A history-breaking, tyranny-shattering event -- but few in the sensationalist media have noticed it. Since the verdict, we've already heard a few talking heads sob about "Saddam as victim" and the court exacting "victors' vengeance." Though Iraqis ran the trial, the "Western judicial imperialism" charge is circulating among the usual media and academia suspects.
But this grand story is about belated justice, a justice once thought impossible to reach by the Iraqi people, who were Saddam's real victims. It's also about the slow, difficult birth of a democratic society in a region caught in the terrible ying-yang of tyrants and terrorists -- a nation moving from the whim of the Big Man and the fear of terrorist bombs to the rule of law and democratic polity.
I know, The New York Times and John Kerry have told us Iraq is a disaster. Not true. There's a democratically elected government in the potentially most powerful (predominantly) Arab Muslim nation, a government trying to learn to govern and administer under the most trying conditions. It's a government that is learning by doing -- and learning often by failure. However, as long as the United States and coalition remain around to coach, train and respond to crises, Iraqi failures will be controlled failures.
Yes, fostering the development of choice in the Middle East -- a choice other than tyranny or terror -- is a tough process.
On Tuesday, judges reconvened Saddam's trial for the murder of 185,000 Kurds in 1987-88. He'll be convicted of that mass crime, as well, because it happened and he ordered it.
But on Tuesday, the antics disappeared. Saddam told the court he wanted "reconciliation" in Iraq.
The offer could be a clever stratagem on Saddam's part. To whit, Saddam will "reconcile" Sunni and "former regime" holdouts if the Iraqi government lets him live. The problem with this potential deal is estimating how much sway he actually holds.
However, the opinion of the Iraqi people is the only one that matters, and I strongly suspect they favor hanging him high.