Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: NickSE who wrote (20304)	12/17/2003 10:45:57 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793620

Media Notes - Howard Kurtz Trial of the Century? Wednesday, Dec 17, 2003; 3:01 PM Multiple choice quiz. The trial of Saddam Hussein will become: a) A searing examination of the crimes and atrocities of his regime. b) an ideological football that supporters and opponents of the war will use to score points. c) bogged down in an endless swamp of countercharges and procedural wrangles. d) a pre-election boost to President Bush by reminding voters of who got Saddam in the dock. e) one of the biggest media circuses of all time. f) another platform for Mark Geragos, who will represent Saddam while also juggling the Michael Jackson and Scott Peterson cases. Most of these are probably true -- all right, Geragos may be too busy -- but it's hard to say how the legal proceedings will play out. I don't think there will be too much doubt about the outcome, but how we get there -- what kind of case is built against the dictator who brutalized his country for three decades -- will have a major impact on Iraqi and world opinion. The trial will likely serve as an Iraqi version of a truth and reconciliation commission, and that could be painful. What about those who are seen to have collaborated with the Hussein regime? The Boston Globe sets the scene: "The coming trial of Saddam Hussein will blanket world media with the daily evocation of decades of atrocities, potentially recasting the Iraq war from a campaign rationalized by the still-unproven threat of weapons of mass destruction to a moral undertaking justified by ending his regime's massive human rights abuses. "Had Hussein been killed by US soldiers, his final chapter would have made headlines for only a few days. But the improbable fact that he allowed himself to be taken alive offers President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain the opportunity to watch their critics squirm under a sustained flow of headlines that will emphasize the humanitarian argument for their war -- even if it was not the one they most often articulated before the fighting. "While the president yesterday offered only a pledge that the trial will be public and 'stand international scrutiny,' war supporters envision a televised tribunal, replete with the surviving victims and relatives of the dead offering riveting testimony of torture, massacre, and other personal encounters with horror -- thus obliging opponents to reconsider their assertions that it was a mistake to invade Iraq." Salon's Joe Conason wants an international trial: "In a persuasive essay, Ken Roth of Human Rights Watch mentions certain historical and ideological motives underlying that decision: 'The Bush administration calculates that a tribunal of Iraqis selected by its hand-picked Governing Council will be less likely to reveal embarrassing aspects of Washington's past support for Saddam Hussein, more likely to impose the death penalty despite broad international condemnation, and, most important, less likely to enhance even indirectly the legitimacy of the detested International Criminal Court.' "Roth argues that an internationally led tribunal would provide greater transparency and fairness. I would add that such a tribunal -- rather than a political show trial overseen by the Iraqi Governing Council -- will help to repair American and Iraqi relations with the rest of the international community." Elsewhere on Salon, Robert Scheer accentuates the negative: "The capture of Saddam, while providing the president with fantastic propaganda footage, does nothing to make us safer from international terrorism. It could, however, shine a harsh light on Washington's decade-long military and economic support of the barbaric Saddam in his war against Iran's religious fanatics, who were making inroads with their brethren in Iraq. . . . "For example, Bush has made frequent reference to Saddam's gassing of his own people, yet those incidents occurred when Bush's father and President Ronald Reagan were using the Sunni Baathists as a foil against Shiite Iran in a war that Saddam launched. Reagan removed the designation of Iraq as a terrorist nation and established diplomatic relations with Saddam's regime. The first President Bush extended $1.2 billion in credits to Saddam after the dictator used poison gas against Kurdish civilians. "This is a dirty history that calls into question our current motives in Iraq." But the Weekly Standard's Claudia Winkler sees a huge potential upside: "The old Iraq was a place where reporters couldn't stir without official 'minders,' and ordinary people were afraid to talk about politics even with their neighbors. Saddam's trial, a foundational event in free Iraq, must meticulously air the evidence of his regime's atrocities, for the sake of the survivors, and for the sake of the young generation of Iraqis who will build the new nation. "The truth must be told, and must be seen to be told. Says Iraq's ambassador to Washington, Rend Rahim Francke, 'The Iraqis need to see justice being done in front of them. This is going to be truly a process of healing.' " I hope it's televised, although that would probably require some crackerjack Iraqi translators. - By Howard Kurtz washingtonpost.com

To: NickSE who wrote (20304)	12/18/2003 12:18:23 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793620

Moment of Truth By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Published: December 18, 2003 ISTANBUL — Of all the fascinating reactions to Saddam Hussein's capture, the one that intrigues me most is the French decision to suddenly offer some debt forgiveness for Iraq. Why now? I believe it's an 11th-hour attempt by the French government to scramble onto the right side of history. I believe the French president, Jacques Chirac, knows something in his heart: in the run-up to the Iraq war, George Bush and Tony Blair stretched the truth about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction — but they were not alone. Mr. Chirac also stretched the truth about his willingness to join a U.N.-led coalition against Iraq if Saddam was given more time and still didn't comply with U.N. weapons inspections. I don't believe Mr. Chirac ever intended to go to war against Saddam, under any circumstances. So history will record that all three of these leaders were probably stretching the truth — but with one big difference: George Bush and Tony Blair were stretching the truth in order to risk their own political careers to get rid of a really terrible dictator. And Jacques Chirac was stretching the truth to advance his own political career by protecting a really terrible dictator. Something tells me that the picture of Saddam looking like some crazed werewolf may have shocked even Mr. Chirac and his foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin: yes, boys, this is the creep you were protecting. History will also record that while the U.S. and Britain chose to be Saddam's prosecutors, France chose to be his defense lawyer. So, no, it doesn't surprise me that the French are now offering conscience money in the form of Iraqi debt relief. Something tells me Mssrs. Chirac and de Villepin were just assuming Iraq would end in failure, but with Saddam's capture they've decided they'd better put a few chips on success. But we and the Iraqis are also going to have to step up more ourselves — otherwise the French could still have the last laugh. No question, the capture of Saddam merits celebration in and of itself, not only because this terrible man will be brought to justice, but also because it really does improve the chances for a decent outcome in Iraq. But while Saddam's removal is necessary for that decent outcome, it is not sufficient. We have entered a moment of truth in Iraq. With Saddam now gone, there are no more excuses for the political drift there. We are now going to get the answer to the big question I had before the war: Is Iraq the way it is because Saddam was the way he was? Or was Saddam the way he was because Iraq is the way it is — ungovernable except by an iron fist? We have to give Iraqis every chance to prove it is the first, not the second. For starters, I hope we don't hear any more chants from Iraqis of "Death to Saddam." He's now as good as dead. It's time for Iraqis to stop telling us whom they want to die. Now we have to hear how they want to live and whom they want to live with. The Godfather is dead. But what will be his legacy? Is there a good Iraqi national family that can and wants to live together, or will there just be more little godfathers competing with one another? From my own visits, I think the good family scenario for Iraq is very possible, if we can provide security — but only Iraqis can tell us for sure by how they behave. The way to determine whether Iraqis are willing to form the good family is how they use and understand their newfound freedom. The reason Iraqi politics has not jelled up to now is not only because of Saddam's lingering shadow. It is because each of the major blocs — the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites — has been pushing maximalist demands for what it thinks is its rightful place in shaping and running a new Iraq. The Iraqi ship of state has broken up on these rocks many times before. By risking their own political careers, George Bush and Tony Blair have, indeed, given Iraqis the gift of freedom. But it is not the freedom to simply shout about what they oppose. That is anarchy. Freedom is about limits, compromise and accepting responsibility. Freedom is the opportunity to assert your interests and the obligation to hear and compromise with the interests of others. How well Iraqis absorb that kind of freedom will determine whether the capture of Saddam is the high point of this drama — and it's all downhill from here — or just a necessary first chapter in the most revolutionary democracy-building project ever undertaken in the Arab world. nytimes.com