Saturday, December 30, 2006

Hang Over

It should shock no one to learn that Saddam Hussein is dead. While there seems to be a lot of jubilation in various parts of the US, a great many Iraqis greeted the news with a shrug of the shoulders. It doesn't mean a lot to them, except maybe even more gratuitous violence.

As I watched CNN, a lot of the talking heads seemed puzzled as to why the former Iraqi dictator was executed tonight. Several pointed out that the crime he was found guilty of -- the executions of about 140 men and boys as a reprisal against an assassination attempt -- paled in comparison to the slaughter of at least 100,000 Kurds. Why didn't they execute him AFTER he was found guilty of this horrendous crime?

I have a theory: The US (i.e., Dubya, Cheney, et. al.) didn't want THAT trial to go forward because it might have proven embarrassing to the US administration. As I hope many of you will recall, the US government was aware of the Kurdish slaughter and voiced little outrage at the time. In fact, this slaughter took place during that period when Saddam was looked on as a friend of US interests (he was at war with the "hated" Iran). I have even read some reports that the US had some complicity in this act of atrocity.

You can be certain that the Hussein defense team would have dredged up these facts and you can be just as certain that Team Bush wanted to avoid this kind of spectacle at all costs.

So, they decided to "kill two birds" at once. Hussein is dead and now the case of the Kurdish massacre most likely is too.

1 comment:

  1. I think you have it exactly right.

    A lot of this whole administration simply has the feel of coverup for the crimes of previous administrations. But the era of American empire and corruption won't be dead until all the participants are as well. I suspect later historians will have a field day uncovering all the things that went on in this time period.


Comments are unmoderated, so you can write whatever you want.