Hussein charged for his crimes:
The Iraqi Special Tribunal set up to try Saddam Hussein said in a statement today that Mr. Hussein and three others will be referred to criminal court on charges related to the killings of about 150 Shiites in the Iraqi town of Dujail in 1982. The tribunal said that investigations into millions of documents and the questioning of thousands of witnesses have been completed, and that the trial related to the Dujail killings was one of several Mr. Hussein and his top aides are expected to face.
Officials at the tribunal have said that they expect to put Mr. Hussein on trial by the end of the year. The tribunal’s chief investigating judge, Raed Jouhi, said at a news conference in Baghdad that a date for the trial would be set “within days,” Reuters reported.
Today’s statement represents the announcement of the first formal charges against Mr. Hussein. Other crimes for which Mr. Hussein is likely to face eventual prosecution in separate trials include the Anfal campaign of the late 1980’s, in which as many as 150,000 Kurds were killed; the chemical weapons attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja in March 1988 that killed about 5,000; and the repression of a Shiite rebellion in southern Iraq in 1991, in which 150,000 people are believed to have been killed. Also under investigation by the tribunal are the executions of more than 200 Baath Party leaders after Mr. Hussein seized power in 1979.
Mr. Hussein’s convoy was fired upon in Dujail in July 1982. In the immediate aftermath of the assassination attempt, some townspeople were shot dead, but 143 – 9 of them ages 13 through 15 – were executed three years later by Mr. Hussein’s revolutionary court. Townspeople say that many others remain missing.
Good. Now watch Democrats shoot themselves politically by running around saying things like “Sure Saddam Hussein was a bad person but was it worth _____________.”
Because you just know they will. They can’t resist. When you have your sightings of said behavior, document them here in the comments.
And, because someone will accuse me of being unfair to Democrats, and will inevitably say something snotty in the comments like “Well, what SHOULD they say,” here is what they should say:
“I am glad that Saddam Hussein will finally be made to pay for his horrible crimes.”
That is it. That is all they need to say, or some variation on that. There need be no killer ‘but,’ as there will be plenty of time to attack Bush and Republicans about the war later on. Instead, they will overstep (AGAIN), and look like a bunch of idiots.
Glenn M.
I would hope they either just don’t comment or if they do, that they mean it.
Unfortunatly, for better or worse, nonsupporters of the war would get called on their statements by supporters because Saddam would not be deposed at the moment were it not for the war.
So, Saddam is out [good] and now we’re in and stuck [bad].
Doug
I’d call for Bush I to release Bush II’s papers so that we can get a full accounting of why the Reagan and Bush governments were willing to work with such a monster.
Doug
Err, make that Bush II to release Bush I’s papers.
John Cole
Umm. Iran.
rs
odd that the crimes cited occurred during the years Amnesty International types like myself were critical of US(Reagan/Bush)support for the dictator-damn us moral relativists on the left
rs
Umm.Iran-contra.
Stormy70
Would you please tell me how you lefties would have addressed the Soviet Union problem during the 80s. Remember them? The superpower full of nukes we were doing the deadly ballet with for 50 years? You cannot leave that out of the equation in your search for something else to bash the Republicans. Saddam will be tried for his crimes, then punished. Despite the but, but, but from the left.
Wrye
“I am glad that The Soviet Union will finally be made to pay for their horrible crimes.”
Marx Marvelous
I am glad that Saddam Hussein will finally be made to pay for his horrible crimes in a courtroom, rather than shot to death in some back alley of Baghdad. The proper end to dictators must come within the structure of international law, but since the conservatives mishandling this war don’t seem to grasp that concept, national law will have to do.
mac Buckets
Ummmm, unilatereal disarmament, wasn’t it?
Capriccio
Speaking for about 50 million Democrats, I hereby promise that WE will not use the “killer but.”
BUT if one of us breaks MY promise, what can I tell you? Not only are WE hopelessly stupid…but WE are very hard to control.
rs
Right-I forgot that illegally selling weapons to Iran in order to illegally arm terrorists(er,freedom fighters) in Nicaraugua led directly to the fall of the Soviet Union-all while dealing chemicals and biologicals to Iraq.Good plan.
Cliff
Marx Marvelous beat me to the punch.
John Cole
Ok. I will take the bait:
Why can the Iraqi people, in Iraqi courts, try an Iraqi leader for crimes largely against the Iraqi public?
Bob
Let Hussein spill the beans on his American handlers.
And as a liberal, I sure hope that he’s gotten sufficient grief counseling. He’s gone through a lot, you know.
Tim F
Right, Bob’s a liberal and I’m typing at the same computer used by Marie Antoinette.
If Democrats bring up the grevious costs of this trial that would make them “politically astute.” In national polling ‘not worth it’ is beating the shit out of ‘worth it.’
Rick
When, oh when will the kites flay again over Baghdad?
Cordially…
capelza
It’s about time. With the exception of the 1991 failed uprising (didn’t Bush Sr. give that uprising his blessing as we were leaving them on their own?) all these horrible crimes were committed before the first gulf war, and as been pointed out ad nauseum, at times when we were aiding and abetting the Saddam regime.
Bummer, I didn’t see the Kuwaiti babies being thrown out of incubators in the list of charges. Sure remember it as one of the testimonies that proved we had to invade Iraq the first time. Sorry, that was snark.
So now we have gotten rid of this bad guy, can we go get al-Bashir next?
Marx Marvelous
Why can the Iraqi people, in Iraqi courts, try an Iraqi leader for crimes largely against the Iraqi public?
It is tricky to retroactively apply new Iraqi law to Saddam, but I bet the lawyers over there are working all that out. Why wouldn’t they have the ability to charge Saddam with crimes? If the President of the US went crazy and ordered the army to attack Akron, OH, wouldn’t he then be tried in US courts for crimes against the US public?
Oh, or was this a rhetorical question stating that this is only possible ’cause the US army attacked Iraq, and why aren’t you happy about the WMD lies, the torture rooms, and the lack of counter-insurgency planning?
Zifnab
Perhaps we should unfirl a banner in front of Saddam’s courtroom with “Mission Accomplished” scrawled across it. I think that would accurately sum up the accomplishments.
That said, it’s not really Iraq courts trying an Iraqi criminal for Iraqi crimes in an Iraqi nation. It’s US sponsored Iraqi courts with US appointed or approved Iraqi government officals trying a US prisoner for crimes in a US occupied nation.
As for selling chemical weapons to a maniacal dictator in order to contain Iran’s radical fundamentalism – this all comes from the Nixon era Realpolitik “My enemies enemy is my friend” logic. Back anyone who undermines those seeking to undermine you. It’s not a bad idea in theory, if you don’t mind what company you keep. And it has had some very productive results. Nixon’s week long visit to China did more for our international relations with the Far East than Johnson did in his entire term in office. As far as fueling the military industry, selling weapons to two warring nations and having them blow each other up is both politically sauvy and finanically lucrative. The privatized military has to be one of the biggest factors in US foreign policy.
Stormy70
The kites will have to compete with the super secret black helicopters of the left. LOL.
John Cole
As for selling chemical weapons to a maniacal dictator in order to contain Iran’s radical fundamentalism…
Someone else handles this one, please.
Stormy70
Hey, you and your non-partisan posts brought these guys over.
:)
I’m at the end of season 4 in the Buffy stuff, by the way. Is it me or is Riley a little emotionally wuss-like? I like Spike, though.
Josh
We didn’t sell any chemical or biological weapons to a single middle eastern country, except possibly Israel (doubtful since they have no trouble making anything they want on their own).
srv
Republican administrations aided and abetted a monster who killed hundreds of thousands under their watch. And they knew it. Then they left a Democratic administration with that mess (not that Clinton did anything productive with it)
Stormy, while I’m sure you can moralize all that with cold war hysteria, it had nothing to do with it. It had to do with destabilizing Iraq and Iran (we played both sides) for our benefit. This doesn’t mean Reagans 2nd administration didn’t have it’s good moments. Moments that I recall the many on the right throwing tantrums about him kissing up to the big bad Soviets (I’m positive y’all don’t remember that).
Even if you believe it was all about the Soviet Union, that shouldn’t have stopped moral people from saying something about it. Most democrats didn’t either, but a few did.
It isn’t that republicans here have an evolving, relative moral yardstick. It’s almost like they don’t have one at all.
demimondian
We absolutely did not sell Hussein the chemical agents he used aginst the Kurds and the Iranians. Why on Earth would we do that? Not only is it banned under the Geneva conventions, it’s absolutely unnecessary: the manufacture of the crude chemical weapons Hussein used is relatively trivial.
As supporting evidence to my claim, the part of a chemical stockpile which isn’t trivial is the delivery system. If we’d sold anything to anyone, it would have been the technology to deliver the weapons on missile warheads…which Hussein did not ever get, either from us or from him primary military supplier, the Soviet Union.
Oh, yeah — Democratic apologies are require from me, right?
John, I am thrilled the Saddam Hussein is going to face trial. I hope and expect that it will be fair, although I also expect to need to watch to make sure that is the case. In spite of the satisfaction that Hussein’s trial and probable punishment will bring me, I would be irresponsible not to question the value of this war, considering it’s cost in human lives. Realistically, is there any evidence that Hussein could ever have caused that many people to die, anywhere, ever? It doesn’t seem so to me.
Doug
More to the point, for me, is whether there is realistically any evidence that Hussein could have caused that many Americans to die. Call me cold-hearted, but I’m just not all that interested in spilling American blood and treasure primarily for the benefit of third parties.
Jess
What bothers me is the cognitive dissonance and enormous mess caused by flipping back and forth between moral and pragmatic rationales. If we truly want to be a moral influence in the world, then we need to work consistently towards fostering the international relations that will lead to that, and stop propping up evil dictators for our own benefit (or to be more exact, for the benefit of global corporations). If we’re going to take the practical route, then let’s stop to consider realistically the lives, resources, and international good will we’re going to spend in going after people like Hussein. Yes, of course it’s great that he’s being brought to justice–but is our foreign policy about justice and human rights, or is it about furthering our national interests? I would argue that in the long run these two goals will coincide, but it’ll be a difficult process to bring the two into alignment (“hard work” as some say) that won’t be helped by the flip-flopping of the Iraq war apologists.
KC
Agreed, John. Saddam should get what’s coming to him. In fact, I actually would prefer Dems pipe down and let things ride altogether. It looks like the GOP is experiencing a fair share of troubles of their own making right now.
By the way, talkleft has snippets of a Time article worth reading. It covers the issue of whether any problems were caused by the Plame leak for the CIA. It also covers the issue of who sent Wilson to Niger. I think the information it provides is pretty illuminating.
Geek, Esq.
Saddam is deserving of the worst punishment that can be devised.
I just hope he gets to speak at length as to why he thinks Ronald Reagan was such a great guy (he really thinks that).
Rick
Sequitur, meet non. Apologies to whoever here first used that phrase.
Cordially…
SherAn
Oh, way too much snark here and not nearly enough intellect. Bush I did abandon the Shiites and the Kurds after Gulf War I. Donald Rumsfeld did conspire with Saddam while other members of the Reagan cabinet conspired with Iran via the Saudis. Tsk! War is dirty, especially when you supply weapons on both sides.
Leaving all that aside, Saddam needs to stand trial for his crimes. He committed too many, both against his own people and against Iran and Kuwait.
But hasn’t anyone here noticed that he’s only been charged with one crime? Excuse me, but don’t you think that’s just a tad unusual? Consider that there are dozens, if not hundreds, to choose from. Crimes du jour, if you will. So why only charge him with one crime today, especially since it was only a week ago that the “powers that be” in Iraq said it would be several months before charges were brought?
Well, guess all you big he-men. Doh! Look over here, not over there. It’s a premeditated, calculated distraction. And don’t you dare sit there and try to tell me, “that’s bullshit.” The White House is desperate to change the subject — now, right now. Look at today’s headlines. Who is assisting the Iraqis in setting up their court systems? Us, the U.S. of A. Someone in the White House asked a favor, “make some good news,” and Jafaari or someone over there delivered in spades.
It worked. Didn’t it? Insteaad of pondering why Rove’s alibi is falling apart at the seams, you’re again fixated on that evildoer Saddam. Are you debating Cooper’s cover story in Time magazine? Nooooo. You’re chasing after the one single charge filed against Hussein for a crime that’s more than twenty years old. Doh!
Now aren’t you are ashamed of yourselves? You’re being treated like ignorant schmucks, and all you can do is act like children, call each other names, hurl insults, and TOTALLY MISS THE POINT!
I know guys don’t want a reputation for being a bit too fast (snicker), but you guys are a bit slow on the uptake.
SherAn
Indictments come down in multiples, not piecemeal. They DO NOT indict one single charge at a time. Think about it. When Bernie Ebbers was indicted, did the charges get announced one at a time? When Fastow was indicted, did the charges get announced one at a time? Hell no! That’s what took so long. The prosecutors put the whole case together, and then indicted. That’s the point. The only reason to announce just one charge against Saddam is to change the subject.
StupidityRules
Stormy70, you’re right. Bush would have solved the Soviet Union problem way better. Instead of long cold war with the US and Soviet Union fighting each other in other countries, he would have started a real war. All hail the mighty cockroaches, survivors of WWIII!
space
“I am glad that Saddam Hussein will finally be made to pay for his horrible crimes.”
Is this for real? I’m sorry, but I don’t get out of bed in the morning to state the patently obvious.
What really burns Cole’s britches is that the question of whether invading Iraq was a smart foreign policy decision is the single most important question in American politics today. If it was a good move, then Bush deserves all the kudos that Republicans give him. If it wasn’t smart, then he deserves the full scorn and contempt that his opponents give him. It really is that simple.
Unfortunately, Cole doesn’t appear to like the answer. So instead of admitting that things don’t look so rosy for Bush (in fairness, Cole is willing to admit this in minute bursts of honesty, to his credit), Cole largely dodges the issue by setting up a stupid hoop for Democrats to jump through, else they’re “idiots”.
I only wish Republicans had a little more intellectual honesty. When many Republicans opposed Clinton’s campaign in Kosovo, Democrats criticized them for their isolationism and myopia. However, they didn’t issue a bunch of childish insults that Republicans failed to call Milosovic enough naughty names.
And for what it is worth, (a) it wasn’t worth it because (b) we had more pressing issues at hand and (c) Bush predictably screwed up the occupation. There, now you can call me naughty names and get your jollies.
RheGirl
Hah. Mr. Cole, commenter space just offered a great “killer but.”
Halffasthero
As for it being worth it to takeout Saddam Hussien, I am not so sure anymore. Condidering the number of people that have died in this war of “freedom” for the Iraqi people. I am not so sure they are/were better off in the short run.Still, being free of Saddam is still being free of Saddam.
And, as we all know, “nothing says freedom like fried veggies.”
Just thought I would throw that in for no reason at all. : )
space
One further point about all this foolishness. This idea that liberals insufficiently appreciated the evil of Saddam Hussein (or pretty much any other late 20th Century dictator with the exception of Fidel Castro) is truly one of the dumbest arguments I can imagine.
It is important to remember that prior to the election of George W. Bush, the Republican Party had been dominated, for essentially its entire existence, by isolationists and/or adherents of Realpolitik.
The standard refrain by true Leftists was that the U.S. should not, either directly or through the tacit support of U.S. corporations, engage with dictators in Latin America, Asia, or Africa because of the human rights violations.
The standard refrain from Republican isolationists was that we should simply butt out.
The standard refrain from Republican “Realists” was that the larger issues of the Cold War demanded that we couldn’t afford to focus on “secondary” concerns such as human rights violations as long as we faced the strategic threat of the Soviet Union.
When Republicans argued for foreign intervention it was ALWAYS because they perceived a direct threat to U.S. interests and NEVER for “idealistic” human rights concerns. Indeed, one need look back only as far the 2000 Presidential debates to observe then-candidate Bush articulating this very worldview, denouncing using U.S. forces for “nation-building.”
Concerns of Leftists that the Iraqi sanctions were injuring Iraqi civilians and not Hussein were not even on the radar screen of most Republicans prior to 2001. It took a “moderate”, in the form of Colin Powell to raise the concept of “smart sanctions”, which were intended to maintain the punitive effects on Hussein that Republicans favored while reducing the civilian suffering which concerned many Democrats.
Now, the foregoing is not intended to be an endorsement of any particular ideology. It is merely a description of reality; of the different political philosophies that existed in America for most of the late 20th Century.
However, it is with total incredulity that I observe Republicans suggesting that liberals insuffiicently appreciate the “badness” of totalitarian regimes. It wasn’t that long ago that Republicans were denouncing the “naivete” of Leftists. The standard attack was that liberals were well-meaning, but wrong-headed; that the U.S. could effectuate more change by remaining engaged with regimes in South Africa or China than by engaging in economic isolationism.
Now, one can be a foreign policy realist or a neoconservative, foreign-policy liberal but one cannot seriously suggest that Leftists find common cause with Arab dictators or overlook human rights violations.
Stormy70
Lots of things changed on Sept. 11, 2001. Our foreign policy being one of those things. I see that all you guys want is to refight everything to do with the Iraq war over and over again. I find it boring.
Jess
Well said, space!
Jess
“I see that all you guys want is to refight everything to do with the Iraq war over and over again.”
It’s all about trying to understand the mistakes of the past so that we won’t be doomed to repeat them. And, yes, it does get tedious, especially when people don’t seem willing to learn. Hurling absurd accusations at those who disagree with you is not a sign of intellectual progress (no, I’m not accusing you specifically of doing this, Stormy); there’s plenty of real mistakes to wade through without making extra ones up.
One of the issues I still don’t see the right addressing is the ultimate goal of our foreign policy; practical benefits for us or global human rights? Which one does Iraq serve? Are we going to commit to one or the other or just keep waffling back and forth? How about some clarity instead of accusations.
Marx Marvelous
What space said.
Remember the good old days before 9/11 when conservatives were simply wrong, instead of crazy and wrong?
Stormy70
Plenty of people have addressed this on the right, but I’ve yet to see anyone on the left learn to Google the info. USS Clueless laid out a strategy that flew all around the blogs, but it was several years ago, so maybe you missed it. I’m not doing any research for people, so you will have to look it up.
Angry Rationalist
I’m glad there’s at least one articulate liberal (Space) out there…
It is a rightest tactic, whenever they manage to achieve acendency, to insist that there is only one acceptable position for “decent” people to take. And that is, of course, their position.
So, John. The “right” position to take is: “Yes. I’m glad that Saddam will be facing the vengence of his victims, and all is morally right with the world now.” Anything more ambivalent, or “nuanced” (a fighting word, in conservative circles) is less moral, less patriotic, and less worthy.
Well I’m glad that Saddam is out of power, and I bet the Kurds are even gladder. But I–foolish, amoral liberal that I am–can’t help wondering if we could have pursued some different set of policies that would have resulted in Saddam’s deposal without alienating and scaring the rest of the world, recruiting more terrorists, killing 60,000 to 100,000 civilians, bankrupting our country, and polarizing and poisoning the political ecology.
Just a thought.
nyrev
I’m glad that Saddam Hussein will finally be made to pay for his crimes against humanity.
I’d be more glad if he’d been asassinated 20 years ago.
And yeah, despite Stormy’s protests to the contrary, setting up violent, radical-Islamic regimes in a politically unstable, yet economically important part of the world was probably not the best plan to thwart the commies. Hindsight’s a bitch.
nyrev
p.s. Stormy, I’m pretty sure that Jess was hoping for some foreign policy strategy from someone on the right who actually has some means of carrying that policy out. You know, like an elected official or the President.
USS Clueless can make any plans he wants, but unless he’s a politician it doesn’t really do the rest of us much good.
John Cole
It really is impossible for you Democrats, isn’t it?
Just like it is impossible for Republicans to agree it was an objectively good thing that the budget was balanced in the latter years of the Clinton admin. without going all Lucianne Goldberg.
merlallen
Why not ask the families of almost 1800 dead GIs and thousands of Iraqis if it was worth it. Personally, I haven’t been hurt by this war at all. So my opinion doesn’t count.
Stormy70
WTF?! Proof, please, and not from the discredited study making itself through the left’s email chain. Oh, my God.
Try reading or listening to the President’s foreign policy speeches, then. Here was a major speech in Britain. Start there if you are really interested. It is full of alot of meat, but you might be surprised if you have never actually read one of his speeches.
Kimmitt
Mm, Lysenkoism.
CaseyL
John, if a passenger airplane is hijacked and flown into a building and kills a couple thousand people, should I be glad that Barbara Olsen was one of them?
Should I not ask myself if getting rid of her was worth a losing a couple thousand lives and shattering an entire country?
Stormy70
Are you equating Barabara Olsen, a political pundit, with Saddam, the dictator for life, who filled mass graves with impunity? At least the terrorists took out someone you disagreed with, huh, CaseyL. Go back to the DU sewer, please.
Jon H
“Now watch Democrats shoot themselves politically by running around saying things like “Sure Saddam Hussein was a bad person but was it worth _____________.””
Isn’t that the same thing Republicans have been saying about David Koresh?
Jess
Stormy,
At this point I’d settle for YOUR honest opinion on what our foreign policy priorities should be: human rights or US
JoshA
I certainly recall a lot of Republicans saying they were glad that Slobodan Milosevic was facing trial. Right.
For the record, I’m glad Hussein is facing trial, will presumably be convicted for his crimes and executed, and join his spawn in hell. I wish all evil dictators a similar fate.
Jess
“It really is impossible for you Democrats, isn’t it?”
John,
While I would hope that the Dems in office would have the good sense to say “Good!” and leave it at that, as a moderate with no personal political ambitions I can speak my mind without speaking for anyone else. As I said above, in the reality-based community we have to constantly weigh costs and benefits. Everything is a case of “Good, but what about…” (or, “That sucks, but at least…). That’s how we learn to do better. And I think you’ll agree that we could definitely do better in Iraq.
I don’t think this is one of your shining moments of intellectual glory.
John Cole
Saddam Hussein being brought to trial is a good thing. Period.
There is a time and place for other discussions, and you will note that I stated the Democrats will shoot themselves ‘politically.’ This is much like when the vote happened in January- the appropriate response, from a political standpoint, was (and remains), I think it is wonderful they were able to vote.
Discussions over whether it is worth it should wait until another day or another forum. Anything else would be seen as an attempt to minimize the achievement.
Al Maviva
I’m starting to like the comments section here more and more by the day. It fits in with the South Beach diet I generally try to stick to – not too much red meat, lots of nuts, yet satisfying if one has habits and brains of a supermodel.
Pudentilla
I’ll start letting Republicans dictate the terms of my response to Saddam’s trial when Republicans start letting me dictate the terms of their self-introduction at the 12-step programs they all need. As in, “hello my name is John and I’m a Republican – that is someone who belongs to a party whose elected officials and operatives started a war on a lie, hold American citizens in prison without charge or access to a lawyer, have created a de facto and seek to create a de jure torture regime, have gutted the American military’s ability to defend the country, and whose idea of domestic politics is to turn the death of a woman in a persistent vegetative state into a bathetic soap opera. I was in denial about what being a Republican meant for a long time. And while in denial I used to make myself feel better by suggesting that Democrats and/or liberals weren’t sufficiently tough and buff in their response to “strongmen” and dicators.”
“Hi John.”
Pudentilla
I’ll start letting Republicans dictate the terms of my response to Saddam’s trial when Republicans start letting me dictate the terms of their self-introduction at the 12-step programs they all need. As in, “hello my name is John and I’m a Republican – that is someone who belongs to a party whose elected officials and operatives started a war on a lie, hold American citizens in prison without charge or access to a lawyer, have created a de facto and seek to create a de jure torture regime, have gutted the American military’s ability to defend the country, and whose idea of domestic politics is to turn the death of a woman in a persistent vegetative state into a bathetic soap opera. I was in denial about what being a Republican meant for a long time. And while in denial I used to make myself feel better by suggesting that Democrats and/or liberals weren’t sufficiently tough and buff in their response to “strongmen” and dicators.”
“Hi John.”
copithorne
I would be interested in the obverse proposition.
I infer you [Ballon Juice} to be saying “It was worth [1800 American soldiers dead, 13,000 maimed and wounded, $200billion] to put Saddam Hussein on trial.
For me, I value the lives of American soldiers much more highly than that. I think that you must have retreated into a realm of abstraction to value the lives of American soldiers as little as you do.
Pudentilla
I’ll start letting Republicans dictate the terms of my response to Saddam’s trial when Republicans start letting me dictate the terms of their self-introduction at the 12-step programs they all need. As in, “hello my name is John and I’m a Republican – that is someone who belongs to a party whose elected officials and operatives started a war on a lie, hold American citizens in prison without charge or access to a lawyer, have created a de facto and seek to create a de jure torture regime, have gutted the American military’s ability to defend the country, and whose idea of domestic politics is to turn the death of a woman in a persistent vegetative state into a bathetic soap opera. I was in denial about what being a Republican meant for a long time. And while in denial I used to make myself feel better by suggesting that Democrats and/or liberals weren’t sufficiently tough and buff in their response to “strongmen” and dicators.”
“Hi John.”
copithorne
I would be interested in the obverse proposition.
I infer you [Ballon Juice} to be saying “It was worth [1800 American soldiers dead, 13,000 maimed and wounded, $200billion] to put Saddam Hussein on trial.
For me, I value the lives of American soldiers much more highly than that. I think that you must have retreated into a realm of abstraction to value the lives of American soldiers as little as you do.
John Cole
Oh, bullshit. What burns my britches is that regardless of whether or not this was a ‘samrt’ foreign policy choise is that you, and those on your side, can not overlook the opportunity to question the ‘smartness’ of said policy and instead shit all over every achievement while doing so.
Saddam Hussein on trial is a good thing. No buts. I am so sick and tired of the permanent campaign.
John Cole
And the achievements, if you ask me, have not been fast enough or significant enough, but that does not diminish the fact that Saddam on trial, any way you slice or dice it, is a good thing.
John Cole
And pudentilla- the comments thing is messed up. Please stop posting multiple times, it is unnecessaary. Even though it looks like your commment has not gone through, it has.
CaseyL
Stormy, there are a lot of dictators who’ve filled mass graves. Pinochet, for example; and he happened to be our ally. (So, for chrissake, was Saddam our ally – even while he was gassing his own people.)
There are a lot of dictators who’ve committed horrific human rights abuses. One of them happens to be our ally now: Karimov of Uzbekistan.
And it’s easy to sit back and congratulate ourselves that Saddam is facing trial for his crimes when we’re not the ones suffering the direct consequences of the war every goddamn day.
In Baghdad alone, they’re experiencing a terrorist attack on the scale of London 7/7 every goddamn day.
It’s ridiculous, insane, and just plain morally idiotic to say “Gosh, aren’t we glad Saddam’s facing trial?” and insist that the costs in human lives and suffering – which are escalating, BTW – aren’t worthy of comment or note, or shouldn’t be allowed to get in the way of our self-congratulation.
Yeah, Saddam’s going to face the consequences of his actions. That’s good.
Nothing else is.
John Cole
And one more thing- I think I have been pretty fair to Democrats, defending you against what arem in moist cases, manifestly unfair attacks on patriotism when you disagree with policy. But it is, due to your utter unwillingness to concede any point and to recognize and acknowledge positive devolopments, wherever they be, in large part your fault that it is so damned easy to paint you as ‘wanting the US to lose’ or ‘unpatriotic.’
There is enough shit going on in Iraq that is worthy of criticism- 112 dead today, for example, or what I am willing to now admit was a clear lack of post-war planning that you can focus on. The smart thing to do, politically and honestly, is to acknowledge that Saddam on trail is a good thing and keep your powder dry for other occasions.
That is, if the comments here are any indiciation, too difficult to grasp.
Wrye
I am glad that the comments button will finally be made to pay for its horrible crimes.
CaseyL
LOL, Wrye!
Jess
“Saddam Hussein on trial is a good thing. No buts. I am so sick and tired of the permanent campaign.”
Okay, I’ll grant you your non-negotiable statement, but I wonder when you’ll be ready to offer up this one as well:
“[Karl Rove] on trial is a good thing. No buts. I am so sick and tired of the permanent campaign.”
I would still be interested to hear people’s take on the pragmatism vs. human rights aims of foreign policy.
Jess
BTW, I am NOT equating the misdeeds of Rove with the crimes of Hussein–only suggesting some parallel problems in the discussions of the same.
Dorian
OC Patriot
It was my impression that Rummy met with Saddam, that Bush senior left him in place so Iraq wouldn’t disintegrate. How quickly (and conveniently) you forget that, against Iran, Saddam was our buddy and worthy of our support only until he attacked Kuwait. The Republicans loved him as they did the Shah, because he stood against the unsettling influence of the Iranian fundamentalists. Republicans liked him and said, “Sure Saddam Hussein was a bad person but was it worth _____________.” So have a nice day, liar.
space
Oh, bullshit. What burns my britches is that regardless of whether or not this was a ‘samrt’ foreign policy choise is that you, and those on your side, can not overlook the opportunity to question the ‘smartness’ of said policy and instead shit all over every achievement while doing so.
Saddam Hussein on trial is a good thing. No buts. I am so sick and tired of the permanent campaign.
First off, I don’t have a side. I agree with people who I believe make sense and I disagree with those that I think are out to lunch. Do I tend to lean Democratic at this precise moment in time? Yes, but that has more to do with the culture of the two parties at this precise moment in history than it does with ideology. As I already demonstrated upthread, the GOP has so reversed itself on foreign policy in the past 4 years that it is currently articulating policies (in terms of idealistic interventionism) well to the left of anything the Democratic party has advocated since Woodrow Wilson.
No, if I tend to support the Democrats it is because they let their wackos (and I fully admit they have them) rest comfortably at DU. The serious left-leaning thinkers at, for instance, the Center for American Progress currently demonstrate a level of intellectual rigor that leaves 99% of the GOP in the dust. In contrast, the GOP has elevated the stature of nutjobs, freaks, and crooks like Limbaugh, Coulter, Bolton, Perle, Norquist, and DeLay.
Guess what? If you kick out the Jack Kemps and invite in the Dobsons, serious people will no longer take your party seriously.
As for Saddam Hussein, these are my thoughts.
1. I have no faith in the Iraqi judicial system. This is not an attack on Bush or the GOP. It is a statement of fact. This is a country with no tradition of fairness or legality, as we understand it in the West. I would say the same if Clinton had invaded Iraq and Saddam Hussein were on trial.
2. The purpose of a trial is to DECIDE issues of fact. Is there a question of Saddam’s guilt? If he were acquitted, would you recognize the decision as fair and just? I certainly wouldn’t. If you don’t see the process as accomplishing a worthy purpose, and see it merely as a formal gloss on locking him up (or executing him), then I don’t see what there is to jump up and down about. He was in prison yesterday and the day before that. A “trial” is largely irrelevant.
3. “Trying” dictators is a tricky business. Since they make the laws, their actions in a very real sense are not “illegal.” Thus, the trials are not truly trials of law. They are more akin to equity proceedings, where we are asking what the deposed leader “deserves.”
4. If Saddam’s actions were truly deserving of the immense blood and treasure required to depose and capture him, I have a very difficult time letting the Iraqis decide his fate. If he was truly threatening the world, the world should decide his fate, not his countrymen. I don’t question their right to try him based on their own injuries, but I see the fact that we are reduced to relying on Iraqi courts as a tremendous indictment of our lack of evidence against him.
5. Because we are really asking “what does Saddam deserve?” rather than “What laws did Saddam break?”, we should largely be answering the question prior to invasion. This is the epitome of “shoot first, ask questions later.” We’ve got 1700+ dead Americans. Now we’re asking what Saddam deserves?
6. I believe in principles of due process more than legal ceremonies. Had we given the Iraq issue the fair hearing it deserved PRIOR TO INVASION, we wouldn’t be reduced to debating whether the Judge Chalabi court show is a Good Thing. I would have loved for the international community to have tried Saddam in absentia in the International Court of Justice. Put his crimes on display. Let his victim’s relatives bring their evidence. Then, once convicted and deposed, you wouldn’t have the indignity of having to put him on trial, as if that remained necessary.
7. I strongly resent the insinuation that this is about a “permanent campaign.” There is a foreign policy approach that I would support. We do not have that approach. Hence, I do not support this one and continue to criticize it. My view is every bit as principled a belief as anything Bush’s supporters’ hold (If not more so, since I did not adopt it in the past 36 months. “9/11! Everything changed!”).
8. Just for your edification, and to make this post even longer, I’d like to address this notion that “our side” is overly negative in general (“Why can’t liberals just admit that capturing Saddam is a good thing?”).
First, “our side” has been accused of “treason”, “Saddam-loving”, or “siding with the enemy”. It should go without saying that this is immensely offensive, but since most many Republicans don’t seem to get it I’ll say it explicitly: this is immensely offensive. People who have been repeatedly offended in this manner no longer wish to offer “constructive criticism” or “happy talk”.
Second, the GOP is incredibly dishonest. If I concede that capturing Saddam was a Good Thing, the next thing that will happen is some wingnut will reply, “so you admit that Bush was right to invade?” This repeated pattern of twisting people’s words and arguments to the nth degree makes people never want to concede an inch to Bush because he will take a mile.
Lastly, aside from the rhetorical dishonesty, Bush and his supporters can never admit a mistake was made. Ever. This is truly pathological. And it is frightening far, far beyond any partisan desire to win political advantage. It truly scares the piss out me that Bush and his merry band of sycophants never believe that they are wrong.
When confronted with people who frighteningly believe they are never wrong, there is a natural temptation to not admit when they are right for fear that they will take such an admission as a validation for all their behavior.
Mr Furious
Yes they are precious jewels that should never be put in harms way… We should only talk about what our solders are capable of…
Screw you Dorian. I’m glad you think the people in the military are expendable pawns for your (or the neocons) political experiments. I mean, that’s what they signed up for, I’m sure.
The biggest point made by most all elected Democrats and many commenters here is not that we have a “show” army to be kept on a shelf and never used, but that clear thresholds should be met before they are engaged. The sacrifices made by our soldiers have been in a debateably un/necessary theater, and dramatically worsened by the inept civilian leadership. Iraq was a war of choice, not necessity, and it was poorly planned from the start. We can disagree about the merits of that “choice”, but for you to pretend it was essential and well-executed you have to be pretty blind.
The war in Iraq is about more than Iraq. It was and is about putting despots on notice that the U.S. is prepared act and sacrifice when necessary.
Complete bullshit. Get back to me when our troops head south from Iraq to take care of the despots in Africa.
===========
John Cole-
Yeah, I’m glad Saddam is on trial. I hope he’s drawn and quartered. Period. But that didn’t happen in a vacuum and you cannot pretend that it did. It is perfectly reasonable to weigh the costs/benefits of the War in relation to that. My biggest problem with anyone who does so is that they will do so clumsily. I’m looking at you, Senator Kerry.
Mr Furious
Nice work in this thread, space. Execellent stuff.
Geek, Esq.
By the way, John, I call “No threads/posts from Democratic Underground.” Those people are like anti-matter Freepers.
Mr Furious
Oh, and Dorian, I nor anyone else here prefers the term “freedom-fighters.” there was a time when I preferred “insurgent” to “terrorist”, but that time has long since passed.
For instance, today:
They should have driven him straight out into the desert and then detonated his fucking vest for him. The attack the other day killing the children was bad enough, to think that they were going back to inflict more suffering on those same families sickens the stomach.
Another 71 dead today. I’m sure their families are looking forward to Saddam’s trial.
Jon H
Shit, we could have put him on trial in absentia and saved a buck or two.
Chris
Fine, I’m glad Saddam will be made to pay for his crimes. Now what is the purpose of that exercise? Of course Dems are going to add a caveat to that, because Republicans tend to insist that if you agree that it’s good Saddam is out of power, then you can’t logically oppose the war in Iraq. It’s all part of the high school debating tactics stuff that a lot of Repubs pull, like asking a question that calls for a nuanced answer, and going “yes or no? Yes or no?” like they’ve hit on some incredible point that can’t be argued. It’s good that Saddam’s going on trial, it’s bad that we’re mired in a mess with no clear way out. Is that too nuanced for you guys?
copithorne
I’m still interested in anyone who wants to make the argument:
“It was worth 1800 American dead, 13,000 maimed and wounded and $200billion to put Saddam Hussein on trial.”
Instead of making that argument, Dorian, you revert to a very strange sarcasm in which you say that American soldiers are precious jewels which should never be put in harm’s way when you mean that it doesn’t concern you to put soldiers in harm’s way.
It concerns me to put soldiers in harm’s way. I don’t believe it was worth it for what we got. I am able to state my view simply and clearly.
But Dorian and John Cole retreat into being a victim or being sarcastic or otherwise expressing their views indirectly.
If you are going to put American soldiers in harm’s way, it should be important to you to be able to take responsibility for your decision to do so.
Kimmitt
Hang on a second — he’s being brought before the wrong court (it should be an international war crimes court of some sort) in a country whose legal system is in terrible flux, with defense lawyers resigning due to compaints of unfair treatment. All of this is reliant on the continued existence of a government which absolutely requires US forces to maintain even the vague semblance of day-to-day security which currently prevails.
Saddam Hussein being brought to justice is a good thing. This is not as clearly justice as it should be, and it cost so very much.
George Turner
Look on the bright side, copithorne. We could have a war where we lose 116,516 dead and the Brits lose 942,135, while all we get out of it is the Kaiser taking early retirement in the Netherlands. Talk about getting ripped off.
Does anyone even remember what that one was about? Did it even have a point?
Oh, I forgot. A wildly racist Democrat led that one, so no harm – no foul.
Misha I
Sounds horrible, doesn’t it?
However, I’ve heard that same question asked by certain “revisionists” (to use a term far too nice for them) who claim, to this day, that there is simply no way that the Nazis could’ve killed 6 million Jews.
No, I’m not comparing you to those “people”, so please don’t get me wrong, I’m just saying that sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction.
tristero
John,
Who knew rightwingers were wannabe tree-huggers? Yes, indeed, there sure are a whole lot of criminals in the world and they should all pay for their crimes. And if only everyone in the world would accept the loving Christ, the world would be a better place.
Now back here in the real world, it is a government’s responsiblity to protect its citizens. That’s obligation one. Got some time and people left over to do some good and bring a criminal to justice? Better make sure it’s in your citizens’ interest first.
Iraq was no threat to the US, wasn’t involved in terrorism against the US, had no wmd’s, and Saddam was a toothless, failed, humiliated basket case of a tyrant. (Insert boilerplate here to the effect that Saddam was an evil man and that I don’t need people the caliber of Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush to tell me.)
As you know, the world was hardly ignoring Saddam Hussein before Bush’s splendid little war. During 2002, the sanctions had been revised to be less onerous and, as the world knew before the invasion (remember, the much derided inspectors found the truth: there was nothing ), the older sanctions worked: they eliminated Iraqi wmd and prevented further development.
There were also numerous options to invasion and occupation, notably the coerced inspections proposed by Carnegie Endowment.
All of these sensible options were preferable to invasion and occupation which, at best, would have an uncertain outcome and, at worst, could easily disintegrate into something resembling the present catastrophic situation. All were ignored by the Bush administration in its rush to make bang-bang.
Bush’s Iraq debacle isn’t a left-right issue. It’s an issue of competence. A competent US administration would never have seriously entertained invasion of Iraq in the first place. I’m amazed that rightwingers can seriously defend this administration. If Bush is a conservative exemplar, God help us all.
But hey, Saddam is in jail, on trial, and the world is a better place. Well, except for the worldwide increase in terrorism, the continued growth of al Qaeda, the freedom enjoyed by bin Laden, al Zawahiri, and Omar, and the increasing inability of the US to handle its committments or garner support for its international concerns.
But why quibble? Saddam’s been brought to justice.
copithorne
George, I haven’t spent much time in chatrooms recently. It is a little surprising to me that defenders of the War in Iraq will only do so by retreating into sarcasm.
And the sarcasm amounts to: saying that the lives of American soldiers are valuable while meaning that they aren’t more important that pieces on a chessboard.
Sarcastic speech, is speech that hides responsibility. And that’s the situation we are in now that we are in a war that no one will take responsibility for. We have a war that is important to Republicans, but they will steal every dime they need to pay for it from American children. I can’t think of a war supporter who has insisted that this war is worth $200billion of OUR money.
A necessary step in acting without taking responsibility will be perceiving oneself to be a victim. It’s ok to start a war and steal money from children because Woodrow Wilson did it and nobody complains about him. Not that it matters, but Wilson entered an ongoing war to end it while George Bush started a war with no end in sight.
So all this gets to the heart of John Cole’s post. He wanted his war but he regards it as bad manners — as impolitic — for people to hold him responsible for it.
I am sure it would be very painful to confront one’s responsibility for this tragedy. But everyone will be held to account on judgment day and the wise man tries to set his accounts in order without delay.
John Cole
My God. Where do they grow idiots like this?
Or are those words too strong coming from a victim like me?
Stormy70
In the reality-based community, John.
rs
John,you took a swing at copithornes batting practice pitch,but space is throwing some major league fastballs up-thread
John Cole
I don’t necessarily disagree with the vast majority of what Space has said, at least in spirit. #2 seems a little pointless- Will I think Slobodan Milosevic is innocent when the World Court bungles his conviction? Of course not.
#6 is irrelevant.
The only thing I would disagree with is point #7, and the inability of the Democrats to acknowledge positive (though not perfect) developments is due in large part to the permanent campaign.
Defense Guy
The rest of this post is too convoluted to go into, but wanted to delve into this a bit since it appears to refrence final judgment. I am wondering if the author realizes that those that are seen as attempting to ‘silence the cry of freedom’ might not be judged as they would wish.
As a side not, I do love the attempt by some to paint all of history as it is occuring right now and then using that as a baseling to judge actions taken. A dishonest practice, to say the least.
linda
i wonder if saddam is putting together his defense witness list — rummy might want to keep his schedule clear just in case.
while it is heartening to see you righties suddenly express such concern about the human rights abuses committed by your former ally, imagine if you had supported human rights watch and amnesty international in their public campaigns denouncing the saddam hussein regime throughout the 1980s instead of providing him with the weaponry and chemicals he needed to carry out those abuses.
Dorian
Defense Guy
So now he is OUR former ally, but only if OUR means us eeeevil rethuglicans. Not only are some of you leftists completely ignorant of history, but your ego’s are disproportionate to your willingness to actually do anything constructive about the worlds evils.
Retief
Saddam finally answering for his evil crimes is great news.
Of course, if he had only handed over his non-existent stockpiles of Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological weapons, Bush would have gladdly left him in place to continue those crimes. Saddams death is an unalloyed good, but let’s not pretend it is the result of some new policy of deposing bloody-handed despots.
Kimmitt
This is a good point; the question then is, how does one govern in the era of permanent campaign? It seems to me that one needs to have a little more of a concern for consensus than this Administration has shown, which is interesting.
copithorne
Dorian, I want to acknowledge that we are close to approaching the level of honest disagreement. You see a pot of gold at the end of this rainbow that’s going to justify the cost. I do not. I think every political party that starts a war does so because they are engrossed in ideological fantasies that are cruelly disapointed.
I am confident that if you gave me $200billion to promote democracy in the Middle East I would have accomplished much more than the Bush administration has accomplished with no loss of life.
But to me, if you were really going to stand behind the statement that this is worth it, then you’d wanting to be paying for it with higher taxes rather than stealing money from my children to pay for it. I hate this war, but I’d prefer to pay higher taxes to pay for it.
I haven’t seen anybody saying this. So I think it is fair for me to say that I haven’t met anybody willing to take responsibility for asserting that this war is worth the cost.
And if that’s the case I can’t understand what would be objectionable about me asserting that the war is not worth the cost unless you are playing the victim as a maneuver in avoiding responsibility for your own views and actions.
zen_less
1982??? Weren’t there, like DIFFERENT RULES then? Was the three point rule in effect then? Steroid use? Were there even PCs then? Man, this is tough – it’s like trying to pass judgment on King John.
George Turner
Copithorne,
Perhaps you should do something about all those evil people who keep robbing your children.
I suggest you vote Democrat so we can raise taxes to take more of their milk money away.
BTW, do you really believe white American is worth a hundred little brown people, or is that just a persona you adopt?
Baby-Eating Liberal
Am I the only person who has noticed that for all the taunting liberals have recieved about ambivalence vis-a-vis Iraq, not one conservative seems to have noticed that the most powerful political organization shaping up to be the dominant party for shias (read: the majority) in Iraq is SCIRI, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq.
Let me say that again:
The Supreme Council for…
ISLAMIC!
REVOLUTION!
in IRAQ!
These people were very heavily involved since the early days of ’03, and nary a peep was heard when I brought this up to my conservative friends. The enemy of my enemy, conservatives must have reasoned.
What Bush & Co. fail to realize is that Iraqis don’t want our democracy, they want _their_ democracy, which despite the billions that will have been wasted trying to convince Iraqis how great it would be if they signed on as the 51st state, will not convince them to do anything other than turn Iraq into the state of South Iran.
copithorne
Again, the sarcasm, George!
Will nobody step forward and say what they mean? You use the words that stealing money from children is evil. Yet the meaning seems to be that you excuse it in your own case.
Again, evading responsibility for your own speech will be the first step in conducting oneself without conscience or morality. If you are acting with a conscience you know that stealing money from children is wrong. Only when you retreat into a realm of abstraction and irresponsibility are you able to excuse it.
I also care about the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have died in this war. You don’t have the right to kill them because you think it is going to build a better world anymore than you have the right to kill me because you believe it would build a better world.
I didn’t bring up the Iraqi casualties because to go into all the costs of this war would take up more space than this format is suited for.
Jess
“Now back here in the real world, it is a government’s responsiblity to protect its citizens. That’s obligation one. Got some time and people left over to do some good and bring a criminal to justice? Better make sure it’s in your citizens’ interest first.”
Thank you, Tristero. So we have one person on this threat who’s brave enough to state what they believe our foreign policy should prioritize. Anybody else? If we’re going make pragmatic benefits to the US our priority, then let’s stop with the crocodile tears for the victims of Hussein. If human rights are our main concern, then let’s quit sniping and start talking about how to best build a foreign policy consistent with that. Right now we’re flip-flopping between the two goals and are failing at both. Which is it going to be?
Jess
“threat”? oooh, Freudian slip! Make that “thread.”
Sojourner
If this war were such a great idea, why did the Bush administration have to lie in order to convince the American public to support it?
I don’t agree that one can judge the goodness of the Hussein trial independent of the costs required to achieve it. Is it worth so many lives? Is it worth the US’s dramatic loss of moral standing? Is it worth the deep fractures of this country? I don’t think so. If it were, the country could have started this war with honest goals and a shared commitment to its purpose.