Alright - Who’s In Charge Here?
That seems to be the question that people of the world should be asking. On the one hand, the current government of the United States wants to think that it is in charge of events in the world, and yet things like this happen:
Judge Tells Hussein, ‘You Are Not a Dictator’
By PAUL von ZIELBAUER
September 15, 2006
The chief judge in the genocide trial of Saddam Hussein assured the defendant on Thursday that he was “not a dictator,” a day after a court prosecutor demanded the judge be removed for showing bias toward Mr. Hussein and letting him harangue witnesses.
One witness, a Kurdish farmer, testified that in 1988 he had pleaded with Mr. Hussein for the life of his wife and seven young children. He said a furious Mr. Hussein shouted, “Shut up and get out.”
In court, Mr. Hussein jumped up to defend himself. “Why did he try to see Saddam Hussein?” he asked the judge, referring to himself in the third person, as is his habit in court. “Wasn’t Saddam a dictator and an enemy to the Kurdish people, as they say?”
The judge replied: “I will answer you: you are not a dictator. Not a dictator,” he repeated. “You were not a dictator.”
Mr. Hussein, smiling, replied, “Thank you.”
The judge said: “The people or those who are around the official make him a dictator, and it is not just you. This is the case all over the world.”
Just to who the world who really is the boss, the hand manipulated the puppet.
After Remark, Judge in Trial of Hussein Loses His Post
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
September 20, 2006
Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki on Tuesday fired the judge overseeing the second phase of the trial of Saddam Hussein, accusing him of bias toward the deposed Iraqi ruler. The firing was condemned by human rights advocates as improper political interference by Mr. Maliki’s government, which is dominated by Shiites and Kurds persecuted during Mr. Hussein’s rule. Human Rights Watch said the firing “sends a chilling message to all judges: toe the line or risk removal.”
[I]nternational human rights groups said the firing undermines the tribunal’s credibility and could influence other judges to favor the prosecution.
They also questioned whether the tribunal’s procedures for handling allegations of judicial bias and misconduct were followed. “This shows the court is not immune from political interference and may be open to being manipulated by public opinion or politicians,” said Hanny Megally, director of the Middle East and North Africa program for the International Center for Transitional Justice, which is an observer in the tribunal.
Bassam al-Husseini, an aide to Mr. Maliki, said the prime minister’s office asked the Iraqi High Tribunal to remove the judge, Abdullah al-Amiri, a Shiite who was also a judge under the Hussein government.
This alone calls into question the competence of the very government which is trying the leader of the previous one. Why did they allow an employee of the first to become the person who tries his former boss for wrongdoing?
Is it just me, or does this not make any sense?
It’s not making sense to some Bu$hCo members, either. The maneuvering has begun to make changes - without looking like they are doing so:
Doubts Increase About Strength of Iraq’s Premier
By EDWARD WONG
September 20, 2006
Senior Iraqi and American officials are beginning to question whether Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has the political muscle and decisiveness to hold Iraq together as it hovers on the edge of a full civil war. Concerns about the toughness of the new government seemed reflected in President Bush’s comments when he met Tuesday with Iraq’s president, Jalal Talabani. Mr. Bush said he wanted Iraqis to know “that the United States of America stands with them, so long as the government continues to make the tough choices necessary for peace to prevail.”
[D]iplomats who deal with the Bush administration on Iraq issues, and recently departed officials who stay in contact with their colleagues in the government, say the president’s top advisers have a far more pessimistic view. “The thing you hear the most is that he never makes any decisions,” said a former senior official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss internal deliberations. “And that drives Bush crazy. He doesn’t take well to anyone who talks about getting something accomplished and then refuses to take the first step.”
And yet, they can’t be seen as abandoning their made man:
A senior American diplomat here said the White House still had confidence in him, mainly because “he has articulated goals for Iraq that make sense to us.” Bush administration officials have repeatedly cautioned that Mr. Maliki needs more time. American officials here say they do not intend to let Mr. Maliki fail and are helping him in a variety of ways.
But increasingly, Iraqi and Western officials say the unity government is one in name only, with the political parties representing different sects and ethnicities constantly at odds, undermining Mr. Maliki’s ability to build consensus.
In other words, Bu$hCo is very concerned that Maliki is losing what support he now has from the Iraqi people:
Patience among Iraqis is wearing thin. Many complain that they have seen no improvement in security, the economy or basic services like electricity. Some Sunni Arab neighborhoods seem particularly deprived, fueling distrust of the Shiite-led government.
“There’s no security, no job opportunities, no services, nothing at all,” said Muhammad Jabar Abdul Ridha, 18, a construction worker walking through downtown Baghdad on Tuesday afternoon.
“This government hasn’t done anything better than the previous one.”
It isn’t just the man in the street who is beginning to lose faith with the puppet of the US. The Sunni leaders are as well:
Some conservative Sunni leaders are also resisting Mr. Maliki’s efforts. Politicians in Baghdad and tribal sheiks in restive areas insist that he meet a long list of demands that includes releasing all detainees and setting a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops. Many Sunnis also fear that Mr. Maliki is beholden to Iran, and his trip there last week further stirred concerns.
“With whom should we reconcile?” asked Sheik Muhammad Saleh al-Bajari, a spokesman for tribes in Falluja, the Sunni Arab stronghold.
“With those who brought the occupier
and killed and destroyed the future of this country?”
Considering that the occupier is itself showing that it is led by incompetents, I wouldn’t hold out much hope for Maliki.
Recently, the world has been having meetings with each other, discussing what they should do about certain world crises. In Cuba, 118 non-aligned nations pledged opposition to the US, calling it ‘a grave threat to world peace and security’.
The US wasn’t invited to attend.
In addition, the EU - with Russia and China - discussed nuclear power issues with Iran - and again, the US wasn’t invited to attend.
So the questions is posed: How can one be a world leader when the world doesn’t wait to be led?
It puts a much different spin on George’s UN speech, doesn’t it? For instance, Iran’s President Ahmadinejad can breathe fire and belch smoke:
Leaders Spar Over Iran’s Aims and U.S. Power
By JIM RUTENBERG and HELENE COOPER
September 20, 2006
Mr. Ahmadinejad, tieless in his trademark off-white sport jacket, accused the United States — while for the most part avoiding naming it directly — of hegemony and hypocrisy, and said it did not seem to have the political will or ability to halt violence in Iraq.
He referred to the United States as “the occupiers” when speaking of Iraq, “the big powers” when referring to the Security Council and “masters and rulers of the entire world” when referring to what he said was an imbalance between world powers and other countries.
He criticized America for not calling for a cease-fire during the Israel-Hezbollah war in Lebanon this summer. “Apparently the Security Council can only be used to ensure the rights of the big powers,” the Iranian president said. “When the oppressed” are targeted, he said, “the Security Council must remain aloof and not even call for a cease-fire.”
“Excellencies, the question needs to be asked, if the governments of the United States or the United Kingdom, who are permanent members of the Security Council, commit aggression, occupation and violation of international law, which of the organs of the U.N. can take them to account?” Mr. Ahmadinejad said.
[I]t was the United States that was using its nuclear weapons to intimidate the world. He said repeatedly that the United Nations Security Council was too beholden to the United States to control it.
Earlier in the day - away from prime time television hours - George gave his lame speech, lamely protesting to the world assembled that
I am not waging war with Islam
If it walks like a lame duck, and if it talks like a lame duck, …
Have a comment? writerealist@earthlink.net
Copyrighted [©] source material contained in this article is presented under the provisions of Fair Use.
FAIR USE NOTICE
This article contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of democracy, economic, environmental, human rights, political, scientific, and social justice issues, among others. I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material in this article is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes.