Saddam Hussein's execution on Dec. 30 prevents him from being put on trial for his most serious crimes â€“ genocide against the Kurds and the use of poison gas in the Iran-Iraq war. As many as 100,000 Kurds were killed in 1988. Why then was Saddam executed for killing 148 men and boys in the Shiite town of Dujail in 1982?
Human rights activists say the answer is clear: the Bush White House wanted to prevent Saddam from offering evidence of US complicity in his crimes as a defense. It's the same reason the Saddam trial was held under Iraqi auspices rather than in the International Criminal Court: ''It's to protect their own dirty laundry,'' Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, told the New York Times in 2004. ''The U.S. wants to keep the trial focused on Saddam's crimes and not their acquiescence.''
Human Rights Watch has done more to document Saddam's genocide of the Kurds than any other organization. Their 1993 report remains the most detailed and meticulous account, based on extensive interviews with eyewitnesses and analysis of Iraqi government internal communications. During the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam had lost control of Kurdish regions because all his troops had been sent to the battlefields. But as that war came to an end in 1988, he launched his "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds, leveling thousands of their villages and killing 50,000-100,000, mostly by bombing and mass executions.
"The pace of life feels morally dangerous to me."--Richard Ford, novelist
"Time is on my side" --The Rolling Stones
As the New Year begins, I keep reflecting on Time. It runs through all of our lives--at work, at home, at play--in the ways we structure and conceive of our society and values. I used to think Mick Jagger could do no wrong. But, for better or worse, these days I think Richard Ford gets it right in describing our lives and current condition when it comes to the Big-T--Time.
I know that all too often we can't help it (or ourselves) but in our contemporary technofied life, most of us don't take nearly enough time for our friends and family. Too many Americans even feel guilty for taking time away from their Blackberries, cell phones, text messaging, overtime, frenetic pace and packed schedules. Forget smelling the proverbial roses--we're so busy sprinting from Point A to Point B we don't even spot them in the first place.
We should all be thankful that 2006 is ending in so much better shape than it started. Media Matters' recent round-up of the most outrageous right-wing comments of the passing year remind us what a huge victory was achieved with the routing of the Bush agenda and the continuing implosion of the Republican Party.
So here's to a hopeful and happy New Year. Around the web, you can find plenty of ideas for resolutions for 2007. CodePink suggests talking to someone different from yourself about why you believe we need to end the war in Iraq, writing one letter to the editor each month, and joining a host of antiwar groups in Washington, DC, on January 27 to present the Mandate for Peace to Congress. (CodePink is also soliciting resolutions, which will be published online.) WireTap surveys young activists across the nation who share their own resolutions you can use to make a difference. Martha Rosenberg offers eleven useful resolutions for Big Pharma in a piece on CommonDreams.
Writing in WorldChanging.Com, philosopher Edward Wolf says the key to being in tune with social change in 2007 will not be what we think, but how we think. "Politics resembles a battle of brands more than an exchange of ideas," Wolf observes. "The blogosphere has blown the doors of civic conversation wide open but hardly elevated the dialogue, as almost any comment string confirms. But that may be changing as social networking and open-source tools reshape the 'spaces' in which people interact. Can new leaders emerge in such spaces?" He thinks so and advises watching for leaders who "embody humility, not those who merely espouse it."
Convicted in a show trial that certainly appeared to have been timed tofinish on the eve of last month's US elections, Iraqi President SaddamHussein was hanged in a show execution that just as certainly seems tohave been timed to be carried out before the end of the worst year ofthe Iraq War.
Hussein was a bad player -- a totalitarian dictator who, with tacit approval from the U.S. and other western nation during the 1980s, killed his own people and waged a mad war with Iran. He needed to be held to account. But even bad players deserve fair trials, honest judgments and justly-applied punishments. The former dictator got none of these.
According to HumanRights Watch, which has a long and honorable history of documentingand challenging the abuses of Hussein's former government, theexecution early Saturday morning followed "a deeply flawed trial" and"marks a significant step away from respect for human rights and therule of law in Iraq."
Any year that begins with Bill Frist and Tom DeLay running the Capitol and ends with Frist out of politics and DeLay headed for trial gets high marks from this quarter. Throw in the polls that show the American people are now firmly in the anti-war camp, the fact that even Republicans are starting to suggest that the best word to describe the president's policies may be "criminal, the prospect that those policies will soon be under the scrutiny of House and Senate committee chairs who have actually familiarized themselves with the term "checks and balances" and 2006 ends on the best note of any year since George W. Bush and Dick Cheney launched their co-presidency.
The voters deserve a lot of credit for the taming of the shrews. But elections do not occur in vacuums. Good election results do not come about by luck or chance. They follow upon bold gestures and smart strategies by elected officials who choose to lead rather than follow, organizations that take chances and individual citizens who understand why Jefferson said that all power should rest with the people.
Here are this one columnist's picks for the Most Valuable Progressives of 2006:
As the nation mourns the passing of former President Gerald Ford, President Bush has been appropriately respectful. Hopefully, however, the current occupant of the Oval Office's regard for its former occupant will extend to consideration by Bush of what Ford had to say in one of his last interviews.
Asked by Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward about the Iraq imbroglio, Ford said in 2004, "(Defense Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld and (Vice President Dick) Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq. They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction. And now, I've never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do."
Both Rumsfeld and Cheney served as White House chief of staff under Ford, but the former president put loyalty to his country ahead of any deference to former aides. He did, however, ask that Woodward not make the contents of the interview public until after Bush's presidency was done, or until after Ford's passing.
The John Edwards who today announces his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination is a very different contender from the fresh-faced young senator who in 2004 bid for the party nod--and eventually secured a place on the ticket as the vice presidential nominee.
By any measure, he has a lot more to offer progressives than he did in 2004. That potential to appeal to the party's left flank is essential for Edwards, who will need an ideological base as he struggles for attention in a race where New York Senator Hillary Clinton and Illinois Senator Barack Obama have been sucking most of the air out of the contest.
Edwards struggled to craft a message in 2004. After stumbling frequently and, many assumed, fatally in 2003, he finally developed the "two Americas" stump speech that identified him as a candidate who was serious about broadening the national debate to include a serious discussion of the dangerous gap between rich and poor in America.
When I think about the passing of Gerald Ford several things come to mind: that unforgivable pardon of Nixon, his unfortunate participation on the Warren Commission, even Chevy Chase's mercilessly funny parodyof Ford on the early days of Saturday Night Live. But his deathrepresents something else to me, something fundamental about thecurrent political landscape.
Ford, despite a brief tenure in office, has had reaching influence. AsJonWeiner pointed out, the leadership of Justice John Paul Stevens and the ascension of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney all lead back to Ford. But also he was one of the last of a dying breed: the moderate Republican.
By today's standards Ford was a real moderate Republican --maybe evena liberal. In 1976 when Ford ran for re-election he was besieged onboth sides. The left wing never forgave him for pardoning Nixon whilethe right didn't like his extension of dÃ©tente policies with regards to Communism. They also didn't like the presence of a moderate Republican on his ticket, in the form of Nelson Rockefeller.
Gerald Ford is gone, but he lives on in two of his key appointees: Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Their impact on America today is greater than Ford's, who died Tuesday at 93.
Ford appointed Rumsfeld his chief of staff when he took office after Nixon's resignation in 1974. The next year, when he made the 42-year-old Rumsfeld the youngest secretary of defense in the nation's history, he named 34-year-old Dick Cheney his chief of staff, also the youngest ever.
Those two Ford appointees worked together ever since. The Bush White House assertion of unchecked presidential power stems from the lessons they drew from their experience of working for the weakest president in recent American history. "For Dick and Don," Harold Meyerson wrote in The American Prospect last July, "the frustrations of the Ford years have been compensated for by the abuses of the Bush years."
On August 9, 1974, amid the turbulence of the Watergate moment, Gerald R. Ford found himself in the extraordinary circumstance of assuming the presidency of the United States without first having faced the American electorate as a candidate for president or vice president.
Ford handled the unsettling transition as gently as he could.
"I assume the Presidency under extraordinary circumstances never before experienced by Americans," the new President told the American people in a televised address on the hot August day when he took over the office that had been abandoned by the disgraced Richard Nixon. "I am acutely aware that you have not elected me as your President by your ballots, and so I ask you to confirm me as your President with your prayers."
Feminist Linda Hirshman on women in the workplace.
Walter Benn Michaels: Diversity is no cure-all.
"Internationally known as the hardest working man in show business . . . . Mr. Dynamite, the amazing Mr. Please Please himself . . . the star of the show, Jaaaames BROWN!"
That was the unforgettable opening of "The James Brown Show Live at the Apollo," an LP released in 1963, which spent 66 weeks on the Billboard album charts â€“ something no R&B album had ever done. The hardest working man in show business died Christmas day at a hospital in Atlanta. He was 73.
I saw his live show in 1967 at the Boston Garden, the cavernous basketball and hockey arena. Tens of thousands of us knew exactly what would happen onstage: First he would dance like no man had ever danced before, hips shimmying, doing the splits, snapping his head in time to the beat, and never stopping.
Say it: escalation. More and more that's what the geniuses in Washington have come up with as a way of ending the war in Iraq. Instead of calling it an escalation of the war, they are using the military term of art, "surge." Ok, fine. Surge, escalation, "reset", call it what you will. The fact is that the American people voted in November to end the war in Iraq, and the White House has demonstrated that, kabuki-style consultations to the contrary, it just doesn't care.
Let's take as a given that adding more troops is a horrible idea, both strategically and morally bankrupt. How do the Democrats stop it from happening? Under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, passed by Congress in late 2002, the President has fairly wide latitude to prosecute the war. The new Democratic-controlled Congress has two main sticks to wield: oversight hearings and the power of the purse. There's a lot of skittishness on the part of Democrats to use their power of the purse, because Republicans could then spin it as the Democrats "cutting funding for the troops." Spencer Ackerman laid out just such a scenario recently, and I understand where he's coming from. The right was able to construct a myth in the years after the end of the Vietnam war that Democrats ended the war by refusing to fund it after 1974. While this wasn't really true, the funding was cut-off only after Nixon had signed the peace treaty, it created an enduring right-wing bugaboo, one that Republicans now threaten to wield as a cudgel if Democrats attempt to use their power of the purse to end the occupation.
So how about this: Early next year, the president is going have to submit an emergency appropriations bill to continue to fund the war. The Democrats should respond in two ways. First, if by the time the appropriations bill is submitted, the president is still discussing escalating the war, Democrats should come up with a counter offer: they will only approve enough funding for the current troops and not one more. Second, the funding should only be approved for the first 90 days, after which time the administration will have to report comprehensively to Congress on what progress has been made in bringing the war to a conclusion.
Rubinomics may still reign over the Democratic party, but thehair-shirt economic orthodoxy has taken an influential hit. New YorkTimes columnist Paul Krugman today renounced his faith. Next toCitigroup executive Robert Rubin, Krugman may be the Democrats'favorite economist. He flogs George W. Bush relentlessly and never,never criticizes the Dems (maybe still dreaming of a Cabinet postsomeday).
Krugman's columns have been deficit-obsessive--can't leave the subjectalone. Until now, that is.
Krugman reversed his field on fiscal rectitude by arguing today thatDemocrats must now concentrate on new spending, not budget-cutting.Deficits still matter, he explained, but Americans are hurting and thepolitical situation dictates that the Democratic Congress undertakeprojects and programs that will make a real difference in people'slives.
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Rahm Emanuel, the corporate-friendly centrist who actively worked against a number of anti-war progressives in 2006 Democratic primaries for US House seats and then refused to support at least some of those candidates in November, is handing his DCCC leadership position off to Chris Van Hollen, a congressman who has a dramatically better track record on foreign and domestic policy issues.
Emanuel, the former Clinton administration "fixer" who organized support for the North American Free Trade Agreement and other Wall Street-favored policies and who then went to Congress as a pro-corporate, pro-war Democrat, has tried to spin his management of the DCCC during the 2006 election cycle as a success. In fact, many of the Democrats who prevailed on November 7 did so despite the Illinois congressman's efforts, not because of them.
In primaries from California to New Hampshire, Democratic voters rejected Emanuel's hand-picked candidates and nominated progressives who went on to win in November. Indeed, while candidates such as Illinois centrist Tammy Duckworth, who had Emanuel's full support, were going down to defeat, the list of breakthrough winners included contenders such as New Hampshire anti-war candidate Carol Shea-Porter, who never got any support from Emanuel or his DCCC team.
Pray for the peace of Jerusalem:they that love thee shall prosper.Peace be within thy walls, and prosperity within thy palaces.For my brethren and companions' sakes, I will say now,peace be within thee.For the sake of the House of the Lord our God I will seek thy good.
The world's great religions preach peace.