Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
DE-RE-BAATHIFICATION.
"The [de-Baathification] law, celebrated by hard-line anti-Baathists and protested vigorously by Sunnis, is something like an Iraqi version of the 'Clean Skies Act,'" writes Alex Rossmiller. That's depressing, but true. Conservatives like Kristol are making a lot of hay of the fact that Iraq has passed something that is superficially designed to reverse the decision expelling all Baathists from the government. But wait! This law was the one supported by the most hardline, anti-Baathist groups. As Juan Cole says, "If the new law was good for ex-Baathists, then the ex-Baathists in parliament will have voted for it and praised it, right? And likely the Sadrists (hard line anti-Baath Shiites) and Kurds would be a little upset. Instead, parliament's version of this law was spearheaded by Sadrists, and the ex-Baathists in parliament criticized it." The law appears to have such provisions as preventing the reformation of the Baath Party, barring high-ranking officials from serving in government, and firing any who are currently serving.
Some reconciliation. As per usual, Cole has the fuller rundown, and you should read him. It's worth noting that this is the law William Kristol used to prove reconciliation yesterday, earning him a slapdown from the Times' editorial page and showing, again, that the Times thought they were particularly in need of an op-ed writer who would lie to their readership. Odd, that.
COMMENTS (3)
I believe that's the "Clear Skies Act", but we get the point. Good post I wish the traditional media would get the story straight, but I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by: Marvyt | January 15, 2008 1:08 PM
Maybe with the results of the Clear Skies Initiative, holding your breath would be a good idea.
Posted by: jmack | January 15, 2008 1:14 PM
...and showing, again, that the Times thought they were particularly in need of an op-ed writer who would lie to their readership. Odd, that.
Not terribly. William Safire was one of the original Times Op-Eddists. He had this remarkable ability to hold extreme conservative positions based on made-up facts--and never acknowledging that he'd ever been wrong or the facts untrue. In fact, he'd even insinuate that he'd been right, and everyone else wrong, and use that state of affairs as justification for making his next bold claim based on faulty logic and invented facts. In this way, he seemed to inhabit some sort of alternate universe. The effect of all this, for anyone who read Safire regularly, was to realize just how detached you'd have to be to hold the kind of extreme conservative positions that came to dominate the Republican party.
David Brooks, who was tapped as a potential replacement, is nothing like that, despite what his more intense critics say. Oh, sure, every once in a while he writes a column that was clearly inspired by the previous day's RNC talking points, but you can tell his heart isn't really in those. Brooks has his own weird blend of mild cultural/economic conservativism, mixed with a genuine desire for social equality that would find a far more comfortable home among conservative Dems. His association with Republicans is somewhat arbitrary in its origins.
I think the times wanted a real, dyed-in-the wool extreme conservate again, to repeat the effects of Safire. To that end, they absolutely would need an op-ed writer who would "lie to their readership." And no one would fit that bill better than Kristol.
Posted by: Adam | January 15, 2008 4:22 PM