Leftover Metrocard Change Infuriates Some
2nd Avenue Subway Cooling System Will "Blight" UES
Senate Report: Bush Missed Chance To Catch Bin Laden
Should Payphones Be Free?
Tiger Woods' Alleged Mistress Lost Fiance On 9/11
The capture of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was met with elation. Iraqis rejoiced, as President Bush and Prime Minister Blair breathed a sigh of relief. American forces found Hussein just outside of his hometown of Tikrit, hiding in a "spider hole," 6 feet underneath the safehouse hut (safehut?) with two AK 47s, a pistol, and $750,000. In the cowboy vigilante style, U.S. Administrator in Iraq Paul Bremer said, "Ladies and gentlemen, we got him," to cheers from Iraqi journalists at a press conference.
He was then taken to be examined (healthy) and shaved so everyone could see it was in fact Saddam Hussein that the U.S. had captured. The military also released the medical examination footage to the media, which has been replaying it nonstop, leading to Gothamist's observation that we are very much like primates. Now, the military will be interrogating him for more information about where the weapons of mass destruction are.
President Bush's remarks to the nation about the capture of Hussein, as well as the fascinating White House transcript of Press Secretary Scott McClellan, describing how Secretary Rumsfeld told President Bush, how Bush told Condoleeza Rice, etc (the White House phone tree); reporters wanted to know if President Bush was sleeping at 5:14AM. No joke (and he wasn't).
Times reporter Edward Wong, who recently moved off the aviation beat to cover the conflict in Iraq, co-wrote a few of the articles, one about the capture and the other about the Iraqi reaction.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Hmmm...I was wondering if they got the name for Operation Red Dawn from the movie, starring Patrick Swayze.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087985/
Good news, of course, but this does not change the fact that we invaded Iraq under false pretenses. And if Hussein was behind all the bombings and insurgencies, how was he communicating from his hut?
we are primates.
Great -- now we will be treated to the spectacle of the U.S. (which committed war crimes in this illegal invasion and occupation) trying Saddam for war crimes. A wonderful moment of hypocracy.
And, oh . . . remember when the U.S. protested loudly about Geneva Convention violations because U.S POWs were shown on TV news reports? Hmm . . . let's see . . . aren't we doing the exact same thing?
Looks like he needs one of those flu shots that you can't get right now.
And if Hussein was behind all the bombings and insurgencies, how was he communicating from his hut?
People coming to visit? Like the two guys they caught running away from said hut?
Looks like Saddam's getting a Queer Eye makeover !
well said j.
as cheesy as this statement is, look in the dictionary listing of hypocricy and you'll see a picture of the u.s.a.
Judging from the fact that the teams active in Operation Red Dawn were code named Wolverine 1 and Wolverine 2 -- and the conspicuous absence of Patrick Swayze from recent Hollywood releases -- i would say it's a fair bet that NOT ONLY was the operation based on the 1980s film, but also that C. Thomas Howell survived that chopper attack, but also that Robert Davi is a Iraqi.
christine - perhaps you'd rather live in iraq. Last time I checked, the gov't of the USA had not deliberately gassed any of it's own citizens.
And c'mon....Illegal occupation??? Do we really need to have this argument again?
As for exploiting POW's, I would venture to guess that if he wasn't shown on TV getting a checkup, the complaint would be that we were treating him too harshly.
We don't capture Saddam, liberals complain. We get him, liberals complain. It is in the nature of liberals to complain, so I suppose I'm not surprised.....
I just looked in the dictionary listing under "hypocrisy." Didn't see a picture of the U.S.A. there. What gives? Wrong dictionary?
It's a great day. And anyone American who would equate the U.S. Gov't with some awful tyranny like Hussein's Iraq, really, you're so extraordinarily ignorant that you're almost funny. If you don't like it here, go to Canada. Hit the road.
Where is the hypocrisy? Fighting a tyrant who terrorized his nation and others in the name of freedom and liberation is by no means hypocritical. Like fighting Hitler, toppling and capturing Saddam speaks to our very notion of freedom: of thought, of speech, of property. While we act hypocritically by our abandonment of our own national problems that hurt freedom (racism, homophobia, access to medical care, etc.), Americans should be proud that we fought against Saddam, and in so doing stood up for real freedom of the Iraqi people.
The French and the Germans? They're the real hypocrites. All that blabber about how the Iraqi war would hurt the region? The true threat to the region are the fundamentalists who subjegate and rape women, who tolerate nothing but their perverted version of Islam, and those appeasing Europeans who are too self-interested in corrupt Arab regimes to fight against them.
Alrightalrightalrightalright, I gotta get to bed.
I'm glad they got him, even though it probably means we have another 4 years of Bush. I could of really done without the "Ladies and gentlemen, we got him" though. Made my stomach turn a little.
I'm looking forward to see what The Daily Show has to say about the capture and Paul Bremer's comments.
Mallory - the only thing guaranteeing another four years of Bush is Howard Dean. The guy has "not ready for prime time" stamped all over him. You Dems have a great potential candidate in Edwards - he's the one the GOP is scared of - but you're picking Fritz Dukakis. (Not that I'm complaining...)
Hussein will be a footnote by November - his capture is useful NOW, in helping to end the guerilla insurgency in Iraq and intimidating the crap out of all those other despots who are giving us trouble. And that's consistent with the legitimate, post-9/11 foreign policy and security goals of the United States. (If Hussein had been captured in May or June of next year, it might have been useful for Bush in the election.)
Sterling--
Oh, please -- John Edwards? The only reason you probably like him is because he is just another typical DC insider who despite being a "Democrat" would offer little true alternative from the current regime.
And to all other misguided folks who seem to think that those of us opposed to the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq were pals of Saddam or supported him -- wake up! Give me a break. None of us are or were.
But as the lone "superpower" (isn't China one too, though?), the U.S. has an obligation to NOT act in a unilateral, aggressive manner -- in the interest of security and safety, not only for itself, but for the rest of the world as well.
Please, people, I beg you to think in the long- or at least medium-term. Unilateral acts of hostility by the U.S. will never bring us what we ultimately want, peace and security. Aggression and hostility will only breed more in response against us.
This actually was one of the few days in recent memory that I was proud to be an American. I never bought that SH had WMD nor that he that was tied to Al Queda. But I do believe in human rights and that SH should have been removed from power long ago. I would hope that the enormity of human rights violations that he and his government brought upon the people of Iraq would turn a stomach much more than the cockiness of the current administration. But as they say, out of sight out of mind. Forget Bush. To me this isn't about Bush. He may bask in the afterglow for a while but in the long run a horrible horrible man was caught. And a year from now hopefully we can be talking about the economy agaim. As for what SH will be tried for. He won't be facing "war crime" charges. There just aren't any. He will face the Iraqi people as it should be and answer to them.
I think he looks a bit like Santa with that beard...
why do they have to show him on tv while i'm eating?
really, we are primates.
you should correct that in your posting.
Also, you need to correct that bit about "where the weapons of mass destruction are". You left out the word 'imaginary.'
J - We have an obligation not to act in a unilateral fashion? Where'd you get that from? I am aware of no charter or treaty to which the United States is a signatory that mandates any such thing.
I am, however, aware of a number of documents, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence (and less, importantly, the UN Charter) that assert or establish that our government has an obligation to act in the defense of its people. Waving a big stick in the Middle East is surely an arguably valid approach to fulfill those obligations these days. You might not think that waging war on Iraq was the best way, or even a good way, to achieve the core goal of preventing acts of mega-terror, but you have to acknowledge that it is an arguably valid approach. Plenty of rational people believe that, and a case can be made. I happen to think Bush hasn't been sufficiently aggressive, but I suppose I can live with just two savage Muslim regimes overthrown in two years. (It would have been nice to see icons tumbling in Riyadh, Damascus and Tehran, too - and maybe we will yet.)
Bush has staked his entire presidency on this approach - if it fails or allows another 9/11 to happen before November, he's toast. If it's successful in preventing any further mega-terror attacks on the U.S. by November, he has a very good chance of re-election. AND IF IT TRANSFORMS THE MIDDLE EAST OVER THE LONG TERM, then we have another FDR on our hands, and people like you are going to have a lot of apologizing to do. (And that's in addition to the 25 million Iraqis to whom you already owe an apology.)
Sterling--
So I guess the U.S. shouldn't have to apologize for the estimated 9,000 _civilian_ Iraqis who have been killed since the U.S. invasion?
"Two savage Muslim regimes" . . . I guess you think we ought to wipe out all Muslim regimes, huh? They're all savage? Or are they only "savage" if they don't have ties to Texas oil interests?
You miss the point about "acting in defense of our people" . . . waging unilateral hostilities around the world doesn't come close to acting in defense of U.S. citizens. Engendering hostility and hatred against the U.S. on the part of those nations we invade threatens our security.
From the in-depth television documentaries which show what is actually going on in Iraq, and show the attitudes of the people there. Believe me, we are breeding no loyalty. When our "leaders" there live in and work out of Saddam's old palace, when we protect the oil reserves but not universities and museums from being destroyed, when we hire the old regime's police and intelligence forces . . . most people there see little change at all.
Oh, they'll have this guy rehabilitated and doing product endorsements in no time. (Once he takes the mother of all showers . . . )
Or maybe the smell turned out to be the Weapon of Mass Destruction they couldn't find . . .
J. - First off, I know of no reliable source for Iraqi civilian casualties. 9000 seems high, but for the purposes of our argument, I'll use it. You see, we HAVE APOLOGIZED for civilian casualties. And given compensation to the families. And done everything to avoid them almost to the point of absurdity.
This is in marked contrast to the regimes of Saddam Hussein and Mullah Omar. In the case of the former, human rights groups estimate 300,000-400,000 civilians put to death by Ba'athists during Saddam's reign. In the case of the latter, the Taliban committed crimes so awful and medieval that it almost seems impossible: dismemberment, stoning, and reducing Afghanistan's entire female population to chattel legal status. Call me a reactionary, but "savage" seems like an understatement.
In the short term, we have eliminated two states that were involved in state-sponsored terror. That contributes to U.S. (and European) security.
I'll acknowledge that there's a backfire risk to waging war on Iraq and other Muslim countries. However, there's also a good chance that by overthrowing savagely corrupt regimes and replacing them with rational, generally benevolent ones, we'll be eliminating the problem at the source. If in ten years, Muslims from around the Middle East are flocking to Iraq for jobs, and demanding reforms and economic growth on par with Iraq, then this will have been a success. And that obviously provides for the long-term security of the U.S.
Sterling--
Here is a name by name listing of reported civilian deaths resulting from the US-led military strike in Iraq. Keep in mind this is only _civilian_ dead.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm
I'd like to know what source you have that indicates the US has actually provided any compensation to families.
Exactly what do you mean that we have "done everything to avoid them to the point of absurdity"? Where were you when the US was dropping the massive bombs in the heart of Baghdad? Have you seen any of the photos or in-depth TV reporting from Iraq subsequent to our attacks?
I seriously doubt there will be many new decent jobs for Arabs in Iraq as a result of our invasion. The high-income jobs will derive from oil, and will be given to either Westerners or a select group of people allied with the US.
And by the way, you know what is savage? How many Iraqis died as a result of no clean food and water as a result of our sanctions after Gulf War I. And the many being deprived of services now because the US refuses to work with the UN or make any true international effort to bring basic services to Iraq right now.
OK, first off, your database is garbage - it lists deaths caused by insurgents and apparently any other violent deaths that occur, regardless of whether U.S. troops are involved (much less at fault or negligent). The implicit message of this deception is that U.S. forces have been so effective at avoiding civilian casualties that the number has to be pumped to make it big enough to upset people.
Local commanders, in Falluja and elsewhere, made payments from discretionary funds to families of those who were killed or injured in military actions. Apparently this is not U.S. policy, which requires victims or their survivors to show negligence on the part of U.S. soldiers before compensation is made. But there is a mechanism by which families can seek compensation.
You will note, J., that we did not target civilian infrastructure targets during the war, even though it would have sped the war, saving U.S. lives and money. You will also note the use of "smart" weapons, and the deployment of special operations troops to extreme forward positions, for the purpose of "painting" targets with laser beams. All of this was done to avoid inaccuracy with munitions that might have unnecessarily cost civilian lives. It would have been easier and cheaper to simply carpet bomb Baghdad - or drop some daisy-cutters - flattening all of downtown. The entire Ba'ath government would have been destroyed in an hour or two, and Hussein would have been dead. Ditto Tikrit, if necessary. This is what we did to numerous German and Japanese cities during WWII. Civilian casualties were appalling then, and would have been equally so now.
I don't think you appreciate how easy it is to kill large numbers of people with modern munitions. The military deserves congratulations for keeping its error rate so low. Saddam Hussein killed an average of 10,000 civilians a year, and he did it on purpose.
As for those who suffered after Gulf War I, you're right - there should have been no sanctions. We should have allowed Hussein to rebuild his military as he wished, because he's such a gentle fucking soul. Seriously: Iraq was provided more than sufficient means to feed its people following the war. If Hussein wanted to squander that money on luxuries and weapons development, there wasn't much we could do short of forcefully removing him from office.
Which we did. You can't have it both ways.
Oh, and about jobs in Iraq - there's this thing called "economic growth", which often occurs when a country has a stable government and attracts investment capital. There's a country not too far from Iraq called "Turkey" that's a reasonably good example of this. Turkey is also filled with Muslims, but has much less oil, and manages nonetheless to do pretty well for itself. Some people might even call Turkey prosperous.
Some of us have similar hopes for Iraq.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/primate/prim_1.htm