Back to Main
October 19, 2005
WB: Saddam’s Little Helpers
Comments
The date for both citations to the Daily News story is October 2005, surely, not 2003?
Posted by: Mrs Tilton | Oct 19 2005 17:32 utc | 1
I get the feeling that this Kangaroo Kourt are deliberately choosing the Dujail incident for the hanging offence; but this was a Kurdish village near the Iranian border where “locals” tried to assassinate Saddam; heck if some village produced an Iraqi that tried to assassinate Bush I in Kuwait, Dubya bombed all Iraq and invaded it.
Halabja can’t even be mentioned in this KK.
Posted by: Cloned Poster | Oct 19 2005 17:34 utc | 2
Actually all Saddam has to do to “win” the trial in Arab, especially Sunni eyes, is to maintain a dignified, defiant, virile, caged lion attitude. The Sunnis will ignore all the arguments. Nobody over there will say,”Gee, all these years I thought he was such a nice guy, I’m so disappointed to learn all these terrible things about him.” Everybody in Iraq, even his best friends, already know that Saddam Hussein is a son of a bitch. The question for them is: “is he a manly son of a bitch?” and “will his cowardice shame us?” They will only be studying his tone of voice and body language. Not all cultures despise “losers” the same way Americans do… There is a certain “hemingwayesque” (see the fist fight in “The Sun Also Rises”) aesthetic in unregenerated, heavily masculine cultures which allows victory to the apparently defeated if carried off with dignity against an undignified and unmanly foe. It was a huge, typically neocon-idiot, mistake to bring him to trial. This trial could make Saddam Hussein into a hero for Sunni Muslims all over the world. To use a familiar Guatemalan figure of speech, he should have been “poisoned while trying to escape.”
Posted by: David Seaton | Oct 19 2005 17:52 utc | 3
Kangaroo court. Victor’s justice. Right. Well it moves forwards perhaps, from Musso (no trial) to Ceaucescu (show trial)…
Bringing up Halabja is too dangerous. Even the right wing paper I read every morning (le Temps) said that the Iranians were guilty of that. Surprised, I perused the piece again, but no, no mistake, or rookie journo and drunk ed – it was carefully worded and very deliberate.
Below the fold, the first article about Flame Plame published in the French-lang. mainstream press – a careful summary from a correspondent in NY who works for several EU papers.
All the bankers read that paper.
The US violated the Geneva conventions by scrapping the laws of the country they are occupying.
Posted by: Noisette | Oct 19 2005 18:12 utc | 4
this is off subject and i will post it again in a fresh open thread, but if delay gets convicted of the crime he is charged with, how will that affect local texas politics? mainly what would be the repercussions on texas redistricting that happened a few years back? would they be brought up as unvalid since the money that was put behind the campaign on delay’s part was not kosher? basically if that money wouldn’t have been used would the redistricting happen? do i make sense to you all?
Posted by: charmicarmicat | Oct 19 2005 20:18 utc | 6
charm, you make sense. fyi on the top left side of the home page you can always find the open thread link. great topic. i sure wish we could reverse the redistricting but it probably requires more votes than the dems have in texas because of the redistricting.
Posted by: annie | Oct 19 2005 20:26 utc | 7
The impending trials of Hussein and Delay offer an interesting juxtaposition.
I would expect to see soon a cable news show where conservative legal analysts attempt to blow gaping holes in Saddam’s expected defense that he was no worse than any other tinpot dictator we ever supported but didn’t invade.
Followed by the next segment where those very same commentators discuss the Tom Delay trial and how Tommy boy is simply being prosecuted for “politics as usual.”
Posted by: bcf | Oct 19 2005 20:46 utc | 8
I watched bits of Saddam’s show trial during the night last night and I am appalled to see ALL of the media including the Beeb (who appear to be completely onside on this one) completely ignoring boring little details like ‘the presumption of innocence’.
This trial is so dangerous for Iraq in so many ways. It will help ignite sectarianism at time when the nation needs to be trying to work together, but worse is the effect it will have on the expectations of iraqis.
Horrible foul and heartless as Saddam’s rule was the trains ran on time. This means that even Shia and to a lesser extent Kurds can look back on that time with nostalgia.
This also means that people will be more accepting of a repressive Muslimo-fascist regime. They will think that it’s not as bad as Saddam (ie ‘it’ is happening to Sunni not Shia or Kurds) and as Saddam showed some force is neccesary to govern our nation.
The terror scares, bird flu and now this tell us that Rove’s endgame strategy is to try and keep continuous 3 ring circuses running in the hope that no one will pay attention to the Fitzgerald fuss.
Judging by the polling numbers it isn’t working but if Fitz doesn’t move soon BushCo numbers will hit rock bottom and as we all know the only way from there is back up.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Oct 19 2005 21:20 utc | 9
Billmon says he’d feel better if some of the other people involved were also on trial.
Which reminded me of a statement someone I worked w/ (an Iraqi) made to me just as the war was kicking off in 2003: That his best friend, like him an Iraqi engineer, had been flown to the UK in the 1980s on a Jordanian passport to be trained in chemical warfare by the UK govt.
Now who provided that passport, and training? And who paid for it? Your British taxpayer?
Posted by: Circling Hell | Oct 20 2005 15:56 utc | 10