![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tagrynSo I was in the airport in Cincinnati during a layover before getting my flight back to LAX, and they had CNN on the airport TV monitors. Wolf Blitzer was interviewing a guy who the bottom panel listed as "former Iraqi ambassador to the United States." First thought that crosses my mind - how former are we talking? Then they list his name again - Mohammed Aldouri, one of Saddam's guys.
Blitzer and Aldouri had a fairly cordial back and forth - Mr. Aldouri's English is excellent and he's very good at social repartee, as one would expect from a former ambassador. Apparently they had him on to comment on the UAE port debate, since he's spending his exile in the UAE as a guest (I guess what qualifies as "relevant experience" isn't what it used to be). He demurred when asked if he was still loyal to Saddam (i.e. that's a yes). He said that since the U.S. presence in Iraq was illegal, and Saddam was captured by the U.S., he should be set free. The part that got me was where Aldouri said "Also, I am, you know my position is clear. I am against the occupation. I am against those who are working with the occupation. I want a real democracy in Iraq, a real election, a real election government so the Iraqi people can live peacefully and not as -- it is a state of chaos."
OK. So Aldouri was, *best* case, a lackey of Saddam's, and was probably considerably more than that to get a post like ambassador to the U.S. He's clearly still sympathetic to Saddam, was well-placed in the Ba'ath party, and in all likelihood knew in detail about things like the Anfal genocide campaign against the Kurds, but I'm to believe that if only the U.S. would withdraw, he and the Ba'ath would be the biggest supporters of Iraqi democracy?
Right.
My mood was not helped by a commercial that ran right after, featuring CNN's Christiane Amanpour touting how CNN always goes after the tough stories, regardless of whether its popular or not. I'd like to see her reconcile that with former CNN chief Eason Jordan's admission that the network suppressed stories about Saddam's oppression in order to maintain the good will of the regime.
Blitzer and Aldouri had a fairly cordial back and forth - Mr. Aldouri's English is excellent and he's very good at social repartee, as one would expect from a former ambassador. Apparently they had him on to comment on the UAE port debate, since he's spending his exile in the UAE as a guest (I guess what qualifies as "relevant experience" isn't what it used to be). He demurred when asked if he was still loyal to Saddam (i.e. that's a yes). He said that since the U.S. presence in Iraq was illegal, and Saddam was captured by the U.S., he should be set free. The part that got me was where Aldouri said "Also, I am, you know my position is clear. I am against the occupation. I am against those who are working with the occupation. I want a real democracy in Iraq, a real election, a real election government so the Iraqi people can live peacefully and not as -- it is a state of chaos."
OK. So Aldouri was, *best* case, a lackey of Saddam's, and was probably considerably more than that to get a post like ambassador to the U.S. He's clearly still sympathetic to Saddam, was well-placed in the Ba'ath party, and in all likelihood knew in detail about things like the Anfal genocide campaign against the Kurds, but I'm to believe that if only the U.S. would withdraw, he and the Ba'ath would be the biggest supporters of Iraqi democracy?
Right.
My mood was not helped by a commercial that ran right after, featuring CNN's Christiane Amanpour touting how CNN always goes after the tough stories, regardless of whether its popular or not. I'd like to see her reconcile that with former CNN chief Eason Jordan's admission that the network suppressed stories about Saddam's oppression in order to maintain the good will of the regime.
