Monday, November 06, 2006

If your photo is taken with a criminal, you must be one.

* kathleen reardon:
"Even in Rhode Island where Lincoln Chaffee is generally considered a "nice guy," a photo of his Democratic opponent Sheldon Whitehouse standing with a former convicted governor made the front page of The Providence Journal. The assumption we're supposed to make - If your photo is taken with a criminal, you must be one. Only toward the end of the article do you get to read Whitehouse's reasoned response. And how many people read that far? If I were the Republicans I'd be rushing to remove a lot of framed photos from my office if that's the game we're now playing."

* huffpo:
"Appearing on Sundays Chris Matthews Show conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan spoke about the sworn testimony of the Mark Foley investigation. Foley has admitted to having inappropriate relations with teenage pages, and the House Ethic Committee is investigation whether Republican House Leadership properly addressed the problem. House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) and former NRCC Chairman Tom Reynolds (R-NY) have both been accused of ignoring or covering up information about Foley, but today on the Sunday talk show Andrew Sullivan added a new name (Rove)."
* fisk on saddam:
"So we cannot even claim moral superiority. For if Saddam's immorality and wickedness are to be the yardstick against which all our iniquities are judged, what does that say about us? We only sexually abused prisoners and killed a few of them and murdered some suspects and carried out a few rapes and illegally invaded a country which cost Iraq a mere 600,000 lives ("more or less", as George Bush Jnr said when he claimed the figure to be only 30,000). Saddam was much worse. We can't be put on trial. We can't be hanged.
... the government that has condemned him after a trial at which the former Iraqi mass murderer was formally forbidden from describing his relationship with Donald Rumsfeld, now George Bush's Secretary of Defence. Remember that handshake? Nor, of course, was he permitted to talk about the support he received from George Bush Snr, the current US President's father. Little wonder, then, that Iraqi officials claimed last week the Americans had been urging them to sentence Saddam before the mid-term US elections.
Because here are a few of the things that Saddam was not allowed to comment upon: sales of chemicals to his Nazi-style regime so blatant - so appalling - that he has been sentenced to hang on a localised massacre of Shias rather than the wholesale gassing of Kurds over which George W Bush and Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara were so exercised when they decided to depose Saddam in 2003 - or was it in 2002? Or 2001?
Now in theory, I know, the Kurds have a chance for their own trial of Saddam, to hang him high for the thousands of Kurds gassed at Halabja. This would certainly keep him alive beyond the 30-day death sentence review period. But would the Americans and British dare touch a trial in which we would have not only to describe how Saddam got his filthy gas but why the CIA - in the immediate aftermath of the Iraqi war crimes against Halabja - told US diplomats in the Middle East to claim that the gas used on the Kurds was dropped by the Iranians rather than the Iraqis (Saddam still being at the time our favourite ally rather than our favourite war criminal). Just as we in the West were silent when Saddam massacred 180,000 Kurds during the great ethnic cleansing of 1987 and 1988.

And - dare we go so deep into this betrayal of the Iraqis we loved so much that we invaded their country? - then we would have to convict Saddam of murdering countless thousands of Shia Muslims as well as Kurds after they staged an uprising against the Baathist regime at our specific request - thousands whom webetrayed by leaving them to fight off Saddam's brutal hordes on their own. "Rioting," is how Lord Blair's meretricious "dodgy dossier" described these atrocities in 2002 - because, of course, to call them an "uprising" (which they were) would invite us to ask ourselves who contrived to provoke this bloodbath. Answer: us.
The odd thing is that Iraq is now swamped with mass murderers, guilty of rape and massacre and throat-slitting and torture in the years since our "liberation" of Iraq. Many of them work for the Iraqi government we are currently supporting, democratically elected, of course. And these war criminals, in some cases, are paid by us, through the ministries we set up under this democratic government. And they will not be tried. Or hanged. That is the extent of our cynicism. And our shame. Have ever justice and hypocrisy been so obscenely joined?"
do you think Fox will broadcast the hanging?


Don said...

I've wondered at the choice of method of execution. Why hanging? Is it something in Muslim law? Or Iraqi law? Or is that just the most violent method they figure they can use that will leave a displayable corpse?

lukery said...

i believe he asked for the firing squad and they refused.

that's all i've got.