The USS Stark (FFG 31) burns and lists to port on 18 May 1987, one day after the guided missile frigate was struck by two Iraqi-launched Exocet missiles. The attack killed 37 sailors.

The New Sovereign Investment Fund of Libya or of Colonel Qaddafi, there is no distinction in the money funds of Libya or Qaddafi, invested $1.3 Billion with Goldman Sachs; the bank used the funds on stock options at a variety of international banks and a collection of currency bets. Two years later, the Libyan fund had lost 98% of its value and was worth only $25.1 million.

Officials of Libya’s sovereign wealth fund were upset with Goldman Sachs and accused them of malfeasance; mainly, for making trades without authorization and misrepresenting investment deals.

In July 2008, [Mustafa] Zarti, the fund’s deputy chairman, summoned [Youssef] Kabbaj, Goldman’s North Africa chief, to a meeting with the fund’s legal and compliance staff, according to Libyan Investment Authority emails reviewed by the Journal. One person who attended the meeting says Mr. Zarti was “like a raging bull,” cursing and threatening Mr. Kabbaj and another Goldman employee. Goldman arranged for security to protect the employees until they left Libya the next day, according to people familiar with the matter.

Tip-top Goldman bosses, including CEO Lloyd Blankfein and finance chief David Viniar, scrambled to try to figure out how to fix the relationship with Libya and maintain access to its vast fortune. They also feared that word of the massive loss would spook other sovereign funds, so they offered the nation several ways to recoup the money. The last of the offers was made in a June 2010 meeting. Eight months later, the United States froze some $37 billion in Libyan assets as dictator Muammar Qaddafi turned on his rebelling people. Included in that large amount was what was left of Libya’s investment with Goldman.

In July 2008, [Mustafa] Zarti, the fund’s deputy chairman, summoned [Youssef] Kabbaj, Goldman’s North Africa chief, to a meeting with the fund’s legal and compliance staff, according to Libyan Investment Authority emails reviewed by the Journal. One person who attended the meeting says Mr. Zarti was “like a raging bull,” cursing and threatening Mr. Kabbaj and another Goldman employee. Goldman arranged for security to protect the employees until they left Libya the next day, according to people familiar with the matter.

Being enraged with a favored company of Obama might be dangerous to your position and your health; after all, Obama has the U.S. military and if he keeps his intervention small enough, he doesn’t need congressional approval.

relations between Goldman and Gaddafi became increasingly strained, the Wall Street firm made a total of three separate compensation offers to invest in the group on attractive terms between May and June of 2009, including the deal involving preferred shares. Another proposal would have given the LIA unsecured debt in Goldman, promising a stream of payments that would eventually have repaid the losses.

Over the next two years, discussions on these and a series of other compensation proposals were discussed by LIA and top-level Goldman staff – chairman Lloyd Blankfein, finance head David Viniar and European chief Michael Sherwood. However, they were unable to agree a solution and talks are thought to have eventually petered out last summer.

Now a company that can lose 98% of a 1.3 Billion Dollar investment might be first in line to receive Tarp Funds, thanks to Henry Paulson, Ex-Treasury Secretary. Tim Geitner who is connected to the Federal Reserve, who names Mark Patterson, former lobbyist for Goldman Sachs and the man replacing Geitner at the FED is William Dudley, former chief economist at Goldman Sachs.

Just How Close Are GS And Obama

Goldman offered Libya’s securities-wealth fund an opportunity to invest $3.7 billion in the securities firm, the paper continued, one of six options placed on the table over months of negotiations.

The proposals came at the same time Goldman had taken $5 billion in investments from Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. in order to pass the Federal Reserve’s “stress test” to determine whether it had to raise additional capital.

The United States is now one of the NATO allies targeting Libya with rockets in an attempt to get Qaddafi, the decades-long despot, out of power and to see a Transitional National Council take his place.

With all the money wizards of GS and the Obama Administration swapping bunks, is it possible that the financial rip off of Qaddafi was about to become an embarrassment?

What better way to get rid of an embarrassment than to take him out with missiles when he threatens his people, while ignoring other despots that are actually killing their people by the thousands, we are talking about an embarrassment of Goldman Sachs for Muhammad’s Sake! Let’s remember GS used their bailout to start making a profit, they have managed to do so well with their wizardry that they can award 28,000 employees a $600,000 bonus. We can’t lament a few rockets that can help keep the reputation of a company like GS pristine and untainted by corruption. It is imperative that we keep things in perspective.

But damn Obama’s luck, the rockets didn’t kill the Desert Fox and the maniacal fanatics of the Muslim Brotherhood didn’t pull him to pieces, now what is happening to the reputation of Goldman Sachs. Qaddafi wants his money back and the wizards of Obama and Goldman Sachs ain’t looking too clever.

Obama’s promise to rid his administration of lobbyists is a standing joke when it comes to Goldman Sachs. Geitner has reportedly chosen a former GS lobbyist Mark Patterson to be his chief of staff. Patterson worked as a registered lobbyist for GS from 2005 to April of 2010.

It’s natural for Geitner, a former CEO of Goldman Sachs to select a Goldman Sachs insider for the number 2 position. At the Treasury, Jerry Rubin of the Clinton administration, was another Goldman Sachs CEO.

The man chosen to replace Geitner at the New York Fed was W. Dudley former Chief Economist for Goldman Sachs.

Goldman Sachs may as well be considered a part of the federal government. They paid Bill Clinton just under $950,000 for speeches between 2004 and 2007. Their Political Action Committee was the fourth largest donor to Clinton’s campaign, just below Citigroup. The Center for Responsive Politics maintains that Goldman’s Political Action Committee invested over a half million to congressional candidates in the 2008 elections, mostly Democrat incumbents. Goldman Sachs employees contributed more than $5,000,000. Obama received over $1,000,000 from GS for the 2008 election.

How quaint of Obama to promise to limit the influence of lobbyists in his administration. Goldman has had a seat at the table since regulations on finance were began to be unlaced during the Clinton years, they were among the first and largest recipients of TARP funding, receiving $10 billion immediately.

In matters of the economy, we can have faith in the intellect of men like Geitner, who according to Bernanke has two main guiding principles: “Life’s about alternatives” and “A plan beats no plan”. Bernanke also has referred to Geitner’s technique to thwart critics, “spray foam on the runway”; meaning, you take steps to limit collateral damage from crashes.

Would Obama be willing to use our military to cover for Goldman Sachs’ incompetence and corruption?

The answer may be hidden within another question, would Obama be willing to use the military to cover for his own incompetence and corruption?

That decision was soon redacted:

And the three-minute decision was reassessed within weeks as the Federal Bureau of Investigation took the interrogation reins for the reason described in a January 2004 article:

The F.B.I. involvement reflects C.I.A. reluctance to allow covert officers to take part in interrogations that could force them to appear as court witnesses. In contrast, F.B.I. agents are trained to interview suspects in preparation for prosecutions.

In 2008, the two themes expressed in those sentences — C.I.A. aversion to public spectacle and F.B.I. experience on interrogation matters — are still being reinforced as a long-running rivalry continues to play out.

George Piro (former partner of Kenneth Williams), one of only 50 or so Arabic speaking F.B.I special agents out of 10,000, was assigned the task of being Saddam Hussein’s interrogator.

This past Sunday, saw 60 Minutes’ Scott Pelley interview George Piro.

The interview is even the “top story” featured on the FBI website.

I was hoping it would reveal something new that has not already been covered in Ronald Kessler’s Terror Watch. Oddly enough, the interview reads almost verbatim, the chapter in the book which covers George Piro and Saddam Hussein. Much of the 7-month’s worth of interrogation is still classified, of course. But what is revealed, is still pretty interesting, if not particularly revelatory, as we’ve heard before about Saddam’s pretense of WMDs, for fear of Iran. It is interesting to note, that in Kessler’s book, he does not close the door on the possibility that Iraq did still possess WMD:

every time inspectors came, Saddam gave them the runaround, reinforcing for Iran’s consumption the notion that he had WMD. And that explains why, if there were no WMD, he acted as if he did have them.

Notice the big “if”? My emphasis.

It might just be the partisan in me, but I could have sworn I saw Pelley’s eyeballs begin to salivate when he came to his “gotcha” question, regarding what Saddam says he thought of bin Laden, and the question of connections between Saddam and al Qaeda.

Among the most important questions for U.S. intelligence was whether Saddam was supporting al Qaeda, as had been claimed by some in the Bush administration:

What was Saddam’s opinion of Osama Bin Laden?

“He considered him to be a fanatic. And as such was very wary of him. He told me, ‘You can’t really trust fanatics,’” Piro says.

“Didn’t think of Bin Laden as an ally in his effort against the United States in this war against the United States?” Pelley asks.

“No. No. He didn’t wanna be seen with Bin Laden. And didn’t want to associate with Bin Laden,” Piro explains.

Piro says Saddam thought that Bin Laden was a threat to him and his regime.

Saddam’s story was verified in interrogations with other former high-ranking members of his government.

Such as Khalil Ibrahim Abdallah, an Iraqi intelligence officer

told U.S. interrogators that Saddam ordered his intelligence service in July 1999 to refrain from all contact with al-Qaeda.

I can see Saddam not trusting bin Laden, but not having sought some form of an alliance? Numerous documentation seems to speak otherwise. This includes recovered internal Iraqi Intelligence Service documents. Just click on the FA category, Iraq-al-Qaeda connections. This post is a good place to start. I think the George Piro interview only enriches the complexity of the picture, and does not disqualify previous documents and evidence of an al-Qaeda presence, and a relationship sought, at one time or another. It was a CIA assumption that a secular Saddam would never work with a religious terror group. And it is to the CIA’s discredit, that their analysts at the time refused to look “outside the box” (linking because of the citation of Feith, not Think Progress’ rebuttal) and lacked the imagination to conceive of this as a possibility. They basically expressed disinterest and left stones unturned that should have been examined.

A bit of background on how Ronald Kessler came to obtain the interview for his book and the decision by the F.B.I to allow George Piro to speak.

Also blogging:
Bottomline Upfront
From Sea to Shining Sea

More…

Related:
Flopping Aces
NewsBusters

Newsbusters is reporting on a NBC News broadcast in which they detail the new book “The Terrorist Watch: Inside the Desperate Race to Stop the Next Attack” by Ronald Kessler. The book describes the FBI agent, George Piro, who gained the confidence of Saddam Hussein after his capture over many months and what Saddam told him.

An important tidbit from Saddam’s mouth was the fact that he hoped to recostitute a nuclear program once he was able to get rid of the sanctions:

Of course none of this is really news seeing as how it was reported by the Senate Intelligence Committee some 3 years back. The liberals cherrypicked those reports tho, believed some of it and dismissed the rest that didn’t fit their worldview. Mainly that Bush was wrong, no matter what anyone said.

Saddam with nukes, naw….that wouldn’t of been dangerous.

Sigh….

24 is back!

And even better news…..some more tyrants and scum are hung:

Saddam Hussein’s half brother and the former head of Iraq’s Revolutionary Court were hanged before dawn Monday, Prosecutor Munqith al-Faroon said, two weeks and two days after the former Iraqi dictator was executed in a chaotic scene that has drawn worldwide criticism.

Barzan Ibrahim, Saddam’s half brother and former intelligence chief, and Awad Hamed al-Bandar, head of Iraq’s Revolutionary Court, had been found guilty along with Saddam of in the killing of 148 Shiite Muslims after a 1982 assassination attempt on the former leader in the town of Dujail north of Baghdad.

The few words I wasted on these two are enough, now back to 24.

What a show, and Drudge is promising even better tomorrow.

Few outside of the 24 set know the exact details of the new season unfolding, but studio sources claim producers are pushing hard to take it radioactive this time — and keep it there.

"Time to wake the country up!" a top FOX source told the DRUDGE REPORT over the weekend. "I do not think there has ever been TV done like this, the viewer is going to be completely riveted.

Recall two seasons ago when 24 had to put up a disclaimer before every show where they said that just because the terrorists are Muslim (terrorists are Muslim….get outta here!) doesn’t mean all Muslims are bad.  This time the producers may have figured out that it isn’t 9 year olds watching the show but adults because I see no disclaimers.  More good news.

Even better….the show hasn’t lost a beat.  Keeps you on the edge throughout. 

When you look at this image what do you see?  Why is it that the MSM is always in a perpetual state of pessimism?

Freedom Eden picks apart the Milkwaukee Journal Sentinel’s editorial which focused on how the death penalty is wrong.  MSM is chock-full of similar examples of negativity toward the just execution of the Butcher of Baghdad.  Today while I was out and about, I saw a copy of the Sunday edition of the LA Times lying around, so I picked it up to peruse.  On the frontpage, the news headline was:  "HUSSEIN ERA ENDS, BUT NOT VIOLENCE".  Well…duh.  Checking online for more LATimes stories, I find:   "Europeans denounce Saddam’s Execution", "Anger, grief at funeral for Saddam". 

As I sit here watching the local news, the reporters mention the celebrations in brief, while dwelling upon the ongoing violence ad nauseam (including the ever-favorite highlighting of the numbers game).  Yes, 3,000 soldiers have now died.  The numbers are important in that each life is irreplaceable and meant the world to someone and to some family.  But why this obsessing over numbers, other than to take the fight out of our windsails?  Rather than making us want to fight harder, by reporting on each soldier death, the manner in which the MSM reports the loss, is to make it sound like a senseless death.  Rather than strengthen our resolve, it threatens to undermine and weaken our will.

Why can’t they just report the good news without the obligatory "but…"?  "Saddam’s execution was a good thing, but…"; "Saddam was a brutal dictator, but….."  I suppose this is what Laura Ingraham would call "the but monkey".  The liberal media cannot seem to bring themselves around to reporting the good news without highlighting, underlining, and underscoring  the bad when it comes to the situation in Iraq.  They need to constantly remind us of the perception that the sky is perpetually falling.

A brutal dictator has given up the ghost.  And the MSM now appears to  want to focus on the ghost; on how the spectre of Saddam will still hang over Iraq and not quell the bloodshed.  The glass-half-empty media may be right. 

As thrilled as I am that the world is rid of Saddam, there are a couple of things that trouble me in his execution.  One is the timing of it; the other, the macabre and melancholy coverage that did nothing to diminish him in the eyes of his loyalists. 

The execution took place at the beginning of the Islamic holy days, Eid-ul-Adha.  It sounds as if the execution was supposed to take place just before the start of the "Feast of Sacrifice", which began at 6 a.m.  But Saddam is said to have met his demise at 6:10 a.m (NYTimes). 

David Gartenstein-Ross at Counterterrorism Blog writes:

Why couldn’t the execution have been scheduled after the Eid, which lasts four days?  Did anyone in the Iraqi government think this through? 

Saddam’s final letter is released, portraying himself as a devout Muslim.  At his execution, he’s holding a Koran and by most all accounts, is painted rather heroically, exchanging insults and mocking those present; with religion on his lips, he refuses a hood.

He said a last prayer. Then, with his eyes wide open, no stutter or choke in his throat, he said his final words cursing the Americans and the Persians.

There are several versions of his final moments at the gallows; and all of them are fitting for a martyr’s death.  He knew exactly what he was doing; what he was saying:

“Long live the nation!” Mr. Hussein shouted. “Long live the people! Long live the Palestinians!”

I don’t think Saddam cared a rat’s ass about the Palestinians, any more than he actually believed in the power of  Mohammed and Allah.  But is it any wonder that the Palestinians would mourn his loss?  And reading those words, who can doubt that his "heroic" defiance won’t be an inspiration to young Palestinians to grow up to become martyrs for their sick and twisted ideology?  9/11 happened 5 years ago.  Middle-Eastern boys who were children when 9/11 happened are now young men.  Perhaps young, angry men, saturated in the death cult that is the Jihadist movement.

Another account I read states that "Mohammed" was the last word to leave his lips before the door dropped.  Whether that is true or not, a reporter has put it into print; and that is validation enough to be embraced by those who yearn to believe in Saddam living and dying a martyr’s death. 

 rcald at Daily Kos (who also was noting the timing of the execution with the Eid) makes a valid observation:

Now, Saddam Hussein is certainly not an Islamic leader, and his Baathist sympathizers, to the best of my understanding, are largely secular. However, he is trying to use Islamic metaphors to construct himself as a symbol of Iraqi unity in the face of a foreign military force as well as a government he repeatedly asserts is the puppet of the West.

It was a mistake to allow Saddam to die, so dignified, defiant, and unrepentant.  An inspiration, rather than an example to those who want to follow in the footseps of a martyr.

Perhaps, this time it was my turn to see the glass half empty and half full.

Saddam is no martyr to me; but then….I’m not the one going around looking for inspiration and reasoning to kill our troops and obstruct democracy from taking root in Iraq.

Apologies and hat tip to Clay Bennett for splicing his liberal cartoon.

An interesting article at New Media Journal about the Russian help given to Iraq to hide the WMD’s:

In December 2002, Russia?s Middle East envoy, Yevgeny Primakov (former Russian Intelligence Chief), flew to Baghdad under the front of making one last chance for peace with the dictator.? As soon as his plane landed, it was allegedly loaded with ?sensitive materials? and flown directly to Belarus.? People speculate as to whether or not it was WMD, WMD equipment, documents, people, or things the Russians didn?t want the US to get their hands on, but in any event?the plane was loaded with things the US wanted. There is no doubt that the Russians did send GPS jammers to confuse American satellite-guided bombs, night vision goggles, special anti-tank missiles, and Russian advisors.

[...]Renowned reporter Joe Galloway reported that two Russian Generals, Gen. Vladimir Achalov, a former commander of airborne and rapid-reaction forces, and Gen. Igor Maltsev, a leading expert in air defense systems were in Baghdad up until 6 days before the war. During their ?visit? they were photographed being given medals by Iraqi Defence Minister Sultan Hashim Akhmed.? Other smiley photographs include the two Russian Generals standing with head of the General Staff of the Iraqi Army Izzat Ibragim between them.? Upon their return to Russia, the generals were asked why they went on a ?last-chance? diplomatic mission.? They replied, ?We didn’t fly to Baghdad to drink coffee.?? One wonders if all the elements of the story were proven true, could the claim of ?special weapons? being moved out be less true than the other elements.

Immediately after the arrival of the Russians in Baghdad, retired USAF Lt Gen. James R Clapper Jr-then head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency-monitored an increasing flow of traffic and communication from Iraq to Syria.? Former head of the UN?s WMD inspection group, UNSCOM, Richard Butler, was asked to review the imagery.? He agreed that Iraq appeared to be moving weapons out of Iraq, but did not think that ?the Iraqis wanted to give them to Syria, but?just wanted to get them out of the territory, out of range of our inspections.?? Syria was prepared to be the custodian of them. The entire idea was nearly identical to when Saddam sent his entire air force to Iran for safe-keeping during Desert Storm.

Israeli intelligence (flush with human intelligence sources in the region-particularly in Syria, and Lebanon) reported that the increased traffic was Saddam?s repositioning of WMD to Syria.? On December 23, 2002, Ariel Sharon stated on Israeli channel 2 television, “Chemical and biological weapons which Saddam is endeavoring to conceal have been moved from Iraq to Syria.?? About three weeks later, Israel’s foreign minister repeated the accusation.? The U.S., British, and Australian governments issued similar statements.

Opponents to the war like to point to the 1000+ pages of the Duelfer Report and summarize it as ?NO WMD,? but there?s a lot more to Moby Dick than 5 letters.? Not even an elementary school student would dare turn in a 5-letter book report on Melville?s epic.? Similarly the ISG?s report contains a lot more than just ?NO WMD.?? It is a resounding verification that, yes, there was a great deal of ?something? secreted out of Saddam?s Iraq into Syria.? While the ISG doesn?t claim that it was in fact WMD in those trucks, it specifically says that the investigations should remain open on the issue because the clandestine nature and the assembly areas for the convoys that left Iraq for Syria would be consistent with WMD, WMD equipment, documentation, and even personnel.

Given that there is so much evidence that Saddam?s illegal weapons, programs, documents, and equipment existed and were moved rather than did not exist and were destroyed, it seems that logic has turned.? There?s simply more evidence it was moved than there is any evidence of WMD destruction.? Yet, the debate from those who oppose prefers to ignore evidence and pretend that fictional evidence of destruction exists.?? That door to reality is creaking open for the opposition, and as such it?s no wonder that the anti-war movement is shattering, the Democratic Party is spinning, and opponents to the war are confused.

Of course this article will be quickly ignored by the MSM elite.

As the author notes, it is getting harder and harder for the left to ignore all the evidence being accumulated that points to the fact that not only did Saddam have WMD’s but also that he had help moving them out of country.

Meanwhile new charges have been filed against Saddam:

BAGHDAD, April 4 — A special criminal court said in a news conference Tuesday it had completed gathering evidence on a massacre of tens of thousands of ethnic Kurds in the late 1980s, paving the way for a second trial of former dictator Saddam Hussein.

Investigative Judge Raed Juhi said he had referred the case against Hussein and six co-defendants to the Iraqi High Tribunal, the rough equivalent of submitting formal charges.

Hussein and Ali Hassan al-Majeed, nicknamed “Chemical Ali” for his alleged role in a gas attack that killed more than 5,000 Kurds at Halabja in 1988, will be prosecuted for genocide, the court said. All of the defendants will be charged with crimes against humanity.

Hussein’s operation against the Kurds is commonly known as al-Anfal, which refers to a verse in the Koran describing the spoils gained by Muslims in a battle against infidels. International human rights groups have estimated that more than 100,000 people were killed.

But wait a damn second.? How could he be charged with this if he never had any WMD’s?? Or is it the lefts argument that he became a good boy and saw the light after those tough sanctions from the UN?

Other’s Blogging:

• A Blog For All
• Decision ’08

But wait a damn second. How could he be charged with this if he never had any WMD’s? Or is it the lefts argument that he became a good boy and saw the light after those tough sanctions from the UN?

All the speculation has ended and now the Judge in the Saddam trial has indeed stepped down:

The chief judge in the trial of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has tendered his resignation, reports say.

Judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin is angry at complaints from the Iraqi government that he has been too lenient on Saddam Hussein, Reuters news agency reports.

However, Judge Rizgar’s resignation is reported to have not yet been accepted.

Tribunal officials are said to be trying to persuade him to remain as the judge overseeing Saddam’s trial, for an alleged massacre in Dujail in 1982.

But wait a minute….the AP is reporting that he has no plans to withdraw.? So while these MSM reporters can’t tell a story without adding their own personal bias you can also add in the fact that they can’t get their facts straight either.

BAGHDAD, Iraq ? The chief judge overseeing the Saddam Hussein trial has no plans to step down, and media reports suggesting that he will are “baseless,” another judge on the Saddam tribunal said Saturday.

Rizgar Mohammed Amin, the presiding judge of a five-judge tribunal overseeing the Saddam case, has no plans to step down before the completion of the trial, two judges told The Associated Press Saturday.

The news reports cited an anonymous source close to the judge as saying he would hear one more session of the trial and then resign.

One of the judges who spoke to AP sits with Amin on the five-judge panel hearing the Saddam trial. The former leader is being tried on mass murder charges for killings in Dujail in 1982 in retaliation for an assassination attempt.

The second judge is on the committee that will likely hear the next case against Saddam concerning the Anfal Offensive that killed some 180,000 Kurds. Both judges spoke on condition of anonymity for security reasons.

The judge on the committee studying the Anfal case told AP that Amin wasn’t likely to serve for that trial because a five-judge panel has already been selected and is studying the case.

The trial against Saddam for the Dujail killings began in October and is scheduled to resume Jan. 24.

Amin is a Kurd who before the Saddam trial was virtually unknown outside his home region. He heads the panel of five judges who are both hearing the Saddam case and will render a verdict in the trial.

The names of the other four judges have not been released, and only three have allowed their faces to be shown by courtroom television cameras.

Amin has been criticized for allowing Saddam to grandstand at the trial. U.S. Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, a Republican from Pennsylvania, met with Amin in late December and told him to take stronger control of the proceeding.

Saddam has often grabbed the spotlight during his trial. He has railed at the judge, refused to show up at one session, claimed he was tortured and openly prayed in court when the judge would not allow a recess.

This is rich. Christopher Dickey has written an opinion piece for Newsweek online in which he states that Saddam’s trial is just a show, comparable to the one he gave in 1979 where he executed many a member of his government, and then in the same breath states that Clinton’s impeachment was a farce and Bush has committed crimes against decency. Decency! Yes, you heard that right. Clinton should not have been impeached for committing perjury about his act of oral sex in the White House, with someone who was not his wife. BUT….Bush should be impeached for his crimes against decency.

I do believe these people are from another planet all together:

Jan. 5, 2006 – We ended 2005 in a time of trials–show trials, in fact. Saddam Hussein was in the dock for allegedly ordering massacres in an Iraqi Shiite village.

[...]Show trials are about raw power, of course, not blind justice. They?re spectacles put on by winners to humiliate losers, cover up other crimes and intimidate the opposition. Nobody understands that fact better than Saddam. In 1979 he conducted one of the most horrifying bits of political puppetry ever recorded on videotape. After years as the power behind the throne in Baghdad, he had seized the top slot for himself. Then he convened a congress of the Baath Party to reveal what he said was a plot against the regime. A terrified aide to the former president stood for hours in front of the Baathist delegates recounting details of his own supposed crimes. Occasionally, plaintively, he turned to Saddam, who sat behind a table onstage, handsome as Dracula in a bespoke business suit, smoking a Churchill cigar and sipping from a glass of water. ?Was that right?? the accused would ask. Saddam would nod, or correct him. The recitation continued.

Every time the confessor named someone in the audience as a fellow conspirator, that man was forced to stand up and leave the hall, to be shot outside. More than a dozen were named, and no one knew who might be next.

[...]Flash forward to the trial of Saddam in Baghdad, which will resume later this month. Even as a defendant he?s running the show–because he knows perfectly well that?s what it is. The Americans and the Iraqi judiciary they helped put in place are applying a hodgepodge of local and international law in a spectacle designed to prove that the Shiites and Kurds rule the country now, and they will punish Saddam for killing their people.

Better than show trials are the ?truth and reconciliation commissions? we saw in several Latin American countries and post-apartheid South Africa. There, as eras of tyranny and insurgency came to an end, the past was relived in public hearings. Horrific crimes and savage repression were described by the victims, confessed to by the torturers. Those who came clean could be amnestied; those who did not were liable to be tried. The idea was that fear could be purged, life could go on and, with luck, a unified nation could begin to emerge. But none of those countries had been invaded. Their armies and their economic elites may have reformed, but they stayed in place. Saddam?s legacy of horror and the Americans? legacy of chaos have created a situation in post-invasion Iraq where truth and reconciliation are beyond the power of any court or commission to deliver.

And in the United States? Our most exalted form of show trial is impeachment. Like the farce imposed on President Bill Clinton by many of the people ruling the country today, it?s a purely political exercise. Sure, if by some miracle the Democrats manage to take control of the House and Senate later this year, they might try to hold the Bush team accountable for numerous crimes against common sense and decency as well as the Constitution. The National Security Agency program to eavesdrop on Americans? phones without warrants, which President Bush continues to defend, might be exhibit A. But frankly, I think we need something better in America these days than another Senate show trial. People are embittered, divided, numbed by the litany of tragedies and lies. After five years of deception and intimidation, I?m afraid we Americans are now the ones who need truth and reconciliation. The process couldn?t start too soon.

Funny how he can say “five years of deception” with a straight face while at the same time saying Clinton should not have been impeached for lying.

Just another example of the loony left attempting to smear Bush, and while he is at it smear the new Iraqi government for putting Saddam on trial.

The One Minute Pundit had this to say:

Jimson Dickey wants a “truth commission” to act as judge, jury and exeuctioner for the EEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL Dubya and his administration.

I’ve got a better idea, Jimson! Let’s have a permanent truth commission — or may be can call it a Ministry of Truth….

I love it. I’m sure Christopher Dickey wants a “truth commission” appointed with Kerry, Dean, Pelosi, Kennedy, Reid, Schumer and the rest of the gang to act as the all mighty Arbitrators of Truth.

(h/t Newsbusters)

So the Saddam trial resumed today, and Saddam was in a bit better mood…in the beginning at least:

A noticeably calmer Saddam Hussein sat quietly in his defendant’s chair at the resumption of his trial Wednesday, two weeks after he called the court “unjust” and boycotted a session. When the judge refused to let him take a break to pray, the former leader closed his eyes and appeared to pray from his seat. …

The deposed president had refused to attend the previous session on Dec. 7. “I will not come to an unjust court! Go to hell!” he said in an outburst in court the day before.

But on Wednesday, his behavior was calmer, and he appeared clean-shaven and in fresh clothes, wearing a dark suit but no tie. Previously during the trial, Saddam has appeared disheveled and has complained about being held in unsanitary conditions.

After greeting the court with a traditional “Peace be upon you,” he sat quietly in the defendants’ area and appeared to pay close attention to the proceedings, at times taking notes.

We then heard about some of Saddam’s deeds:

A witness testified Wednesday at Saddam Hussein’s trial that the deposed leader’s regime killed and tortured people by administering electric shocks and ripping off their skin after pouring molten plastic on it.

[...]The prosecution’s first witness Wednesday was a man who testified about killings and torture in Dujail after the attempt to assassinate Saddam. Ali Hassan Mohammed al-Haidari, who was 14 in 1982, started off by quoting from the Quran, the Islamic holy book, about how evil would be defeated.

[...]Al-Haidari said that he and other residents from Dujail ? including family members ? were taken to Baghdad and thrown into a security services prison, where people from “9 to 90″ were held.

Blood poured from head wounds and skin was pale from electric shocks, he testified. Security officials would drip melted plastic hoses on detainees, only to pull it off after it cooled, tearing skin off with it, he said.

“I cannot express all that suffering and pain we faced in the 70 days inside,” he said.

After a recess, another witness took the stand ? the first of four the judge said would testify from behind a curtain Wednesday.

[...]At another point when al-Haidari referred to Saddam by name, the former leader interrupted, saying “Saddam who?” implying the proper respect hadn’t been shown. The judge asked the witness whom he meant, and the witness restated: “I mean the former Iraqi president.”

The trial was marked by one unruly outburst ? from Saddam’s half brother. In an exchange that was largely edited out of the televised feed, Ibrahim called al-Haidari “a dog” and his dead brothers “rotten dogs.” Guards entered the court and threatened to take him out, but Ibrahim wagged his finger at them, saying he could only be ordered to leave by the judge, who allowed him to stay.

After listening to the evidence against him Saddam couldn’t help himself. He stood up and acted like the childish spoiled little brat we have all come to know and despise:

Saddam Hussein launched into an extended outburst at his trial Wednesday, alleging he had been “beaten and tortured by Americans” while in detention after a witness testified that his agents had tortured people by ripping off their skin.

The trial’s chief prosecutor said that if American-led multinational forces were abusing the former Iraqi leader, he would be transferred to the custody of Iraqi troops.

“Yes, I have been beaten, everywhere on my body. The marks are still there,” Saddam told the court after sitting quietly listening to testimony. “And I’m not complaining about the Americans because I can poke their eyes with my own hands.”

Those Marines better watch their eye’s, Saddam is coming for them :thumbup_tb:

[...]Standing in the fenced-in defendant’s area, Saddam complained at length about the conditions of his detention, engaging in a debate with the chief prosecutor, Jaafar al-Mousawi.

Saddam also told the court that he knew the name of the person who betrayed his hiding place when U.S. forces found him in December 2003.

Can you believe this guy? Initially he was calm and subdued, probably an after effect of the election since he now realizes no one is going to rise up and put him back into power, but after hearing the claims of torture he couldn’t take it anymore. He rose up and acted once again like a power hungry man who’s power has been taken away from him. Beaten? Let some of the family members of those he tortured and raped get their hands on him….now that would be justice.

Next he’s going to complain that the NSA has been listening to his phone call’s…them bastards!

Vahal at The Iraqi Vote had some great comments about the trial:

If I haven’t said this before, then here it is. I really like judge Rizgar, the presiding judge for the Dujail case. He is criticized by many for being too soft, but when all is said and done, we will remember that Saddam was treated with everything he denied us for so many years: respect, decency, goodwill, clarity, noble intentions etc…

This judge is such a powerful example for what the new Iraqi judges should be like, just not vindictive, kind not ruthless, calm not angry, respectful not feared.

I hate the defense team not because they are defending Saddam and his partners as they are entitled to that, but because they simply don’t get it.

Khalil al-Dulaimi, the chief lawyer acts as though the judges and the prosecution owe him and his team something. At almost every session, he tries to bring up the issue of the legitimacy of the court. This is what I mean by they don’t get it, the court is not going to let them discuss its legitimacy because their job is to defend a group of people charged with killing innocent people and demolishing a town, not to provide an opinion on the legitimacy of the court.

[...]The defendants must have initially thought that they would be killed upon capture because that’s how they dealt with human beings, but now that they know they won’t be killed before a process, they sure take advantage.

[...]Yes, Saddam gets away with a lot inside the court and it is painful for so many of us to see Saddam speak not as a prisoner but as a lawyer or a judge, however, it is all worth it and while some Iraqis may be vindictive, those who believe in fair trials for ruthless dictators should be happy that the court is ruled by such a professional judge, Mr. Rizgar Muhammad Amin.

Other’s Blogging:

Captain’s Quarters
A Knights Blog
Joe’s Dartblog
Ace of Trump
Neo-Con Tastic
A Blog For All
Conservababes

Next he’s going to complain that the NSA has been listening to his phone call’s…them bastards!

The circus continued today with Saddam vowing:

that he will not return “to an unjust court” when it convenes for a fifth session the following day. As the end of the session, when the judges decided to resume the trial Wednesday, Saddam suddenly shouted: “I will not return. I will not come to an unjust court! Go to hell!”

And the court telling him that he will be brought back by force if need be. Looks like the ongoing testimony is starting to get to him.

Saddam sat stone-faced, silently taking notes as the woman, known only as “Witness A,” told the court how she and dozens of other families from the town of Dujail were arrested in a crackdown after a 1982 assassination attempt against him.

Two other witnesses ? a man and a woman ? also testified Tuesday, all with their identities concealed.

“I was forced to take off my clothes, and he raised my legs up and tied up my hands. He continued administering electric shocks and whipping me and telling me to speak,” Witness A said of Wadah al-Sheik, an Iraqi intelligence officer who died of cancer last month.

[...]“They made me put my legs up. There were more than one of them, as if I were their banquet, maybe more than five people, all of them officers,” she said.

“Is that what happens to the virtuous woman that Saddam speaks about?” she wept, prompting the judge to advise her to stick to the facts.

She also said al-Sheik fired a gun at the wall to scare her.

When asked by the judge which of the defendants she wanted to accuse, “Witness A” identified Saddam. “When so many people are jailed and tortured, who takes such a decision?” she said.

She later quoted a security officer as telling her, “You should thank your God because you are here in the Intelligence Center. If you were in the directorate of security, no woman would remain virgin.” Nevertheless, she also said that many fellow female detainees lost their virginity to security guards.

[...]At Abu Ghraib, the guards stripped one of her male relatives, a deaf mute, and tied a rope to his genitals, pulling him into the cells where the women were kept, she said. Insects were everywhere ? in cells and on their clothes, she said, adding that inmates used prison blankets to make underwear and fashioned shoes out of cardboard and strings.

She said one woman gave birth in the prison. “The baby got stuck between her legs. Another woman tried to help her, but the guards told her it was none of her business. The baby suffocated between her legs,” she said. She said her sister and sister-in-law also gave birth while in detention.

This trial is showing the world how ashamed they should be. Ashamed for allowing this man to rule this country for 12 years in defiance of the world community while he tortured (real torture now, no panties put on the heads of these folks) and killed his people.

Previous:

The Saddam Trial, Part II
The Saddam Trial
Tariq Aziz Making A Deal

Other’s Blogging:

Mike’s America
Captain’s Quarters
Ace of Trump
Hennessy’s View
California Conservative
Scylla & Charybdis
Donkey Stomp

This trial is showing the world how ashamed they should be. Ashamed for allowing this man to rule this country for 12 years in defiance of the world community while he tortured (real torture now, no panties put on the heads of these folks) and killed his people.