The verdict and sentence in Saddam Hussein’s trial in Iraq were not at all surprising, and it’s hard to imagine any serious person lamenting the outcome. Brutal dictator, vicious thug, shameless war criminal … there can be no doubt that Saddam has earned his fate.
Some of the media coverage today, however, seems to overlook a small point: the crimes for which Saddam was convicted today took place 24 years ago.
Iraq’s High Tribunal on Sunday found Saddam Hussein guilty of crimes against humanity and sentenced him to hang for the 1982 killing of 148 Shiites in the city of Dujail. The visibly shaken former leader shouted “God is great!”
To be sure, Saddam’s 1982 crimes were heinous and evil. But given the circumstances, it might be useful to remember what happened a year after Saddam committed crimes against humanity.
Mr. Rumsfeld didn’t go to Baghdad in 1983 to tour the museum. Then a private citizen, he had been dispatched as an emissary by the Reagan administration, which sought to align itself with Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam was already a notorious thug. Well before Mr. Rumsfeld’s trip, Amnesty International had reported the dictator’s use of torture — “beating, burning, sexual abuse and the infliction of electric shocks” — on hundreds of political prisoners. Dozens more had been summarily executed or had “disappeared.” American intelligence agencies knew that Saddam had used chemical weapons to gas both Iraqi Kurds and Iranians.
According to declassified State Department memos detailing Mr. Rumsfeld’s Baghdad meetings, the American visitor never raised the subject of these crimes with his host. (Mr. Rumsfeld has since claimed otherwise, but that is not supported by the documents, which can be viewed online at George Washington University’s National Security Archive.) Within a year of his visit, the American mission was accomplished: Iraq and the United States resumed diplomatic relations for the first time since Iraq had severed them in 1967 in protest of American backing of Israel in the Six-Day War.In his speech [in September], Mr. Rumsfeld paraphrased Winston Churchill: Appeasing tyrants is “a bit like feeding a crocodile, hoping it would eat you last.” He can quote Churchill all he wants, but if he wants to self-righteously use that argument to smear others, the record shows that Mr. Rumsfeld cozied up to the crocodile of Baghdad as smarmily as anyone. To borrow the defense secretary’s own formulation, he suffers from moral confusion about Saddam.
It’s easy to forget — despite the video, the Rumsfeld-Hussein meeting still doesn’t get a lot of play — but the man who lectures the reality-based community about “appeasement” sat down with a brutal madman who had recently used WMD, in the hopes of striking some kind of deal with the dictator.
For that matter, let’s also not forget that the New York Times reported in December 2004 that “the United States secretly provided Iraq with combat planning assistance, even after Mr. Hussein’s use of chemical weapons was widely known.” Citing previously unreleased documents, the Times described “American outreach to the Iraqi government, even as the United States professed to be neutral in the eight-year war, and suggests a private nonchalance toward Mr. Hussein’s use of chemicals in warfare.”
When the photo of Rumsfeld and Hussein started appearing in the media again a few years ago, Rumsfeld insisted that he had “cautioned” Hussein about WMDs during his two friendly visits to Iraq. Previously classified notes of their meetings, however, make no reference to any of these warnings, probably because they didn’t happen.
Rumsfeld aside, there are few other angles to consider. First, will today improve conditions in Iraq? As Rand Beers explained, unfortunately not.
“Everyone agrees that today’s verdict is a good thing. It was important that Saddam be brought to justice and everyone is united in the hope that it doesn’t lead to an increase in violence. What is equally true, however, is that this changes nothing. America is no safer, Iraq is more dangerous and in chaos.”
Second, there’s the politics. It’s pretty obvious the timing of the trial was manipulated by U.S. officials — administration officials ran “much of the day-to-day arrangements for the trial” — and now we can expect the White House to exploit it for all it’s worth.
The verdict in the trial of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was recently postponed until November 5, two days before the U.S. midterm elections. Media Matters has questioned whether “the date for the verdict’s release [was] set to provide maximum political benefit for the administration and congressional Republicans.”
Asked [last week] whether the verdict would be a factor in the U.S. elections, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said, “You are absolutely right, it will be a factor.” Snow said the verdict “may fit into a larger narrative about an Iraqi government that has been doing what the president has said all along.” He portrayed the decision as yet another turning point for Iraq. “This is a benchmark episode, where the Iraqi people are taking control of their own destiny,” he said.
Great, another “turn the corner” moment. I wish I had a nickel for everyone of those.
As for the news coverage today, John Cole wrote, “You, me and a retarded magpie can see the political timing here so the odds are fairly good that sharper members of the press can see it. Think they will take offense at getting manipulated in such a brazen fashion?”
I’m not optimistic.