Tim Blair

The sooner this commences the better, in my view.

Posted by: Rebecca at June 14, 2004 at 03:39 AM

Bush and Howard will then invite the opponents of the war to 'remind me again, why we should have left this bloke in power'

one would've thought this plan a risky one, since it practically begs war opponents to point out 'remind me again, why did the republicans once support this guy'.

Posted by: roop at June 14, 2004 at 03:49 AM

Some other ideas that have surfaced on the Web:

1. Convict Saddam of desertion, first. I like this one.

2. Convict him of a specific killing or two, something gruesome that he did personally. Something to illustrate the sickening cruelty of the man.

Either way, he would already be under a death sentence by the time of his "political" trials. It's make it harder for his defense to politicize his trials, and take away much of Saddam's incentive to bribeor intimidate judges, jurors and witnesses.

Posted by: ras at June 14, 2004 at 05:29 AM

Finally! I have thought this was the ace up Karl Rove's sleeve for a long time. Let Kerry bash, let people talk about quagmire and Fallujah and Abu Ghraib-- and then dominate the news for two months straight with stories of plastic shredders and rape rooms and torturing the Olympic athletes (right on the heels of the Olympics) and so on. Lay out his crimes until people are sick of them, then lay them out some more and more and more until the only rational response is to feel we should have done it decades earlier. It's the most logical scenario for a Bush win, and one that Kerry, with all his talk about realpolitik and maybe democracy isn't what they need and so on, will find impossible to fight back against.

Posted by: Mike G at June 14, 2004 at 05:44 AM

"one would've thought this plan a risky one, since it practically begs war opponents to point out 'remind me again, why did the republicans once support this guy'."

It is only risky from the perspective of those to whom the USSR was always a big cuddly teddy bear, and thus no effort to oppose them was ever needed or justified.

Fortunately most American voters are sane.

Posted by: Mike G at June 14, 2004 at 06:53 AM

Actually it was Iran that was the proximate cause of what little support the US gave to Iraq, which was a Soviet client until the end of the USSR. For those with defective memories, I will remind you that Iran committed an act of war against the US by seizing our embassy and holding captive our people there. They returned the people when Reagan took office, afraid of what he might do in retaliation, but the basic affront of attacking an embassy was never settled.

Furthermore Iran's Islamic revolution was aimed not just at Iran itself but intended for export to the rest of the Muslim world, overthrowing American clients like Kuwait and endangering oil supply access, essential for American security in the Cold War (you do remember the Cold War, don't you?) That is the connection with opposing the USSR.

Our cooperation with Iraq, limited as it was, was essentially similar to our cooperation with the USSR in World War II (remember that?) and with China in the second half of the Cold War. Such cooperation is justifiable when necessary for meeting more immediate and greater threats, as the Islamic Revolution in Iran seemed to be.

I write as one who did not approve of the "tilt towards Iraq" at the time, but I also remember I did not have the resposibility of guiding the country through a very complex international environment. It would have been better had we overthrown Saddam in 1991, but an excess of deference to multilateralism and the UN shamefully prevented us from doing so. I'm glad we finally got around to doing what should have been done 12 years earlier. That is not hindsight on my part, I advocated overthrow in 1991. Justification for this act should be self-evident, but to those who hate America and/or Bush (not necessarily in that order) no justification will ever be sufficient.

Posted by: Michael Lonie at June 14, 2004 at 09:21 AM

remind me again, why did the republicans once support this guy?

Remind me again, why did FDR and Churchill support this guy? here's a clue. Posted by: Zev Sero at June 14, 2004 at 09:21 AM

I'm not convinced about the shredder story, Mike G...I would have thought we'd have seen some sort of photographic evidence of it by now. I saw a device on rotten.com that would do the job, but that one was being used for, er, shredding plastic.

But I think you're all missing a major point here. Do you seriously believe that the media give a lovely shit about what Saddam did?

As Roop says, they will simply pull the defence..."Rapes, murders, torture, blah, blah, blah. We all know Saddam was a bad man, but who cares, 'cause he was just Amerika's puppet. It's still W's fault, because the US backed Iraq in the war with Iran. And didn't the CIA put him in power? And, anyway, if you haven't got nudey sex photos, you don't have proof. And..." and so on, and so on.

I've seen otherwise sane people who honestly believe that Abu Ghraib is a genuine atrocity. As long as the press keeps judging that some images (people jumping from burning 100 storey buildings) are 'too confronting', while snarling dog pictures are just fine, there'll be no change.

This will be the not-story of the year.

Posted by: Al Bundy at June 14, 2004 at 09:25 AM

The media, as much as they will wish to downplay the news, will be unable to resist the sensationalism of it. And it will play live on Court TV or CSpan or the like. It will be unmissable, even with people trying to make us miss it.

Posted by: Mike G at June 14, 2004 at 09:38 AM

Jack Hynes is dead wrong. Bush will not try Sadaam for political effect because it is an obvious political ploy and would turn people away from him. Bush and Rove are far more subtle and masterful political strategists. Moreover the administration has already said there will be no Sadaam trial until after the Iraqi elections. This is because he has insisted that the Iraqis are the ones to try Sadaam, not the ICC or some other such international court.

Bundy: The plastic shredder you saw is exactly the kind of device used in that instance of torture according to the reports I've heard. In addition there are hours and hours of video of torture and they have been circulating in Baghdad since the day after the fall of the regime when they were looted from security offices. And the press cannot both ignore and spin a story at the same time. It will have to be one or the other and it is too big and obvious to ignore and too compelling to be effectively spun. Besides, the Trial of Sadaam will start in mid-2005 and will serve as vindication for the war and all the pain and work of getting to elections. After Bush wins it will serve as a palate cleanser before we move on to other problems and fronts in the WOT.

Bush doesn't need a big political ploy because John Kerry Is Unelectable.

Posted by: Kerry Is Unelectable at June 14, 2004 at 09:54 AM

Al Bundy and Mike G - never underestimate media's ability to bury the story they don't like. I can see the reporting of the trial relegated to the last paragraph in a story about the latest suicide bombing in Iraq and an update on how England's court martial is going. Yes, there will be coverage - I'm probably a bit too pessimistic above - but Saddam's in many ways an old story. "Everyone" knew he was a bad man for quite some time, just like "everyone" knew that the Soviet Union was bad. But as the media would say, "we have moved on".

Posted by: AC at June 14, 2004 at 09:58 AM

AC: I think you you overestimate people's understanding of the euphemism "bad man". When people are offered the opportunity every day to hear an account of Sadaam Hussein's atrocities from the people they were committed against they will not be able to turn away. You also overestimate the leftish lean off the press. We can thank G-d every night for Rupert Murdoch and his FoxNews as they will provide wall to wall coverage of this thing as it unfolds and the other networks will either have to get in line or fall behind in the ratings even more than they already have.

Posted by: Kerry Is Unelectable at June 14, 2004 at 10:17 AM

KIU,

I don't know where you are, but here in Oz the press specialise in spinning the most irrelevant parts of a story (eg over here we have a number of publicly funded current affairs programs that specialise in stories like wild-arsed allegations of shadowy connections between Saddam's ministers and the CIA - and leave well alone stories like the in-your-face PHOTOGRAPHS of a certain French PM handing Saddam the keys to the reactor).

The international media don't care about the War On Terror, they care about THEIR search for an elusive Pulitzer, and they're all reading off the same Seymour Hersch song instruction pamphlet on how to get one.

You and I know that the State Dept, the CIA and whoever else are involved in realpolitik to achieve results for the American people. If turning a blind eye to Saddam and his prediliction for gassing his own people is what's called for in fighting the Cold War, then so be it. But the press don't have to worry about things like the possible consequences of Iran toppling Saddam. They can just be the West's Big Conscience (tm), and move on to another story next week. That's why Saddam's atrocities are not going to get airplay over here, particularly in the lead up to an election.

Oh, and the plastic shredder...I apply certain tests to things I read about on the web. I've read all about the plastic shredders, and I've yet to see an item that tells me WHERE, WHEN and WHO. It's all 'this happened to a friend of a friend of mine' sort of stuff. If you can point me to a convincing link, say with a vidcap, or at least the details of where such an item was actually operated and when it was on use etc, I'd appreciate it...'cause there's a few people I'd love to show the pictures to so they could get a little perspective on Abu Ghraib.

Al

Posted by: Al Bundy at June 14, 2004 at 10:23 AM

Al Bundy: Well I googled bloody shredder photos and didn't get much except hard rockers, but I'll keep my eyes open. Though I will say this for the allegations, I think they are more substantial than just internet rumor. I have read refrences to them in National Review, The Weekly Standard, and on television on several occasions. In addition to this I believe Bush has referenced this specific allegation before, but I'll have to search for it. Of course none of that is evidence that it actually occured, but I have yet to see those sources proved completely unreliable and I certainly find the possibility of something like that having occured under Sadaam credible.

I'm assuming you live in Australia. I'm in Kansas City, Missouri in the greatest country in the world. That's not to say that Aussies and Brits are shabby. It's more a reflection of my deep and abiding love for kith and kin. And we sure as hell love John Howard and Tony Blair over here. You folks (Aussies) are doing a bang up job on your side of the world and frankly I don't think you get enough credit. The South-east Asia front is coming soon and we hope you will still be there with us. What are Howards chances like in the coming election?

One last point question. Don't Australians have access to Murdoch's FoxNews?

Posted by: Kerry Is Unelectable at June 14, 2004 at 02:09 PM

Saddam: I now call the first witness for my defense. In addition, I would like to submit the following documents as evidence.

A trial? Yeah, like that's going to happen.

Posted by: felixrayman at June 14, 2004 at 03:31 PM

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000403.html - has a link to Baathist torture

I'd recommend forgetting about the shredder. It's not like there's a shortage of other atrocities to refer to. Focusing on the shredder lets the apologists turn the argument on doubting whether or not it was ever used, thus sweeping the undeniable reality under the rug...Like the fucking morons who refer to a picture of Rummy and Saddam and then wax mauldin over how Saddam isn't going to get a "fair trial".

Posted by: Sortelli at June 14, 2004 at 04:03 PM

KIU,

Yeah, I did the same thing with the shredder phots some time ago, and turned up nil. That's when I began to wonder. The whole shredder thing was just too elaborate. Easier just to hang a wrong-thinking prisoner on a meathook and disembowel him. Why bother with expensive machinery that would require technical maintenance, be hard to clean and probably stink? I dunno, could be true, but I just want to see something a bit more solid first.

The problem is that dissidents like Chalabi, and, in fact, the Iraqi asylum seekers that came to Australia were full of truly horrific tales about the state of affairs in Iraq. When the US went in, all of a sudden they were marching in the streets with anti-US banners. I started getting a little bit cynical about the horror stories. Not dismissive, but just trying to keep an objective eye out for what facts actually lie behind the propaganda from both sides.

The election for later this year is hanging in the balance. Economically, the Howard govt is on solid ground with record low unemployment, a steadily growing economy and low inflation. But the media adore Mark Latham and his 3rd-way policy ideas. The Labor Party (akin to your Democrat mob) will be tough to beat.

I think Fox News is available on cable (satellite, actually), but my budget doesn't extend that far. I get CNN at work, but can't be bothered with it most of the time. At home, it's free-to-air or nothing for me, I'm afraid.

Posted by: Al Bundy at June 14, 2004 at 04:05 PM

Yeah, good point re the shredder story, Sortelli.

Posted by: Al Bundy at June 14, 2004 at 04:09 PM

blah blah cuss like a moron blah and then wax mauldin over how Saddam isn't going to get a "fair trial".

Actually I'm more concerned with making sure Rumsfeld gets one. Should be interesting.

Posted by: felixrayman at June 14, 2004 at 04:35 PM

You're a brave man with a good set of priorities, fuckingmoronayman. And by "brave" I mean your head is so far up your ass that you have to loosen your belt to breathe properly.

Posted by: Sortelli at June 14, 2004 at 04:44 PM

You're a brave man with a good set of priorities, fuckingmoronayman. And by "brave" I mean your head is so far up your ass that you have to loosen your belt to breathe properly.

I accept your admission of defeat. It takes real class to admit that one can not debate on the issues. Gracefully done.

Posted by: felixrayman at June 14, 2004 at 05:09 PM

felixrayman - did you actually read your reference? It says nothing about armaments supplied to Iraq from the US and only insinuates that some dual-use items may have gotten through. It also clearly states that some were properly interdicted.

In point of fact, the US provided no militarily significant hardware to Iraq during the war that affected its outcome in any significant way, the bulk of Iraq's military equipment having been provided by Russia, France, China and others. Germany provided ready-to-use pesticide / chemical warfare plants. (Gee... what do those countries all have in common? Who was it again who opposed the operation to liberate Iraq?)

The US did provide militarily significant intelligence reports on fellow Axis-of-Evil member Iran's troop movements. And, if we had it to do over, we'd do it again. The mullahs in Iran are, in some ways, even worse than Saddam. Or, hadn't you noticed?

You see, in your little wide-eyed world of make-believe, it has clearly yet to intrude upon you that sometimes, you are not given a choice between bad and good, but of bad against worse.

Posted by: Reid at June 14, 2004 at 05:32 PM

felixrayman - did you actually read your reference? It says nothing about armaments supplied to Iraq from the US and only insinuates that some dual-use items may have gotten through. It also clearly states that some were properly interdicted.

Point out where I say the US supplied armaments to Iraq and I'll respond to that charge. What the documents do show is that Saddam's atrocities were committed with the full knowledge and acceptance of the US, and that the US pretended to protest those actions in public while privately sending top officials (aka Rumsfeld) to Iraq for the express purpose of assuring Saddam that gassing a few Kurds was no big deal (among other atrocities), and that US support for Saddam would continue in spite of such atrocities.

If what Saddam did was criminal, there are a number of current and former members of the US government that share responsibility for those crimes.

When do they go on trial?

Posted by: felixrayman at June 14, 2004 at 05:46 PM

I see. Now that I have called you on the facts, you clarify your position and move the goalposts.

"full knowledge and acceptance of the US"

What a load of crap. Knowledge does not imply acceptance, much less encouragement.

And, you still ignore the elephant in the room which is the fact that there was no good side to take in that war, but there was a good reason to not want either side to prevail in a way that would have fundamentally rocked the balance of power in the Persian Gulf and, indeed, the world.

If you are pro-Mullah in Iran, please just lay your cards on the table and say so. Otherwise, STFU.

Posted by: Reid at June 14, 2004 at 06:07 PM

What a load of crap. Knowledge does not imply acceptance

"Knowledge and acceptance" however, despite your fervent hopes and underdeveloped logic skills, does imply acceptance. I know you would much rather debate the things you wish I said instead of the things I actually said (and provided evidence for) but that's just weak.

And, you still ignore the elephant in the room which is the fact that there was no good side to take in that war

And you still ignore the elephant in the room which is the fact that putting your co-conspirators in such a war on trial is a damn fool idea, one bound to be amusing to those of us who think that both Saddam and Rumsfeld are criminals, and can back up such assertions with the previously aforementioned cornucopia of documents.

Posted by: felixrayman at June 14, 2004 at 06:30 PM

Ah, yes. Felixrayman is arguing that familiar antiwar position, "We did not rise up in revulsion and overthrow Saddam in 1980, therefore we have a moral obligation to leave him in power forever."

Posted by: Mike G at June 14, 2004 at 11:48 PM

Not to mention the fact that Saddam gassed the Kurds 8 years after the Rumsfeld visit, not before. In fact, Rumsfeld went before we supplied any help at all to Saddam and left government for the private sector shortly after his visit. The key here is that he is in no way culpable in Saddam's atrocities. This meeting took place a little over a year after Saddam's rise to power and it was not at all clear at the time that he was going to be a psychotic mass murderer. Your passing familiarity with U.S. foreign policy is inadiquate to back your trumped up charges viz. the Secretary of Defense, felix. Read a fucking history book.

Posted by: Kerry Is Unelectable at June 15, 2004 at 12:37 AM

felixrayman is arguing his point by ignoring the arguments of other people, and repeating his own points as "the truth".

In other words, he's a frigging troll.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at June 15, 2004 at 12:41 AM

Way late to this thread, but 'Jack Hynes' is a local news anchor; he used to be on the Big 3 local network affiliates.

My first guess as to 'Jack Hynes''s real identity - John Ellis.

Posted by: Roger Bournival at June 15, 2004 at 12:56 AM

Yeah, enourmous US assistance, they send a few dual use items, France sends massive quantities of Mirage F1's, Crotale SAM's, CGT self propelled artillery pieces (Sarin, to be used with), and a nuclear reactor expressle designed for weapons production.

They US sends a few Bell Huey's, the Russians sends MiGs by the hundred, thousands of tanks, thousands of missiles, and mobile launchers for them, as well as the rights to produce certain conventional weapons systems (like artillery, that you launch gas attacks with).

The US also sends vital spare parts, ammunition, and new arms to Iran (as does Israel).

So obviously the US are the prime culprits in Saddam's crimes, Vichy France, Russia, and Germany are blameless, or at least thats what some people want me to believe.

Posted by: Sheriff at June 15, 2004 at 01:15 AM

Yes, Mike G. but, it is abundantly clear that, had we declared war on Saddam back then, felixthecat would have supported it.

/sarcasm

Posted by: Reid at June 15, 2004 at 01:16 AM

To further add to JeffS' statement that felixrayman is a troll (and a damn boring one at that), I'd like to point out that he seems to be on an ongoing pilgrimage from one semi-big libertarian/right-of-center blog to another.

I'd see him pop up on one of them, spout his tired and clichéd lines about how the Bushitler Administration is full of criminals, get spanked about with actual facts, move the goalposts (just like above), get spanked around some more, then disappear into the night. Only to show up on another blog's comment section a couple of days later with the same act - lather, rinse, repeat.

And once he runs out of reputable blogs to troll, he starts the visiting cycle anew. Which is why he shows up here at irregular intervals, appearing like an episodic drinker. What a sad existence.

Posted by: PW at June 15, 2004 at 01:25 AM

felixrayman neglects to mention that contrary to the propoganda :

Examination of records shows that from 1973-1995, US arms sales to Iraq totalled $US5 million.

In contrast, Britain's sales totalled $330 million, Germany's $995 million, China's $5.5 billion, France's $9.24 billion, and Russia and the Soviet Union's $31.8 billion. These are the facts.

So, yes, you could say that the US sold arms to the Iraqis in the past, but they were far from alone in this matter, and quite a bit less active in arming them than every major nation that later opposed efforts to remove Saddam from power.

Posted by: Gordon at June 15, 2004 at 02:24 AM

felixrayman mutters to himself:

"Facts! I doan need no steenkin' facts!"

Posted by: The Real JeffS at June 15, 2004 at 02:41 AM

;P I was ahead of all you guys when I told him his head was up his ass.

Posted by: Sortelli at June 15, 2004 at 03:49 PM