Les Jones

News > Saddam Captured

SayUncle's take on what this means for the Democrats. I'd add a couple of claims to his list ("There were no WMDs!" and "Saddam wasn't linked to Al Qaeda!") that may be proven wrong before the 2004 election. (They've arguably been mis-proven already, but not convincingly enough.) Having Saddam in chains means that any facts will appear sooner, both because Saddam himself will supply some of the facts, and because some people who were afraid to talk won't be afraid any more.

The Blogfather on the possible ends that Saddam Hussein could have come to:

On the other hand, we're confronted with the question of what to do with Saddam. I've thought about this before, and the options seemed to break down this way: (1) Shoot him out of hand. Appealing for a variety of reasons, but not really our style, and obviously we decided against it. (2) Try him for war crimes ourselves. Potentially messy, and perhaps looking a bit imperialistic to some. (3) Turn him over to the Iraqis and let them try him.

The last is the most appealing for a variety of reasons, as long as we make sure that the process isn't in the hands of covert Saddam loyalists, which shouldn't be hard. On the other hand, he's likely to have some value in terms of information and cooperation, which might encourage people to want to cut a deal with him. That's tricky: He's a dreadful guy who deserves to be executed, probably via a plastic-shredder or some similar method, in light of his crimes. (A Mussolini-style ending probably would have been best, in my opinion). But he may offer enough to make his cooperation worthwhile, though letting him live, or go into exile (where would he go?) seems troublesome too, and offers him the possibility for future mischief.

Saddam should face the possibility of the death sentence if for no other reason than to give the U.S. a position of strength from which to negotiate. With a capital sentence on the table, Saddam is more likely to give up his secrets. There are lots of things we'd like to know: where has he been hiding, where are the WMDs, and traded with him during the long UN embargo?

Jeff Jarvis is all over the story, and is watching the reaction of the anti-Bush "Coalition of the Pissy." Follow that link and scroll around. I especially like his reaction to Howard Dean's suggestion that the UN needs to be brought in:

Damnit, the UN didn't capture Saddam. Old Europe did not capture Saddam. NATO did not capture Saddam. The coalition did. The American label is on this war. Proudly. We got rid of a tyrant and murderer. And now we are about the hard work of bringing security to Iraq and rebuilding the nation and creating a democracy. We're not going to cut and run.

Or as VodkaPundit summarized Howard Dean: "We're doing so well, we should turn it over to people who won't do so well."

Contrast Dean's reaction with Joe Lieberman's reaction:

My first reaction? Hallelujah! Praise the Lord!... This is a day of glory for the American military... This is a day of triump for anyone in the world who cares about human rights and cares about peace.

LATER: TruthLaidBear asks a good question: will the people who said this war was wrong or illegal now say that we should put Saddam back in power?