Why the rush on Saddam? Here's why!

A few days ago, I wondered aloud in this space why the rush to off Saddam, when it is so crucial that the extent of his criminal activity be made clear to everyone in Iraq? Peter Galbraith, who investigated one of the most heinous of Saddam's crimes, gives us one very good reason in today's Boston Globe. If Saddam were to stand trial for the massacre of the Kurds, things could get uncomfortable for some of the architects of the Iraq war. Galbraith explains:

"The Kurdish trial also promised to shed light on a deeply amoral period in western diplomacy where the major powers, including the United States, chose to overlook genocide for strategic and economic reasons. According to his former foreign minister, Tariq Azziz, Saddam apparently intended to make an issue of western support in his trial. This could also have been awkward for some in the current administration. While serving in the Reagan or Bush administrations, some of the principals of the current war -- including Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell -- played down the significance of Iraq's use of poison gas, including, in the case of Powell, against the Kurds. And months after the 1988 gas attacks on the Kurds, the current president's father -- with the apparent support of his defense secretary, Richard Cheney -- doubled US financial assistance to Iraq."

I don't think the American public knows nearly enough about the extent to which their tax dollars supported Saddam back in the day. Without Saddam, it will be much harder for them to find out. I think I'm on the verge of an epiphany here...