Bush spins himself as a stunned onlooker of events in Iraq.

Today President Bush added his own voice to the chorus seeking to increase public perception of the administration’s distance from the policies of Iraq government. (See earlier posts 1 & 2) His verbal imagery took me back to a scene from my own past. I crashed a hang glider I was piloting into a parking lot full of cars. By the time onlookers could get over to the me, I had already unhooked myself from the craft and was standing up– although very dazed. As curious people arrived, I simply blended into the crowd–too numb to accept the role of either perpetrator or victim.

That’s what Bush seems to be doing with Iraq. He’s now pretending to be just one of the crowd of stunned on lookers at a crash scene. On the PBS News Hour, he said, "If you were to take it and put me in an opinion poll and said ‘Do I approve of Iraq’ I’d be one of those that said, ‘No, I don’t approve of what’s taking place in Iraq."’ Bush also criticized the Iraq government’s execution of the Saddam–the man the U.S. handed over to Iraq to be hung and that Bush has called the man who "tried to kill my father." (See earlier posts 3 & 4) Ironically, given his personal issues with Saddam, Bush said the hanging "looked like it was kind of a revenge killing."

Eventually, someone will remind Bush that he’s been piloting the ship of state.

U.S. to Iraq: "You just can't change your evil ways..."

As I said in my previous post, the Saddam execution is serving as a focal point for the Bush Administration's efforts to distance itself from the new regime it created in Iraq, so as to smooth the way for an inevitable abandonment. According to a new New York Times article, U.S. officials are saying:

• The hanging reveals "how the 'new Iraq' is starting to resemble, the repressive, vengeful place it was under Mr. Hussein, albeit in a paler shade."
• "The way it has come out with the hanging, we’ve substituted one dictatorship for another.”

My previous post also scoffed at U.S. claims that it was compelled to bow to Iraqi sovereignty on the timing and manner of Saddam's execution, and the New York Times article contains more U.S. spin on this. However, the article also notes that the American military fort ironically named "Camp Justice" completely encloses the Istikhbarat prison in which Saddam was executed, and where thousands of hangings occurred under Saddam's regime.
(A Carlos Santana song inspired the post title)

The light at the bottom of the gallows.

Against the backdrop of recommendation by a New Jersey legislative commission that the State abolish the death penalty because it does not serve "a legitimate purpose" and "is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency," the U.S. government appears to be spinning the story that it bowed to the wishes of the sovereign nation of Iraq as to the timing of Saddam’s execution. Not turning Saddam over "would have involved riding roughshod over the Iraqi leaders’ insistence on their sovereignty in the execution," says an unnamed source in the New York Times. Balderdash – American taxpayers bought the Iraq government and are still paying for it.

It’s just a coincidence that the execution happened on the Friday evening before New Year’s weekend, 10:10 PM, Washington Time, the beginning of a non-religious holiday, when, for the next three-and-a-half days, the fewest number of people in the U.S. were reporting, reading or viewing the news. And, that the preparations for national mourning over the death of President Ford three days before were dominating what little news bandwidth there was. The White House claims that President Bush went to sleep without knowing whether the execution had been carried out, which would have been just after 9 PM Texas time, because he "knew that it was going to happen." If Iraq really is "sovereign nation," how did he "know" with such certainty?

A more likely explanation for U.S. insistence that Iraq is operating independently is that the Bush administration has now written off the whole affair as a bad investment, and wants to be in a position to wash it hands of it before the President’s term expires. The more opportunities Washington can give the Iraqi government to screw up before then, the easier it will be for Bush to blame the failure on them. Here is how the administration is using the New York Times to weave this theme:

For the past three years, the United States has attempted to lay the foundations in Iraq for a civil society and a nation under law. American officials say privately that the Maliki government, by allowing the Hussein execution to be conducted as it did, signaled more powerfully than ever before that it was unwilling or incapable of surmounting the deep sectarian divisions here.

Expect to hear "We gave them a great shot, and they blew it" repeated many times before the last American flies on the last flight out of Baghdad. Nobody in the current administration fought in Vietnam, but they surely remember the mockery of the "light at the end of the tunnel" promises when that last helicopter lifted away from the American embassy in Saigon, and they want to avoid it this time.

The mother of all renditions.

The U.S. continues its post-911 practice of rendition - turning suspects over to foreign governments to be tortured or killed. The U.S. had custody of Saddam until just before his execution and handed him over to Iraq specifically so they could hang him, despite a last minute stay of execution filed in a U.S. Federal Court. True, there was a trial first, but many said that it fell far below international standards for those accused of war crimes and human rights violations. (See blog debate.) This rendition is another example of the U.S. relying on nations with lower human rights standard to do dirty work we don't want to do ourselves. The right thing to do would have been to turn Saddam over to the International Criminal Court. However, Bush hates the idea that any international body should set or enforce standards for the of conduct war - it might limit his ability to kill people or subject him to prosecution for things he has already done.

The only humor I see in all this is that if someone ever writes a musical about Saddam, Bush or Tony Blair, it would have to include a scene in which Saddam performs a rendition of the Bee Gees I've Just Got to Get a Message to You. Trying desperately to appeal for mercy to death penalty opponent Tony Blair, Saddam would sing: "Ive just got to get a message to you, hold on, hold on. One more hour and my life will be through...." Strange but true: At the time of Saddam's execution, Tony was vacationing with Bee Gee Robin Gibb in Miami.

"The Americans want Saddam to be hanged respectfully."

"The Americans also want to prevent the mutilation of his corpse, as has happened to other deposed Iraqi leaders." (Associated Press story.) U.S. democracy continues to spread its influence and good will in the Middle East....

Just to further prove that the U.S. opposes strongman governments in which leaders pursue their personal vendettas against their enemies, Bush keeps Saddam's personal pistol in his private study in the White House. (See press conference in which he talks about the gun.) See my earlier post on Saddam's death sentence.

Exporting democracy to Iraq: First execute the previous administration.

Aside from how the timing of yesterday's news that Saddam was sentenced to die by hanging (two days before U.S. Congressional elections) was an obvious demonstration that the U.S. government directs the Iraq justice system, what is the message for fledgling democracies? What precedent was set? Should democracies hang former government leaders who used force to put down rebellions? If so, how will that choice motivate members of the current regime in Iraq a few years down the road when the U.S. is gone or nearly so and they are facing a violent rebellion or possible defeat in an election? Will they worry that they may face the same fate as Saddam if a different party were to take power? Could that motivate them to use any anti-democratic means at their disposal to stay in power?

Citizens and leaders of other democracies also might do well to ponder whether democracies ought to hang former government leaders guilty of violating domestic or international laws banning torture or killing of innocent civilians. (To see the editorial in the November 11 issue of The Economist, click here.)