Saddam Continues Bush Defense

more stirling:

"The ur-problem we face is that our elites - political, social and economic - have become unhinged from any moral or ethical basis. They are advancing overtly genocidal arguments in favor of "business as usual". The reason is fairly simple - the future isn't big enough for the endless expansion of the petroleum burning economy, and all the people on the planet. Something has got to go. Iraq was a small foretaste of what is going to become the dominant dynamic of the next generation - finding psuedo-moral and psuedo-legal rationalizations for exterminating rival stakeholders to the future. This process is going to continue internally and externally.

[snip]

The producer morality has become unhinged precisely at the same moment that the consumer morality has become unhinged. Producers could not make the "genoicde, good for business as usual" argument, unless there were a large number of consumers that really want to hear this particular message at this particular moment. It is not merely the large scale economy that is dependent on the endless expansion of the mechanized petroleum economy, it is the consumer economy as well. Consumers expect this expansion to pay for their retirement, provide them with jobs. Thus they want to hear that other people should and will pay for their present profits, and that they owe no moral duty to the people who they are killing and robbing from."

Stirling on saddam's trial:

"Saddam Continues Bush Defense: The words out of Saddam's mouth could have been written by the RNC: he was the Head of State, he had the power to protect national interest under the law, he signed the relevant pieces of paper, and people where convicted and dealt with under that law. The "unitary executive" has an almost unquestionable right to act against enemies of the state.

It is not that Saddam's regime wasn't far outside the pale of civilized or acceptable behavior, it is that we live at the fringes of that sprawling dark country which he took up residence in. And as we needlessly squander the difference between our regime and his, it becomes more and more difficult to make a distinction at law which shows, exactly, what he did which was beyond the boundary which we allow others to cross, and ourselves to flirt with. More importantly, the crimes depend heavily on pre-Kuwait invasion crimes, which makes the entire proceding questionable. If Saddam had, indeed, been beyond the range of acceptable behavior, then he should have been overthrown then, and tried then. He was not. Instead, the same power which reused to overthrow him then now wants a second bite at the apple.

The reason for this should be well known - Reagan and Bush had squandered vast sums of money propping up their political coalition. When the invasion came, we could not afford to overthrow Saddam, because the nation's paying for it did not want him removed from power. Bush essentially tipped his hat to Clinton said "thanks for saving up enough money for me to overthow Saddam, sucker.""