CTV News | Bush as Saddam magazine cover stirs controversy

Top Stories -   

Bush as Saddam magazine cover stirs controversy

Viewer

CTV News Video

CTV's Question Period: Patrick Graham, journalist

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."

Comments are now closed for this story

Gil Mounsey
said

I tend to agree with Graham. But I also see the gaps between the the U.S. administration, Congress, and the American people. (We are not that different in Canada!).

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

Bush as Saddam? Please. It's far too over the top. Saddam Brutally murdered his own people, gassing them and making them disappear i nthe middle of the night. His sons would cruise around at night, grabbing young girls off the street to rape. Mr. Bush is the democratically elected president of the United States, one of the greatest democracies in the world. Those who would argue his war in Iraq makes him a war criminal are either morally bankrupt, naive, or both. Maclean's has taken anti-Americanism and its new tabloid style too far, and anyone sensible would cancel their subscription.

A Canadian in Norway
said

I have to say the notion that the Bush admin. is following the same strategy as the Saddam and Baathists is quite funny. Hey I guess whatever works right, I mean it was the strategy of one of most evil men in history, guess that doesn't matter to Bush.


M.Porto
said

I think it is very bad taste to depict President Bush as Saddam Hussein. 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. Even if it's not what they meant, it's still hurtful and de-moralizing to the Americans. As a Canadian with American relatives I feel let down once again by my compatriots.

JLM
said

Marty, in response to your comment : "Mr. Bush is the democratically elected president of the United States, one of the greatest democracies in the world. Those who would argue his war in Iraq makes him a war criminal are either morally bankrupt, naive, or both. Maclean's has taken anti-Americanism and its new tabloid style too far, and anyone sensible would cancel their subscription."

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

It's clear by Maclean's irresponsible use of the freedom of the press right that they are about selling magazines in any spectatular way they can and not about responsible journalism. This story by the author's own statement was inspired by the like's of one individual's off the cuff remarks...Looks like the author was just looking for an excuse to release his political diatribe...I'm always amazed by how much the free press down here abuses and hides behind their right to say whatever they wish with no accountability


Shareen
said

Let`s compare all the leaders of the democratically elected world the names of terrorists, communists, and dictator`s. What a wonderful way to make friends in this world. I think you can make your point without being rude and insulting. Shame on this magazine. I will not support them ever!!!


Jeremy
said

Maybe the depiction of Bush as Saddam is a little much. But there is no question that this satirical portrait makes you think of parallels between him and the late Baathist regime. What good was Saddam for Iraq? And what good is Bush for Iraq? It's a shame he wasn't as bright as his father. . .


CK
said

Marty - Sure, Bush is the elected leader of the US, but not Iraq. The people there never elected him or asked him to run over their country. Now the Americans are the cause of many deaths in Iraq, and prisoners disapear or are tortured at Guantanamo. Remember the pictures a while back of how the Americans were disrespecting their prisoners? I hate to say it, but in the eyes of many Iraqis, Bush is a terrorist.


Khai
said

The Macleans covers are very cartoonish and sensationalist. I won't argue the merits of the cover or the story, but the covers they concoct do a disservice to the thoughtful journalism usually found within their pages.


Richard
said

No comparison is perfect: Bush is not the ruthless killer that Saddam was.
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

It's a gross insult to our neighbours and to all Democratic nations. Most of us, thankfully have never lived under an oppressive regime. Does this give us the right to debase our own personal freedoms? Maclean's should have had the decency to not use cheap imagery to sell magazines.


Lisa
said

The cover is brilliant and sadly accurate. Bush has methodically followed the path to establishing his own dictatorship in the United States and since the country's citizens seem incapable of recognition, maybe a little bit of light from the penthouse will help. Well done Maclean's.


Gabriel DG
said

In response to M. Porto:
"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

JLM - Re your comments:"Accusing people who do not agree with the invasion of another country with no valid reason of being "morally bankrupt" or "naive" is offensive"

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

everyone knows that george w isnt perfect but to compare him to a dictator who brutally killed and tortured his own people, who let his sons rape girls off the street and has killed many just for his own benifits is disgusting. criticizing is one thing but outright slander is another.


CA in the USA
said

IN response to "Marty," no - our "democratically elected" leader was NOT voted into office, the election was stolen. 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, and murdering 1,000,000+ foreign citizens, not to mention, over 3,000 US troops.

Marty
said

I love how some of you are saying that Bush does not kill thousands of people. Granted Saddam was bad man but they are many other dictators like him out there.. why focus on him.

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

I haven't read the article and won't even dignify it by reading it. The title is too disgusting for me. We have terrorists who hate our values, want to take us back to the stone age and are willing to kill women and children in the name of God, and the man that is willing to stand up to them is compared to a mass murderer. Well, be thankful for freedom of the press, that is freedom Bush is standing up for.

Trudy
said

Well it's about time. From the second I laid eyes on Bush, pre-first term in office, I knew he was a war monger in my bones. He's a liar, he's only out to keep his buds in bucks. He sees his citizens as cannon fodder in the oil is king game. I might add Harper sees our people the same way. I hope we see more magazine covers like this one. They are way over due.

Stan B
said

Another cheap and sleazy trick cashing in on the anti-American bigotry in Canada.

Weak.

It will sell well with the latte sipping sheep.
Emotion triumphs over logic once again.

JLM
said

Marty - in response to your comment : "Though I guess it's easier to argue a point when you reply to something someone else never said in the first place."
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

Regardless of what anyone thinks of the job the President is doing, lets have a little respect for the office. There are greeting cards in Walmart depicting the president as a fool. This is crossing a line. Shameful.

Eric
said

To CA in the USA:

"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?


Share with your social Network:

 

Advertisement

Contest

User Tools

About the tools

Need to get in touch with CTV? You can email the CTV web team using the 'Feedback' button.

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.

Share this article with Facebook

Share this article with Digg

Share this article with Newsvine

Share this article with delicious

Share this article.
Send Email

Share this article with Twitter

Share this article with StumbleUpon

Share this article with Reddit

Share this article with Yahoo! Buzz