Tim Ripley of the Scotsman addresses what it calls "much speculation in recent weeks that the Bush administration would have preferred it if Saddam was killed rather than captured, because of the danger of him revealing embarrassing details about his relationship with Washington and London during the Iran-Iraq war." Ripley seems to think it was more than speculation, because his story reports as a fact: "Ultimately, however, the need to have a tangible ‘prize’ to justify the controversial invasion of Iraq led both George Bush and Tony Blair to conclude that the Iraqi dictator needed to be captured alive."
Jim Lobe and Peyman Pejman in the Asia Times quote Jay Rockefeller, the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, as saying, "Given the location and circumstances of his capture, it makes clear that Saddam was not managing the insurgency, and that he had very little control or influence. ... That is significant and disturbing because it means the insurgents are not fighting for Saddam; they're fighting against the United States."
Rudolph Chimelli in the Süddeutsche Zeitung recalls that as an "admitted admirer of Stalin," Saddam "left a wide trail of blood during his three decades in power." He also recalls that after the Iranian Revolution of 1979, not only France but the United States saw Saddam as a secular leader who would be "a bulwark against what the West feared would be the spread of the Islamic revolution."
The Boston Globe notes that it's not yet known if anyone claimed the $25 million reward the US had offered for information leading to Saddam's capture.
No comments:
Post a Comment