Let me follow up on something I mentioned yesterday.
As I noted in last night’s lengthy post, I still don’t think we’ve seen a satisfactory explanation of just why Prime Minsiter Maliki was so intent on hanging Saddam as quickly as he did. According to CNN, when the Americans pressed for a short two week delay, And CNN, in a report on the website, said that when the Americans pushed for a short two week delay, “Al-Maliki and his aides rejected that … citing security concerns and rumors of possible violence swirling around the capital.”
Now, as I said last night, it’s a cryptic reference and it’s buried down in the piece. But it’s hard to think of a logical explanation for this rationale other than the thought that they feared someone was going to spring Saddam from his jail cell. I know that sounds ridiculous — especially when you consider that Saddam was held in US Army custody. But how else to make sense of this remark? What other sort of violence would make it necessary to execute Saddam quickly? Were they trying to defuse or appease some Shi’a unrest?
It’s a cryptic remark and with so many people making excuses it may not mean anything. It may just be a crock. But has anyone heard anything else like this? Any other news reports that have anything similar to what CNN reported?
Late Update: TPM Reader HS notes the following passage in today’s article in the Wall Street Journal …
Mr. Maliki wanted to leave nothing to chance. His mind raced through several scenarios, however improbable, that might have derailed the execution, says a close adviser who spoke with him. What if the Americans struck a secret deal sparing Mr. Hussein’s life in exchange for a halt to attacks against U.S. troops? What if the former dictator’s lawyers succeeded in blocking his hanging through U.S. courts? And finally, what if insurgents abducted a group of schoolchildren and threatened to kill them unless the hanging was canceled?
This stuff gets pretty weird pretty quickly. But I get the feeling that something this is what’s at the root of urgency. I think Maliki wanted to lock us in.
Of course, there’s another distinct possibility — that it’s Maliki who realizes that he’s not going to be around (or, given the country and danger of ambiguity, in government) for much longer. After all, the troop surge/escalation is to wipe out Sadr and his Mahdi Army, upon whose thugs and muscle Maliki seems to lean.
Even Later Update: Hangin’ at the same dinner parties? A couple TPM Readers alerted me to the fact that this schoolchildren hostage scenario showed up in a post Cliff May did at The Corner on New Year’s day …
Imagine that Saddam had not been executed. Imagine that he had been sentenced to life in prison.
Now imagine that a group of pro-Saddam terrorists seizes an elementary school. They say they will kill all the students and teachers if Saddam is not released within 24 hours.Should Saddam then be released? Or should several dozen innocent children and their teachers be killed?
Is it not better that we have guaranteed that it will never be necessary to make such a choice?
Hard to imagine both these guys imagining this one independently. What’s the backstory? Did someone in the US suggest this to the reporter? Is this in the chatter in the Green Zone? And doesn’t the scenario sound a bit more like something that might happen in the US rather than Iraq? Not to say it couldn’t of course. But I bet there’s a story behind this anecdote.
Of course, this does suggest the ultimate Bush White House explanation of why Saddam’s hanging had to happen right then … for children.
