In Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s opening statement to Wednesday’s Senate hearing on the Iraq war, she referred more than once to a letter from Ayman al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi that is widely thought to be a forgery, although U.S. intelligence maintains it is real. (The same U.S. intelligence, one presumes, that claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.) And this letter, Ms. Rice seems to suggest, shows that the insurgency is in some trouble. Indeed.
Ms. Rice refused, when questioned, to rule out further military action in the region, perhaps against Syria. Senator Chafee naturally wondered whether President Bush would seek Congressional approval for any such moves, but the Secretary’s reply was that nothing should “circumscribe” the president’s powers as commander in chief. Not even the Constitution of the United States, presumably.
Secretary Rice also indicated that (for the first time) U.S. ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad is authorized to speak with “Iranian envoys” about how to stop insurgents from crossing over their border into Iraq. Iran’s foreign ministry, however, was quick to reject the overture unless the U.S. halts its “hostile” position towards Iran. Removing Iran from the ‘axis of evil’ might help, Madam Secretary, if we really want to talk with the Iranians.
Ms. Rice’s testimony coincided, probably not coincidentally, with the first day of Saddam Hussein’s trial in Baghdad; front page news throughout the world. Curiously, very few in the MSM have properly questioned why Saddam is being put on trial for a relatively obscure crime of vengeance in 1982, rather than for his far more genocidal activities. The official position is that this is the easiest case to pursue, although after more than two years of U.S. occupation one has to believe that both the U.S. government and the current Iraqi government have gathered plenty of evidence of his most heinous crimes. (Iran is already just a little pissed that Saddam may go to his grave without ever having to answer for his crimes against Iranian humanity.)
Perhaps the U.S. would rather Saddam be found guilty and quickly sentenced to death for his part in the murders of 143 people in the town of Dujail. Rather, that is, than find itself in the embarrassing position of having to explain in court the U.S. role in providing him with chemicals for his attacks on both Iranians and Kurds and the U.S. role in providing him intelligence (intelligence that allowed him to target his poison gas attacks on Iranian positions rather successfully) and arms in his war against Iran. Or rather than have to explain in court April Glaspie’s disastrous ambassadorship in Baghdad immediately prior to Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, and the first President Bush’s administration’s role in allowing Saddam, using military helicopters flying despite no-fly zones, to mercilessly crush a Shia insurgency in the aftermath of Iraq’s defeat in the first Gulf War.
Sorry, am I being too cynical?