Don't Shoot the Messenger
There has been a lot of play regarding Saddam's hanging, and the cell phone pictures taken thereof ("Iraq Defends Hanging, but Holds Hussein Guard," NYT, 1/04/06.)
The Iraqi leadership has learned well from the Bush play book, and is throwing a lowly guard out to the wolves. As if a guard could set the tone for the debacle that was presented as a legal execution.
If the Iraqi government can't screen personnel for a such a seminal event, then how do they vet personnel for routine police and army slots? This botched execution was a reflection of official policy. A simple guard is not to blame, but Malaki is wise to emulate his progenitor, GWB.
All sources indicate that the guard was arrested for his transgressive and unlawful conduct by filming the lynching. But what law did this miscreant break in the new democratic republic of Iraq? Is there a law forbidding the filming of former dictators being humanely dealt justice?
The offense is not in showing the cell phone footage, but rather, in showing a film that contradicts the official version that portrays this travesty as a function of justice. The Iraqis have now successfully subsumed and mimicked the U.S. policy of damning (damming) the leak, not because it endangers the country, but because it embarrasses the leadership.
Leaks seem to be the only way the taxpayers arrive at truth in this brave new Bushworld. The Iraqis learn fast enough when it benefits their retention of power.
What did the guard film that warrants his arrest? The U.S. government released photos of the bodies of Saddam's sons Qusay and Uday, and Al Quaida leader Zarqawi, after they were killed by U.S. troops, allowing their mangled faces to grace the covers of Time and Newsweek. This we deem not brutal or inhumane, but freedom of the press.
Smacks of hypocrisy. The U.S. and Iraq governments are comfortable with Saddam's brutal sendoff into eternity, but they object to the exposure of this brutality to the taxpayer's scrutiny.
Will Americans ever tire of financing this B-Western?
The Iraqi leadership has learned well from the Bush play book, and is throwing a lowly guard out to the wolves. As if a guard could set the tone for the debacle that was presented as a legal execution.
If the Iraqi government can't screen personnel for a such a seminal event, then how do they vet personnel for routine police and army slots? This botched execution was a reflection of official policy. A simple guard is not to blame, but Malaki is wise to emulate his progenitor, GWB.
All sources indicate that the guard was arrested for his transgressive and unlawful conduct by filming the lynching. But what law did this miscreant break in the new democratic republic of Iraq? Is there a law forbidding the filming of former dictators being humanely dealt justice?
The offense is not in showing the cell phone footage, but rather, in showing a film that contradicts the official version that portrays this travesty as a function of justice. The Iraqis have now successfully subsumed and mimicked the U.S. policy of damning (damming) the leak, not because it endangers the country, but because it embarrasses the leadership.
Leaks seem to be the only way the taxpayers arrive at truth in this brave new Bushworld. The Iraqis learn fast enough when it benefits their retention of power.
What did the guard film that warrants his arrest? The U.S. government released photos of the bodies of Saddam's sons Qusay and Uday, and Al Quaida leader Zarqawi, after they were killed by U.S. troops, allowing their mangled faces to grace the covers of Time and Newsweek. This we deem not brutal or inhumane, but freedom of the press.
Smacks of hypocrisy. The U.S. and Iraq governments are comfortable with Saddam's brutal sendoff into eternity, but they object to the exposure of this brutality to the taxpayer's scrutiny.
Will Americans ever tire of financing this B-Western?
posted by rangeragainstwar at 1:02 AM
1 Comments:
As a baseball fan Lurch, you will understand, as I do, the tribal mind; for me, it's the Cleveland Indians; you perhaps, the Atlanta Braves. So what's to worry with insider knowledge like that.
Surely, tribalism has enabled their society to survive in a hostile environment, and as such it is a correct adaptability. The advent of the mighty U.S. will not change that.
Thanks for writing,
Jim
Post a Comment
<< Home