Posts
A sniveling tabloid editorializes on why Saddam's trial, oh wait, bitches about how Iraq did not become "automatically" better now that the savage admirer of Hitler and Stalin gets his just desserts. But it did, arguably, become less threatening to its neighbors now that a certified vicious dog was chained in a tight jailcell to be hanged like the dog that he is. Even the normally supinely liberal Salon site Secular Blasphemy upbraids the NYT for complaining about the so-called "rush" to judgment. Only three years is way too short, according to Pinch's orcs.
The Washington Post abjures the bitchery of the crazy old aunt in the attic linked at the top of this piece with a sober assessment of what this is all about. It isn't often that the WaPo is excellent, but compared to its Big Apple counterpart, the Post excels in journalism and good judgment.
1 comment :
I think what irritates people is that we executed him for one of his smaller crimes, largely to avoid prosecuting one of his bigger crimes where he could implicate various western powers (likely including the U.S.).
And, as Jim Henley points out,
The Dujail reprisals... were also the sort of war crime that people like Ralph Peters and a hundred other pundits and parapundits think the United States should be committing. Every time you read a complaint about “politically correct rules of engagement” you are reading someone who would applaud a Dujail-level slaughter if only we were to perpetrate it.
Hey, I'm happy the S.O.B. is pushing up daisies, but there is a great deal of hypocrisy going on around Saddam's execution.
As for the NYT, while they are correct that Saddam's execution hasn't chnged things much in the country, but if they think that allowing five to ten years of appeals so that we could execute Saddam in a "scrupulously fair" manner would have somehow made Iraqis into western democrats, they are smokin' something.
Post a Comment