Rice Laments World Non-Support Of Mabus Persecution

By James Donahue

Dec. 14, 2005

In an odd statement, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice this week accused the international community of “shirking its obligations” to help the United States and its puppet Iraqi court in the persecution of deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Rice said she was “saddened” because many nations were doing “little to help prosecute Saddam. Many European states declined to cooperate because they oppose the use of the death penalty at the trial. All who expressed their devotion to human rights and the rule of law have a special obligation to help the Iraqis bring to justice one of the world’s most murderous tyrants,” Rice said during a speech before the Heritage Foundation think tank.

I don’t know what people in that think tank are really thinking, but this writer has to wonder about the mindset of Condoleezza Rice.

This woman, an obvious crone of the Bush Administration, may have the title of doctor in front of her name, but it is clear that her mind is closed to world thinking on this matter. There are clear and obvious reasons why other world nations, many of whom opposed the American invasion of Iraq, are not sickened by the actions of a kangaroo styled court with a single purpose . . . to pave a way for a public execution of Saddam Hussein.

That Rice also implied that many Middle Eastern neighboring states also are refusing to join in on the public demand for the head of the former Iraqi dictator suggests a growing frustration in Washington because we appear to be quite alone in our efforts to seize that oil-rich territory under false pretenses. Bush and his cronies haven’t fooled anybody.

Yet another question comes to mind as I review the Rice comments on this subject . . . just what is it that she expects the other nations of the world to be doing as we watch the court proceedings unfold? Does she expect political support expressed in various world newspapers? Does she want national leaders to stand up and publicly condemn Hussein and thank the United States for bullying its way into Iraq and seizing control of one of the world’s richest oil reserves?

Should world leaders laud Mr. Bush and the UK’s Tony Blair for the extensive bombing that occurred in this ancient cradle of civilization and the destruction of priceless artifacts? The very truth as to the origins of man, including proof of our links to Lucifer, were probably turned to dust amidst all of the radioactive rubble. Indeed, world leaders should be standing up and applauding what Bush accomplished there.

At least, this is what Condoleezza Rice believes.

Actually, I believe the world is looking at the United States right now with a most leery eye, wondering what kind of monster this nation has become? What kind of people would elect an administration that would send an army in to invade a country like Iraq without just cause? And what kind of people would then put the leader of that fallen nation on trial as a war criminal because he dared to shoot back?

True, the charges being brought against Hussein do not seem to involve his attempt to defend himself and his nation when our forces came charging across his borders two years ago. Instead, we are allowing the local people try him for alleged “crimes against the people” during the 25 years Hussein ruled Iraq with an iron fist.

From all observations since Saddam’s fall from power, the three separate factions that occupy that country, the Sunni, Shiite and Kurds, clearly do not get along. Many fear that civil war will break out the moment American forces withdraw. It appears that it took the kind of political control that Hussein’s Baath party applied, to keep the nation in balance.

So was Saddam that evil?

One thing we must always remember . . . nothing is really as it is made to appear, especially in politics. The public execution of Saddam Hussein is not something that America should seek, or that any person, anywhere, should think of in a positive way.

If there is are war criminals to be tried over the Iraq invasion, it might be George W. Bush and Tony Blair. But then the old saw seems to prevail here: To the victor go the spoils.

In the meantime, Mr. Bush and Ms Rice should not expect anybody in the international community to pat them on the back for what has occurred in Iraq.