argue a point when you reply to something someone else never said in the first place.
The fact of the matter is, plenty of self-proclaimed radicals or those who are chronically cognitively lazy don't see any problem calling Mr. Bush a 'terrorist' or 'war criminal'; yet they never seem to reserve these terms for, oh, say, the leaders of Hezbollah or Hamas. I find the disparity quite interesting. Using hyperbole to paint those whose policies you disagree with (whether for legitimate or illegitimate reasons) as malevolent individuals merely serves to gloss over the realities of terrorism and dictatoriship. The cover does a disservice to both Mr. Bush and the reader's of Macleans. Whether I have read the article or not is irrelevant (I have, in case you are wondering), as the cover stands for itself.
Macleans claims to be a venerable canadian news institution, and yet they have chosen to use imagery often seen carried on placards in frenzied crowds of loony protestors - i.e. Mr. Budh as Hitler. Is this the level of professionalism they aspire to?
frank
said
CA in the USA
said
Marty
said
There's WAY more people dead now than there ever was under Saddam Hussein. Hundreds of thousands due to this so called war.
My father once told me that Saddam Hussein was a bad man but he kept extremists at bay. Consider some of these people he's kept at bay - the islam extremists mostly.
He did do horrible things.. I heard he would lower some enemies into shredders. However, doesn't that type of thing happen elsewhere as well? Are you so naive to think that it's only in the Iraqi dictatorship that this happens? That thing about raping women off the street... don't think that doesn't happen in other places as well?
The main difference is President Bush does not have to deal with religious fanatics at this point in time and he's the president of a westernized, industrialized country. However, there's an interesting growing split in the U.S. ... yes..the religious fanatics vs. the regular folk.
Bill
said
Trudy
said
Stan B
said
Weak.
It will sell well with the latte sipping sheep.
Emotion triumphs over logic once again.
JLM
said
I urge you to re-read my original where I clearly stated : "most who argue that Bush is acting as a war criminal would justify this stance by pointing out that..." and further addressed your point.
As for the cover, which is the topic at hand... Harsh? yes. So are political cartoons in respected newspapers. Has it raised awareness and generated media? Yup. Good. If people pick up the magazine and read the article, which is not tabloid-ish and makes a clever comparison to pre-and post-SH Iraq strategies, then point made.
I am not condoning how SH ran his country, but it is a lot worse now. As for girls who would get raped off the streets, well - 1. how much of that may be propaganda? and 2. there were American soldiers charged for murdering a family and raping a young girl. How is that any better? How is the situation(s) concerning Blackwater, Inc. any better?
Darrell
said
Eric
said
"Secondly, Saddam may have murdered his own people, but unlike our so-called leader, he did not go onto occupying a country and raping and pillaging it of its resources"
Then please explain what Saddam was doing in Kuwait?