Saddam Hussein

Latest news on saddam hussein

Iraq-Iran war dead are exchanged

Dead Iraqi and Iranian soldiers from the 1980-88 war are exchanged, in the first such move since the fall of Saddam Hussein.

Why CNN Struggles to Cover The Economic Panic

The current economic collapse is a difficult story for TV. It's a peculiar period in between an election and an inauguration. This most important story, this great-or-not-so great depression, is also the hardest for CNN to tell. I have more than enough reasons why in this late-night rant. 1) It's not a hurricane so Anderson Cooper of CNN is unable to position himself in the middle of the storm for optimal drama. In other words, TV anchors can't get wet and windblown, while viewers worry about their safety. The state of the economy is a disaster but not a natural disaster. Nobody's leaving the studio for this one. There's no place to go. 2) It's like a war and we keep losing ground each day. In the place of casualties, we have falling stock indices but it's hard to show the real damage. There's only so much you can do with oversized charts to tell a story. The war on terrorism featured a real enemy. We've just never been able to find them, no matter who goes after them. (Maybe it's not so different.) Campbell Brown ("No Bull, No Bias") should say that what the capitalism's finest did to themselves and to us was worse than any terrorist could have imagined. 3) Few CEOs, fewer economists, and almost no one in the financial industry, want to step forward and say with conviction what will happen. A year ago we couldn't get them to stop telling us what great things to expect in the next quarter. Not now. They don't know what's coming and they aren't willing to say even that much. They are MIA. Insider information is at an all-time low. Memo to all American CEOs: don't presume in ten years' time to write business books about your leadership skills; maybe there's a gripping survival story to be told about how you held on to your job. We want them to face the music. Even the Watergate hearings, which had a large cast of characters, were compelling to watch day after day. 4) There is not a President at the center. Bush is just not there. Like us, he's watching TV to find out what to think. Reporting from the White House doesn't have any relevance today. Moreover, the satisfaction in blaming Bush for everything is diminishing. In addition, with the election over, reporters can't simply ask the candidates to react to the day's bad news. It seldom produced much insight anyway but it filled time. Now Obama is filling time, and he keeps repeating that "there's only one President" but there's really not a President. There's a leadership vacuum waiting to be filled by Obama. (BTW, this story is much bigger and more important than Obama's election and I think he understands that.) Bottom line is we're waiting for a central figure to emerge. 5) Real experts are hard to find, especially ones with big hair. So over-present talking heads such as Suze Orman ramble on and on in front of Larry King and others. Here's an incredible ramble from Suze Orman on CNN: People feel they need medication because they are panicking. It?s as if the economy right now is in the I.C.U. unit of a hospital. We are in intensive care and they are throwing everything type of medication at us to cure what is going on. They are panicking because why? Nothing is working. They tried this, it didn?t work. They tried that medication, it didn?t work. They are running out of prescriptions to give it. We are going to be in the I.C.U. unit for a while. Eventually, I don?t know when that will be, six months, a year, year and a half, we will get out, we?ll be in the hospital then. We?ll stay in the hospital for about a year or two. After another year or two we will end up in rehab and then we?ll be okay. This is a long stretch. People have to stop panicking. CNN link Makes me think of Amy Winehouse singing "They try to make me go to rehab, I say no, no, no." Rehab is taking place over on CNBC. 6) Where are the winning and losing teams? We have learned more about Al Queda cells and Saddam Hussein's Elite Guards than about the people in power behind CITI, Goldman Sachs, Lehmann Brothers, AIG, etc. We know more about the New York Jets than we do about CITI Bank. Are the slow-moving Detroit Manufacturers competing head-to-head against the fast-talking Wall Street Financiers? Please tell us more about these teams as we're entrusting them with such large amounts of public money. Maybe we need to start thinking that, as with football, we care because we're betting on teams to win. We have our money at stake. 7) I can almost hear producers wondering each night if there isn't a better story to lead with. "Isn't there a story we can do on Sarah Palin? Like her or hate her, people can't get enough of her." At least that appears to be the thinking behind her getting the most air-time in the week following the election. Would you rather hear about Sarah Palin pardoning a turkey or David Gergen saying no one knows what to make of the economic mess? At least, the Palin piece will have something interesting going on in the foreground and the background. 8) "Why can't this be happening to Russia or China? If it was only happening there, and not here, we would know how to cover it." CNN would send Christiane Amanpour there. "Live from...". We don't have visuals like people knocking down walls, rushing into the streets or standing in lines. The Fall of the Berlin Wall is the Fall of Communism, the fall of Saddam's statue -- now these are stories of new freedoms. In America today, we have a big fall without a distinctive symbol, without a video loop, without an exotic locale. Also, how do you explain that China is providing the bail for the bailout? As David Gergen said tonight on CNN, "China's become our banker." Even harder to tell that kind of "freedom" story. 9) The problems aren't going away and there's no timeline. So, where's the equivalent of "America Held Hostage: Day XN"? Nightline evolved from a special report to become a nightly hard-news program to follow the ongoing story of Iran holding American hostages during the Carter Administration. Why isn't this economic story played front-and-center in the same way? Isn't there a TV journalist saying "Holy Christ, this is the biggest story of my career and I'm going to bring it to you every night"? Ted Koppel, Edward R. Murrow, where are you? Here's my list of names for a new Nightline-like special series on the economy: America's Panic Attack The Joke's on US Invisible Hand-Wringing Capitalism on the Ledge The Economy on the Couch Future Shock & Awe Hitting the Wall And Falling on the Street. America Sucks Right Now US: Out of Order 10) Lastly, the TV media is no better off than we are at understanding this complex crisis. On a gut level, viewers know what the story is, that it's about them, their future and their children's future. They have specific questions that are difficult to answer (see the Suze Orman blog on CNN where it is promised that she'll answer these many, many questions; she doesn't, of course.) and they have general worries (should I panic?) that are hard to resolve. While we try to absorb as much information as possible, we keep having the same conversation over and over: Q. What's going on? A. I don't know. It's hard to tell....

CNN repeatedly reported on McCain rally for Chambliss without noting McCain's criticism of Chambliss' "reprehensible" 2002 ad

Between November 10 and November 22, CNN has repeatedly made reference to Sen. John McCain's appearance at a November 13 rally in support of Sen. Saxby Chambliss' (R-GA) re-election bid. But in at least 15 of those reports CNN failed to note that McCain reportedly criticized as "worse than disgraceful" and "reprehensible" a campaign ad Chambliss used during his 2002 race against then-Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA). The only exceptions to this pattern occurred on November 13, when CNN correspondent Rusty Dornin stated in two separate reports that McCain's recent appearance in support of Chambliss "raised eyebrows" and was "a little bit ironic," given McCain's previous criticism of Chambliss' ad. Chambliss' 2002 ad featured images of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and asserted that Cleland -- a decorated Vietnam War veteran and triple amputee as a result of injuries from a grenade explosion -- "says he has the courage to lead. But the record proves Max Cleland is just misleading." In a July 3, 2003, article (accessed via the Nexis database), The Washington Post reported that McCain "denounced" the ad "[i]mmediately," and quoted him saying: "I've never seen anything like that ad. ... Putting pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden next to a picture of a man who left three limbs on the battlefield -- it's worse than disgraceful, it's reprehensible." In a report that aired during the 4 p.m. ET and 6 p.m. ET hours of the November 13 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, Dornin stated that "McCain's appearance with Chambliss has raised eyebrows," and noted that "McCain rebuked Chambliss publicly for" his 2002 ad, "calling it 'reprehensible.' " Likewise, on the November 13 edition of CNN Newsroom, Dornin reported that McCain's appearance in support of Chambliss was "a little bit ironic because in the 2002 election, Chambliss had a campaign ad that really slammed his opponent" and McCain "ended up rebuking Chambliss after that campaign." CNN anchors and correspondents both prior to and following Dornin's reports have mentioned McCain's appearance for Chambliss without noting McCain's prior criticism of Chambliss' ad. On the November 10 edition of CNN's Situation Room, Blitzer reported that McCain was "getting ready to campaign down in Georgia for his friend Saxby Chambliss." And in a November 19 report on The Situation Room, Dornin stated that Chambliss "scored Senator John McCain last week in his first post-election political speech" and aired comments by Chambliss referring to McCain as "the honorable John McCain," and by McCain stating that Chambliss "is doing what we Republicans should have done for eight years." Other CNN reports that mentioned McCain's participation at the Chambliss rally but not McCain's reported criticism of Chambliss' 2002 ad include: The November 22 edition of Saturday Morning News. The November 21 edition of The Situation Room. The 10 a.m. ET hour of the November 21 edition of CNN Newsroom. The November 19 edition of Lou Dobbs Tonight. The 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. ET hours of the November 19 edition of CNN Newsroom. The November 14 edition of American Morning. The November 13 edition of CNN Election Center. The November 13 edition of Lou Dobbs Tonight. The 9 a.m., 10 a.m., and 11 a.m. ET hours of the November 13 edition of CNN Newsroom. The November 11 edition of The Situation Room. In a November 23 article, CNN.com also reported that McCain "returned to the trail with Chambliss just nine days after losing the presidential election to Obama," but did not note his prior reported criticism of Chambliss' ad. Media Matters for America has previously documented that Newsweek and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution also did not mention McCain's reported criticism of Chambliss' ad in articles referencing McCain's appearance at the Chambliss campaign rally. From the 4 p.m. ET hour of the November 13 edition of The Situation Room: WOLF BLITZER (host): Senator John McCain is back out on the campaign trail right now. Let's immediately go to CNN's Rusty Dornin. She's in Cobb County, Georgia. The senator doing some campaigning for a fellow Republican, Rusty -- tell us what we're about to see. DORNIN: Well, Wolf, the event here is just about to begin. Hundreds have shown up, energized to see the man who might have fallen short of the presidency, but could help put a key Republican in the winner's column. [begin video clip] DORNIN: Republicans hope the man who beat Barack Obama in Georgia with 52 percent of the vote in the presidential election can make those numbers a reality for the Senate incumbent, Saxby Chambliss. Chambliss is headed to a runoff against Democratic contender Jim Martin. Aside from an appearance on Jay Leno, this is McCain's first time in front of an audience since the election. He will stump for Chambliss near Atlanta with a number of other Republican legislators. CHAMBLISS: As much support as we can get coming into Georgia, just to help us rally the troops, not dictate to folks how to vote, but just to talk about why it's important that they show up on December 2nd. DORNIN: December 2nd would be the runoff date. Martin says there's no word yet on whether he will get President-elect Obama to shine his star power for him, but he will have one hundred Obama workers sent in from other states and 25 campaign offices at his disposal. MARTIN: We've been able to open up 25 offices or more across the state, taking advantage of the same energy and resources that he has. So, he's been very helpful to us. Whether he'll be able to come to Georgia or not, I don't know. DORNIN: McCain's appearance with Chambliss has raised eyebrows. In the 2002 campaign, Chambliss ran a commercial slamming his opponent, a former Vietnam vet and triple amputee, and questioning his support of homeland security. McCain rebuked Chambliss publicly for that ad, calling it "reprehensible." [end video clip] DORNIN: But this is a party fight to hold the Republican line. The Democrats need 60 seats for that filibuster-proof majority -- Wolf. BLITZER: We're going to stand by and watch this event with you. Want to see what John McCain has to say. All right, Rusty, stand by with us.

Newsweek noted that McCain recently "stumped" for Chambliss, but not that McCain criticized Chambliss' "reprehensible" 2002 attack ad

In a November 22 online article for Newsweek, Suzanne Smalley listed Sen. John McCain among the Republican "Party luminaries" who "have stumped" for Republican incumbent Sen. Saxby Chambliss during the runoff election for Chambliss' Georgia Senate seat, but Smalley did not note that McCain reportedly criticized as "worse than disgraceful" and "reprehensible" a campaign advertisement Chambliss used during his 2002 race against then-Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA). In fact, Smalley's article -- headlined "Battleground Georgia" -- did not mention Chambliss' ad against Cleland at all, even though the "Conventional Wisdom" section of the November 24 issue of Newsweek featured the following one sentence description of the Georgia Senate race, under the headline "Chambliss": "Georgia on our mind: GOP sen. who smeared Max Cleland now in tight runoff." Chambliss' 2002 ad featured images of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and asserted that Cleland -- a decorated Vietnam War veteran and triple amputee as a result of battlefield injuries -- "says he has the courage to lead. But the record proves Max Cleland is just misleading." In a July 3, 2003, article (accessed via the Nexis database), The Washington Post reported that McCain "denounced" the ad "[i]mmediately," and quoted him saying: "I've never seen anything like that ad. ... Putting pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden next to a picture of a man who left three limbs on the battlefield -- it's worse than disgraceful, it's reprehensible." In contrast to Smalley's Newsweek article, The National Journal (retrieved via Nexis) reported on November 22: Chambliss is still drawing heat from Democrats for an ad he ran six years ago that tried to draw a connection between Cleland, who was terribly wounded in the Vietnam War, and Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Democrats were not the only ones furious at the tactic. When McCain campaigned this month for Chambliss, a number of Georgia newspapers highlighted the Arizona senator's denunciation of the ad six years ago. "I'd never seen anything like that ad," McCain told CNN. "Putting pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden next to the picture of a man who left three limbs on the battlefield. It's worse than disgraceful. It's reprehensible." As Media Matters for America noted, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution similarly failed to mention that McCain criticized Chambliss' 2002 ad in a November 14 article about a campaign appearance McCain made on Chambliss' behalf. From Smalley's November 22 Newsweek article: For incumbent Sen. Saxby Chambliss, the Republican National Committee has pumped $2 million dollars and dozens of staffers into Georgia. Party luminaries, including John McCain, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, have stumped for Chambliss. Romney reminded voters of what's at stake, and where his party's focus is, when he warned an Atlanta crowd Friday, "We have to decide if we want two parties in Washington or only one that gets everything it wants." Not to be outdone, the Democrats have already brought Bill Clinton to Atlanta, and [Al] Gore is on the way.

In disparaging possible sec. of state appointment for Clinton, on MSNBC and CNN, Hitchens offered purported 15-year-old quote he has yet to source

Contemplating the possible nomination of Sen. Hillary Clinton to be secretary of state, commentator and author Christopher Hitchens, a frequent and harsh Clinton critic, revived the unsubstantiated claim that Hillary Clinton blocked any action by the Clinton administration in war-torn Bosnia in 1993 because she didn't want it to interfere with passage of her health-care plan. In reviving the claim on MSNBC's Hardball, MSNBC's 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and CNN's Larry King Live between November 17 and November 19, Hitchens purported to quote Hillary Clinton demanding of Bill Clinton that he not intervene in Bosnia, lest, in Hitchens' words on the November 17 Hardball, it "spoil my wonderful health-care plan, which should be front and center." In a March 31 article for Slate.com, Hitchens cited Sally Bedell Smith's For Love of Politics: Bill and Hillary Clinton: The White House Years for the claim that Hillary Clinton blocked Clinton administration intervention in Bosnia, but the book does not support Hitchens' claim; it does not mention Hitchens' purported quote or otherwise assert that Hillary Clinton directed Bill Clinton not to take action in Bosnia. On all three shows, Hitchens also revived his claim that then-Defense Secretary Les Aspin was a strong proponent of U.S. intervention in Bosnia but was thwarted by Hillary Clinton. In his Slate article, as purported further support for his claim that Hillary Clinton blocked action in Bosnia to protect her domestic priority, Hitchens cited an exchange he said he had with Aspin that does not, in fact, prove his broader claim about Hillary Clinton. Moreover, in her book, On the Edge: The Clinton Presidency (Simon & Schuster, 1994), author Elizabeth Drew, a former Washington correspondent with The New Yorker, writes that, contrary to media reports at the time, Aspin was not a proponent of U.S. intervention in Bosnia. In his Slate article, Hitchens quoted at length from Bedell Smith's book, which includes numerous other errors and flaws, to advance the claim that Hillary Clinton deterred President Clinton from intervening in Bosnia because it would "distract attention from the first lady's health care 'initiative.' " However, neither the quote Hitchens cited from Bedell Smith -- nor the Newsweek article that she referenced -- supports Hitchens' claims. In For Love of Politics, Bedell Smith wrote: Taking the advice of [then-Vice President] Al Gore and National Security Advisor Tony Lake, Bill agreed to a proposal to bomb Serbian military positions while helping the Muslims acquire weapons to defend themselves -- the fulfillment of a pledge he had made during the 1992 campaign. But instead of pushing European leaders to sign on, he directed Secretary of State Warren Christopher merely to consult with them. When they balked at the plan, Bill quickly retreated, creating a "perception of drift." The key factor in Bill's policy reversal was Hillary, who was said to have "deep misgivings," and viewed the situation as "a Vietnam that would compromise health-care reform." The United States took no further action in Bosnia, and the "ethnic cleansing" by the Serbs was to continue for two more years, resulting in the deaths of more than 250,000 people. In asserting that Hillary Clinton "was said to have 'deep misgivings,' and viewed the situation as 'a Vietnam that would compromise health-care reform,' " Bedell Smith did not purport to quote Hillary Clinton directly and did not assert that she directed her husband to do or not do anything with respect to Bosnia, as Hitchens has repeatedly claimed. Moreover, Bedell Smith cites a 1993 Newsweek article by Tom Post for her claim that Hillary Clinton "was said to have 'deep misgivings,' and viewed the situation as 'a Vietnam that would compromise health-care reform.' " But Post did not report that as fact; rather, in the article Bedell Smith cited, he reported that sources gave differing accounts of the influences on Bill Clinton's Bosnia policy, providing one point of view offered by adviser Mandy Grunwald, but then citing "other sources" saying that Hillary Clinton had "deep misgivings" about Bosnia, and quoting a "friend" saying: "She regards this as a Vietnam that would compromise health-care reform." Moreover, the Newsweek article does not support Bedell Smith's flat assertion that Hillary was "[t]he key factor in Bill's policy reversal" on Bosnia, and Bedell Smith provides no other support for the assertion. From the Newsweek article: By the time Christopher returned to Washington, the mood was grim. His aides had warned him of a weakening of resolve in the White House. Could it be that political consultants had gotten to the president and warned him to back off Bosnia? "We don't mess around with foreign-policy decisions," insists Mandy Grunwald, an informal adviser. "Nobody is saying, 'You've got an economic program to worry about, don't do this'." But other sources say the most important adviser of all-Hillary Rodham Clinton-has deep misgivings. "She regards this as a Vietnam that would compromise health-care reform," says a friend. After quoting from Bedell Smith's book, Hitchens wrote in his Slate article: I can personally witness to the truth of this, too. I can remember, first, one of the Clintons' closest personal advisers -- Sidney Blumenthal -- referring with acid contempt to Warren Christopher as "a blend of Pontius Pilate with Ichabod Crane." I can remember, second, a meeting with Clinton's then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin at the British Embassy. When I challenged him on the sellout of the Bosnians, he drew me aside and told me that he had asked the White House for permission to land his own plane at Sarajevo airport, if only as a gesture of reassurance that the United States had not forgotten its commitments. The response from the happy couple was unambiguous: He was to do no such thing, lest it distract attention from the first lady's health care "initiative." Hitchens did not explain how the anecdote he attributes to Aspin about being told not to land his plane in Sarajevo "lest it distract attention from the first lady's health care 'initiative' " proves the truth of Bedell Smith's claim that it was Hillary's purported "misgivings" that served as "[t]he key factor" in the delay of U.S. intervention in Bosnia. Moreover, in his three television appearances on November 17, 18, and 19, Hitchens presented Aspin as a strong proponent of U.S. intervention in Bosnia, up against Hillary Clinton. For example, on November 18, Hitchens said: HITCHENS: We all remember, or we should, that when Les Aspin had then got the Clinton administration very nearly to do something about the horror in the Balkans that belatedly the Clinton administration did decide to stop -- the Clinton-Gore administration -- they delayed it because Hillary said, "No, no, don't do it, it will take away attention from my brilliant, wonderful health care program" that we all remember so well. But in her book, Drew reported the opposite -- that Aspin "was for doing as little as possible in Bosnia." From Drew's book: Contrary to many published reports at the time, Aspin (who was said to favor bombing) was for doing as little as possible in Bosnia. He thought it was "a loser from the start," that there was no way to deal with the problem effectively without enormous military force, and that neither the United States nor Europe was willing to pay that price. He argued that the best they could end up with was a divided Bosnia -- Serb, Croat, and Muslim -- with the Serbs maintaining control over most of the land they had already won in the war. When the question of bombing Bosnian Serb artillery sites arose in the spring of 1993, Aspin favored a cease-fire in place. [Page 142] From the November 17 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews: CHRIS MATTHEWS (host): Well, I probably disagree with Hitchens on this, but I am very suspicious when [Sen.] Jon Kyl [R-AZ], a major supporter of the war in Iraq, a complete hawk, a neocon in many ways, complete hawk, supports her for this. Henry Kissinger's come out of the woodwork. He supports her for this. HITCHENS: Yes. MATTHEWS: Why do these establishment conservatives want her? What are they up to? Why do they want her? I don't know what they want. HITCHENS: Don't compare Kissinger -- don't compare Kissinger to Kyl. I mean, Kissinger is a critic of the war and a so-called realist, and someone who likes leaving dictators like Saddam Hussein in place -- MATTHEWS: Well, why do they both want her? They're both Republicans. Why do they want her? HITCHENS: Because she's a status-quo type, and they know they can, so to speak, trust her. She's a member of their club. Just to comment on what Peter said a moment ago: If you remember -- and I'll drag you back to this Bosnia farce that she inflicted on us during the campaign. Actually, when there was pressure on the Clinton administration -- Les Aspin was secretary of defense, you remember -- to do something about Sarajevo, to stop the killing, to prevent the ethnic cleansing, Hillary Clinton moved in hard on her husband and said, "Don't you do a thing about Bosnia. It'll spoil my wonderful health-care plan, which should be front and center." And remember how beautifully that worked out, too. PETER BEINART (The New Republic editor-at-large and Time contributor): I'm not sure I think that's an entirely accurate accounting of -- HITCHENS: Yes, it is. BEINART: -- her role in Bosnia. And the reality is that the Clintons, albeit very late, the Clinton administration acted very well -- MATTHEWS: OK. BEINART: -- in Bosnia in 1995. HITCHENS: Over her objections. MATTHEWS: OK. BEINART: I'm not sure it was over her objections. HITCHENS: Yes, it was. From the November 18 edition of MSNBC's 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with David Gregory: GREGORY: And what's the impact on a Secretary of State Clinton because of those associations? Can they not put up a firewall between them? HITCHENS: Well, as I say, if it hadn't involved her, too, the campaign finance scandals -- we're not talking about the ongoing stuff -- Mr. Clinton's huge speaking fees in the Gulf and elsewhere -- we're talking about previous convictions in the Clinton fundraising scandal. If it wasn't for the fact that she couldn't refuse her brothers everything -- or sorry, anything -- couldn't refuse them anything; anything they wanted they seem to have got, including some kind of deal for Marc Rich -- all of this might be forgivable or it might assume a different proportion, David, if it wasn't for the fact that this woman doesn't really have any foreign policy experience worth mentioning. And what is memorable about it is pretty bad. We all remember, or we should, that when Les Aspin had then got the Clinton administration very nearly to do something about the horror in the Balkans that belatedly the Clinton administration did decide to stop -- the Clinton-Gore administration -- they delayed it because Hillary said, "No, no, don't do it, it will take away attention from my brilliant, wonderful health care program" that we all remember so well. At least on health care, she knows enough about the subject to have really changed American health care for the worse in her time. But foreign policy, she -- GREGORY: And yet -- HITCHENS: About foreign policy, she doesn't even know that much. From the November 19 edition of CNN's Larry King Live: LARRY KING (host): Christopher, if she takes the job, does that end her presidential ambitions? HITCHENS: No. I mean, I actually agree with what Tom Friedman said. It must be very nerve-racking if you're a president to have a secretary of state who you know is thinking about four years ahead or maybe eight all the time. She never thinks about anything else, never has thought about anything else, except the possibility that she might one day be president of the United States. Wasn't even a team player in her own husband's administration. Remember, when Les Aspin wanted to do something finally about Sarajevo and the rape of Bosnia, Hillary Clinton said, "No, I don't want you intervening. You'll get in the way of my health-care plan," which you remember worked out so brilliantly. Someone who simply cannot think about anything but her own ego, or sometimes, her husband's, but who -- if Barack Obama does this to himself, he'll never have a minute's peace in foreign policy -- KING: Paul [Begala] -- HITCHENS: -- and neither will we. And every lobbyist and foreign policy interest group from China to Indonesia will be laughing -- KING: Paul, what do you make of that? HITCHENS: -- because they've got exactly the person they know listens to them.

Thousands protest in Iraq against U.S. troops pact

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Followers of Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr marched Friday against a pact letting U.S. forces stay in Iraq until 2011, toppling an effigy of President George W. Bush where U.S. troops once tore down a statue of Saddam Hussein.

Top judge: US and UK acted as 'vigilantes' in Iraq invasion

One of Britain's most authoritative judicial figures last night delivered a blistering attack on the invasion of Iraq, describing it as a serious violation of international law, and accusing Britain and the US of acting like a "world vigilante".Lord Bingham, in his first major speech since retiring as the senior law lord, rejected the then attorney general's defence of the 2003 invasion as fundamentally flawed.Contradicting head-on Lord Goldsmith's advice that the invasion was lawful, Bingham stated: "It was not plain that Iraq had failed to comply in a manner justifying resort to force and there were no strong factual grounds or hard evidence to show that it had." Adding his weight to the body of international legal opinion opposed to the invasion, Bingham said that to argue, as the British government had done, that Britain and the US could unilaterally decide that Iraq had broken UN resolutions "passes belief".Governments were bound by international law as much as by their domestic laws, he said. "The current ministerial code," he added "binding on British ministers, requires them as an overarching duty to 'comply with the law, including international law and treaty obligations'."The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats continue to press for an independent inquiry into the circumstances around the invasion. The government says an inquiry would be harmful while British troops are in Iraq. Ministers say most of the remaining 4,000 will leave by mid-2009.Addressing the British Institute of International and Comparative Law last night, Bingham said: "If I am right that the invasion of Iraq by the US, the UK, and some other states was unauthorised by the security council there was, of course, a serious violation of international law and the rule of law. "For the effect of acting unilaterally was to undermine the foundation on which the post-1945 consensus had been constructed: the prohibition of force (save in self-defence, or perhaps, to avert an impending humanitarian catastrophe) unless formally authorised by the nations of the world empowered to make collective decisions in the security council ..."The moment a state treated the rules of international law as binding on others but not on itself, the compact on which the law rested was broken, Bingham argued. Quoting a comment made by a leading academic lawyer, he added: "It is, as has been said, 'the difference between the role of world policeman and world vigilante'."Bingham said he had very recently provided an advance copy of his speech to Goldsmith and to Jack Straw, foreign secretary at the time of the invasion of Iraq. He told his audience he should make it plain they challenged his conclusions.Both men emphasised that point last night by intervening to defend their views as consistent with those held at the time of the invasion. Goldsmith said in a statement: "I stand by my advice of March 2003 that it was legal for Britain to take military action in Iraq. I would not have given that advice if it were not genuinely my view. Lord Bingham is entitled to his own legal perspective five years after the event." Goldsmith defended what is known as the "revival argument" - namely that Saddam Hussein had failed to comply with previous UN resolutions which could now take effect. Goldsmith added that Tony Blair had told him it was his "unequivocal view" that Iraq was in breach of its UN obligations to give up weapons of mass destruction.Straw said last night that he shared Goldsmith's view. He continued: "However controversial the view that military action was justified in international law it was our attorney general's view that it was lawful and that view was widely shared across the world."Bingham also criticised the post-invasion record of Britain as "an occupying power in Iraq". It is "sullied by a number of incidents, most notably the shameful beating to death of Mr Baha Mousa [a hotel receptionist] in Basra [in 2003]", he said.Such breaches of the law, however, were not the result of deliberate government policy and the rights of victims had been recognised, Bingham observed. He contrasted that with the "unilateral decisions of the US government" on issues such as the detention conditions in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.After referring to mistreatment of Iraqi detainees in Abu Ghraib, Bingham added: "Particularly disturbing to proponents of the rule of law is the cynical lack of concern for international legality among some top officials in the Bush administration."IraqUS foreign policyLawMilitaryForeign policyguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

AJC report on McCain appearance at Chambliss rally ignored his criticism of Chambliss' "disgraceful" 2002 ad

In a November 14 article, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that Sen. John McCain appeared at a rally the previous day in support of the re-election of Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA). But unlike articles about the event by The Associated Press, Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and USA Today, the Journal-Constitution article did not note that McCain previously reportedly criticized as "disgraceful" and "reprehensible" a campaign ad Chambliss used during his 2002 race against then-Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA). The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee highlighted McCain's comments in a web ad released November 11. Chambliss' 2002 ad featured images of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and asserted that Cleland -- a decorated Vietnam War veteran and triple amputee -- "says he has the courage to lead. But the record proves... Max Cleland is just misleading." In a July 3, 2003, article (accessed from the Nexis database), The Washington Post reported that McCain "denounced" the ad "[i]mmediately," and quoted his assertion: "I've never seen anything like that ad. ... Putting pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden next to a picture of a man who left three limbs on the battlefield -- it's worse than disgraceful, it's reprehensible." From the November 13 AP article: Democrats greeted McCain's arrival in Georgia with an Internet spot reviving remarks the Arizona senator made in condemning a tough ad Chambliss used in his 2002 campaign against Democratic Sen. Max Cleland, a triple amputee wounded in Vietnam. The ad questioned Cleland's national security credentials and flashed a picture of Osama bin Laden. "I've never seen anything like that ad," McCain, a Vietnam prisoner of war, said in 2003. "Putting pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden next to a picture of a man who left three limbs on the battlefield, it's worse than disgraceful, it's reprehensible." From the November 14 LA Times article: In a video released this week, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee reminded voters that McCain once criticized as "disgraceful" and "reprehensible" a 2002 Chambliss campaign ad that questioned the courage of then-opponent Max Cleland, a veteran who lost three limbs in Vietnam. From the November 13 NY Times article: The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is spending its money reminding voters of Mr. Chambliss's attack on former Senator Max Cleland, the Democratic incumbent he defeated in 2002. The advertisement, still bitterly remembered in Democratic circles, showed pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and criticized Mr. Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam, for voting against homeland security measures. At the time, Mr. McCain was among those who defended Mr. Cleland, as the Democratic campaign committee's advertisement points out: ''I've never seen anything like that ad,'' Mr. McCain said. ''It's worse than disgraceful. It's reprehensible.'' From the November 14 USA Today article: The Martin campaign is trying to remind Georgia voters of McCain's condemnation of a television ad Chambliss aired in his successful 2002 race against then-senator Max Cleland, D-Ga. The ad questioned the national security expertise of Cleland, a triple-amputee Vietnam War veteran, and used images of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. At the time, McCain called the ad "worse than disgraceful. It's reprehensible."

For Sale: Saddam Hussein's Luxury Yacht

Iraq to sell Saddam's 269-foot yacht after winning ownership court battle.

Saddam Hussein's opulent yacht to be sold by Iraqi government

Saddam Hussein's opulent yacht to be sold by the Iraqi government