Glad to see that Hussein’s rushed execution has had a calming effect on the region:
On Monday, a crowd of Sunni mourners in Samarra marched to a bomb-damaged Shiite shrine and were allowed by guards and police to enter the holy place carrying a mock coffin and photos of the former dictator.
The protest took place at the Golden Dome, a Shiite shrine bombed by Sunni extremists 10 months ago. That attack triggered the current cycle of retaliatory attacks between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, in the form of daily bombings, kidnappings and murders.
Meanwhile, the military on Tuesday announced the death of a U.S. soldier by a roadside bomb southwest of Baghdad. The blast Monday wounded three others, including an interpreter, as they talked with local residents about sectarian violence, the military said.
A roadside bomb also killed three Iraqi civilians and wounded seven others in eastern Baghdad on Tuesday, police said.
And before you even start, Darrells, yes, they rushed it. We had him in captivity for three years, and there was absolutely no reason to execute him during the holidays and rush to create legal ‘workarounds’ to execute him. And recognizing it was rushed and botched politically does not mean I loved Saddam and wanted to have his babies, or want the terrorists to twin.
Just so we are clear.
Krista
John, darling, you’re wasting your breath. Being anti-capital punishment means you’re pro-Saddam. Thinking that the job was rushed, or that the whole thing seemed like a kangaroo court, means you’re pro-Saddam. Basically, taking any position other than “Saddam deserved to die, and how it happened is completely irrelevant to anything”, means you’re pro-Saddam.
Exhausting, isn’t it?
Mr Furious
They orchestrated the execution on what amounts to a Muslim Day of Forgiveness. Perfect.
I’m sure Bush broke out his Karla Faye Tucker-style mocking for the occasion too.
(I also don’t want John to have Saddam’s babies.)
Zifnab
Way to dodge the question, John.
demimondian
John, why would anyone care if you want the terrorists to twin (except that having more children will mean more impoverished kids to serve as cannon fodder)?
Tsulagi
Adherence to laws? No place for “workarounds?” Please. You think they don’t have a necessary Mohammed Gonzales or two to grease the wheels of democracy when needed to get around those obsolete and quaint obstacles? The Decider has looked into the soul of their democracy created in his image and pronounced it good. The
lynchingexecution was just visual proof. That’s all you need to know.Jake
So if each of your babies had twins, and those twins had twins… [gasp!] You DO want them to take over.
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
I must say was certain Hussein would have an “unfortunate accident” while he was in prison and therefore was very surprised that all of a sudden he had to die right that very second. But we’ve been over this before. So all I’ll say is don’t bother refuting the Super Spoofs and Trolls. Sometimes they don’t get it, sometimes they won’t get it and sometimes they can’t get it.
ThymeZone
Saddam was on the official list of World’s Biggest Assholes. Of course, he was on the that list when we were befriending him and using him, too.
Like I said the other day, if the execution doesn’t save the lives of American soldiers, it wasn’t worth spit. And unless I am missing something, it won’t.
demimondian
I hate to point this out, but Karla Faye Tucker was another that I felt no pain about being dead, although, for pragmatic reasons, I don’t think the death penalty is a success.
ThymeZone
Saddam has nothing to do with the issue of “capital punishment.” That issue,for us, is grounded in American criminal law and process, and doesn’t really have a basis in the idea of “crimes against humanity” on a mass scale.
Saddam was a political event, and one far removed from American jurisprudence.
It’s not only possible but sensible to be (a) fine with the death of Saddam, (b) against American capital punishment, and (c) opposed to an ill-timed political execution that might put American interests at risk, all at the same time.
Of course, the fact that those happen to be my own views is purely incidental to this post ;-)
Tony J
Just so we can be even clearer, John, does this pre-emptive slap-down for the resident Pony-Whisperer mean that, should he/she/they try his/her/their usual trick of clogging the thread with multiple pie-splats of offensive bushshit, you’ll consider actually banning him/her/them for the course of the proceedings?
Zifnab
No.
This has been another edition of simple answers to easy questions.
dlw
The thing that blows me away about the Saddam execution is that the crime he was convicted of happened in 1982 (the Dujail massacre)… you know, when he was, like, our friend.
I mean I’m sure he was a bad man and all, but couldn’t we find something more recent? Or something more extreme like the gassing of the Kurds?
Or if we really wanted to prove the point that he had to go… yes, it’s clear that’s not the real reason we blew the heck out Iraq, but if the Bushies wanted to make the point… why not create one huge trial and call out all the alleged thousands he tortured and executed over the years?
Zombie Santa Claus
Having someone executed isn’t manly unless you can laugh about it later. That’s the way they do things down in Texas, and I have no problem with it.
Hopefully, Bush will make fun of Saddam in an interview sometime this month, otherwise I’ll have lost a great deal of respect for his manliness.
Ho ho ho, bitches!
Sherard
Are you seriously kidding with this dumb shit ?
Your sarcastic strawman deconstructed implies 1) that anybody said that Saddam’s execution would “have a calming effect”, or that 2) what’s quoted in that article is somehow a horrible level of violence in Iraq that you, apparently, ascribe to Saddam’s execution.
I admit not following these events all that closely over the holidays, but it defies logic that anyone claimed Saddam’s execution would calm anything other than his own heartbeat.
And as a result of all this there was – OMFG! – protest and 2 roadside bombs. Hell, by that account his execution DID calm things.
Steve
Not to disagree with settled doctrine here, but I don’t think Saddam was ever “our friend” (unless you think Madeline Albright was friends with Kim Jong-Il, which I don’t). I think we helped Saddam because we felt prolonging the Iran-Iraq war was in our national interest, but I’ve never seen any evidence that we desired any outcome other than both sides losing.
The more serious concern with choosing this particular crime to hang Saddam for, as Juan Cole points out, is that this was a massacre of Shiites, and thus it ends up looking like partisan revenge. JC persuasively argues that a more savvy approach would have been to put Saddam on trial for one of his many crimes against Sunnis, thus eliminating this aspect of the equation.
It’s more than a little sad that Saddam, who butchered Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis alike during his brutal reign, gets to go down in history as some sort of Sunni hero in the eyes of some. That’s just wrong. Putting Saddam on trial for a different crime might have avoided that.
Sherard
Man, I do SO love the unbelievable arrogance on this site. So, let me get this straight. What the people of Iraq want – irrelevant. What the Iraqi justice system, as imperfect as it might be, decides – irrelevant. Instead, we have people who generally fall over themselves to shout to anyone who will listen, that the US shouldn’t have gone to Iraq in the first place, have done everything wrong in the process, that NOW they should dictate to Iraq what they should or shouldn’t do with a tyranical, murdering dictator.
Sure. That’s great. I nominate you for Secretary of State.
Zifnab
Good call. Iraq DOES suck more since we invaded. And deposing Saddam HASN’T benefited the Iraqi people (or us, for that matter). Why, the very notion that going in, capturing the guy, and having him hung would make the world a better place just seems laughable in hindesight.
Steve
Sherard apparently has been paying no attention to the facts which demonstrate that Saddam’s execution was hardly a shining example of the “Iraqi justice system” at work – rather, the Iraqi government basically let a bunch of cheering Sadr loyalists string him up. “Iraqi sovereignty,” unfortunately, is little more than the fig leaf by which we absolve ourselves of responsibility for such things.
James F. Elliott
The thing about the execution of Hussein is that it was a deliberate slap in the face of the Kurds and Sunnis by the ruling Shi’ite coalition. The Prime Minister’s need to pander to the Sadrites took precedence over national unity: Shi’ite religious observance began the day after the hanging, while they began on that same day for the Sunnis. Further, the Kurds were looking for a full accounting of Hussein’s brutal oppression of their kin, and now they will have to rely on, at best, an in-absentia trial (and likely not even that). Hussein’s lynching was little more than mob justice at the hands of the Mahdi Army, and as Christopher Hitchens and others have noted, handing over such prisoners to appease the militias is not terribly uncommon.
Concerns about a fair trial (which are not irrelevant, since the United States was holding Hussein in custody under the full protections of the Geneva Conventions and then forked him over after the kangaroo court) notwithstanding, there are far more practical reasons to deplore Hussein’s lynching, as John touched on. This was sectarian partisan politics of the basest sort. That Hussein deserved punishment is not in question. How best to have meted it out is a legitimate line of inquiry.
Tsulagi
A few shouts of “Long live Moqtada al-Sadr” from the execution gallery may have aided that perception along.
I always thought that as well.
The Butcher of Baghdad, a supreme evildoer, is put on trial for retaliating after a failed assassination attempt. I applaud their attempt, but in most countries, ours included, there are consequences for trying to take out the head of state. Some even call it treason. Granted, in most western countries the response wouldn’t have quite been the same as Saddam’s, but really from a buffet to choose from, is this what you want to spend a year trying him on?
Trying him for crimes against non-A-list Sunnis would have been good from a political standpoint. Going after him for gassing the Kurds or other crimes against them would have been a good second choice. But for whacking those involved in an assassination attempt and sending a message?
It seems no detail large or small has been overlooked in striving for FUBAR status.
TenguPhule
Shorter Sherad: I was against what the Iraqis wanted before I was for it.
Jonathan
Whatever steps are taken to mitigate the disaster that is Iraq, it will have to come from the Republicans in Congress. It’s simply politically impossible for the Democrats to cut off funding for the occupation since they will be immediately branded as “not supporting the troops” and the “liberal media” will aid and abet the Republican noise machine in the branding. The Democrats know this and know if they wish to do anything else to help the country recover from the six year frat party that the Republicans have thrown, they have to keep their political viability.
Just as it took the Republicans going to Nixon to bring the Watergate mess to an (ignominious) end, so it will be with the Decider and his puppeteer.
I don’t know how long it will take for enough Republicans to swallow their pride and say “enough” but I suspect it’s going to take a while.
ThymeZone
Oh no. Relevant. For example, when they seem to mostly want us dead. That’s relevant.
Kirby
John, here is how your post will be quoted on the right blogs.
“I loved Saddam and wanted to have his babies, (I) want the terrorists to win.”
I wasn’t sure if I should leave the twin typo in or not. But if it’s the rabid right doing the quoting they’ll want to make it look just so.
Jonathan
Errr.. How do you know that the Decider and his cohort didn’t dictate to Iraq what they should do with Saddam? To think that the current Iraqi regime is anything other than a sock puppet of the Busheviks is engaging in the sheerest fantasy.
The timing of the verdict was certainly convenient for the chimperor and the timing of the execution managed to drown out the three thousandth American death we have all been looking forward to with bated breath.
Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence and three times is enemy action.
Waiting for the third shoe to drop.
Let’s all keep in mind that Poppy Bush was once DCIA and that he was very publicly crying over junior’s myriad faux pas the other day.
demimondian
Oh, boy, Sherard! You’re awesome, dude.
I mean, like, wow! You think you can read the Iraqi people’s minds? Otherwise, how do you know what they want? Has the Flying Spaghetti Monster Touched you with His Noodly Appendage? No? Maybe Pat Robertson?
Listen, dude, I want to know where your getting your…you know…stuff?
He or she needs to be turned in to the DEA.
Jomar Reyes
Didn’t they pick Dujail because they wanted Saddam’s personal involvement in the massacre that followed the assassination attempt against him? And thus, a shorter, non-Nuremberg trial?
jenniebee
Except, of course, that we haven’t sold weapons to N. Korea. (I hope.) Nor did Madeline present Kim with a Golden Clenis. (I really hope.) Reagan did, however, make a reasonably big deal of how Saddam was our bestest bulwarkiest buddy in the fight against radical Islam.
Which is why, incidentally, mature women would make the most ideal foreign policy wonks: by the time we hit our late thirties, we’re mostly pretty well over the whole “getting into bed with utter jackasses” meme.
Jomar Reyes
But what about Condi?