...Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, Iraqi Minister of Information (currently on administrative leave): We Love the Iraqi Information Minister.
Posted by DeLong at April 11, 2003 01:42 PM | TrackBack
I really do hope we can bring this guy into court for something, just to listen to his defense of himself. "This is all lies! The lawyer cross-examining me is a ghost! It was all created by the cowardly American failures, and will disappear with the morning light! Your honor, I refuse to be cross-examined by this apparition!"
Posted by: David Kenner on April 11, 2003 02:20 PMSaeed al-Sahaf is almost as funny as Ari Fleischer.
Posted by: boban on April 11, 2003 02:40 PMM.S.S. Please bring us together!
Posted by: Dick Durata on April 11, 2003 04:04 PMI miss him.
Posted by: vachon on April 11, 2003 07:00 PMDear Ms. Crocker,
For months--nay, YEARS--you've been cooing about how baking this cakewalk for the likes of Exxon, Raytheon, Halliburton and Ariel Sharon would be almost as much fun as eating it...
"It's SO easy," you said.
"A few eggs, a cup kindness, a splash of oil, a dash of salt and a few minutes is All it takes," you said.
"Nothing could be simpler," you said.
"And it's good for you too," you said.
I want my money back...
Weighing the Price of Rebuilding Iraq
By THOMAS R. PICKERING and JAMES R. SCHLESINGER
"Baghdad has fallen, and the world's attention is turning to the rebuilding of Iraq. The United States has a vital interest in helping to create a stable, prosperous Iraqi government that renounces weapons of mass destruction and support for terrorism, does not threaten its neighbors and respects the rights of its people. Meeting this goal will require from the United States a multiyear, multibillion dollar commitment.
President Bush should continue and expand his efforts to explain the rationale for postwar American engagement in Iraq and to describe the extent of the required commitment. Financially, this could amount to about $20 billion annually for several years. Keeping 75,000 troops in Iraq will cost the United States about $17 billion a year, and reconstruction and humanitarian assistance could cost several billion more.
Some have suggested that Iraq's oil wealth can defray these costs. But much of that wealth has in recent years been allocated to the United Nations Oil for Food Program, which has sustained 60 percent of the population, and now oil revenues will again be needed to pay for food. Although increased oil production could yield more revenue, major increases are years (and many dollars) away. Moreover, those oil revenues cannot realistically be spent on supporting American troops; the United States will have to pay for the troops itself.
American objectives in rebuilding Iraq cannot be realized without public security. The experience of the Balkans and elsewhere has shown that the collapse of tyranny often unleashes violence, as security forces vanish and aggrieved groups settle scores. In Iraq, Kurdish, Shiite and other long-repressed groups may take it upon themselves to redress old injustices. And if the looting of recent days expands well beyond attacks against symbols of the former regime, Iraqis could begin to question the value of the American presence, and American goals could be put at risk. The United States military cannot take a hands-off approach to criminal acts, and should quickly deploy forces to cities and towns to prevent acts of reprisal and other lawlessness. The administration should also recruit constabulary forces from other governments to help maintain public order and begin to build a new Iraqi police force.
The involvement of the United Nations and its agencies like the World Food Program and the High Commission for Refugees would both lighten America's financial load and diminish the mistaken impression that the United States seeks to control postwar Iraq. It is possible for the United States to oversee security and civil administration in Iraq while giving the United Nations and other organizations significant roles in humanitarian aid, the development of a new government, Oil for Food, and reconstruction.
Finally, United States will have to ensure that Iraqis themselves are involved in the transition. Baathist leaders who served as instruments of the toppled regime's repression will have to be excluded, but otherwise Iraqis should continue to play key roles in the administration of government institutions. The quick resumption of basic services — communications, transport, sanitation — is essential and will require the work of thousands of civil servants. Every effort should also be made to promote Iraqi involvement in the transition to a new government, with Iraqis increasingly taking responsibility for governance. While returning exiles have a role to play in Iraq's future, the administration should continue to resist the temptation to anoint them alone as the new leadership. This would be undemocratic and could alienate important parts of the Iraqi population.
Peace-building can be extraordinarily complex. In Iraq, success will depend on America's willingness to adapt to changing circumstances and its determination to stay the course. The United States must commit substantial money and troops, ensure the active participation of other governments and international organizations, and involve the Iraqis in a process that meets their hopes for a brighter future.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/12/opinion/12PICK.html
I'm not sure exactly why, but I do find a certain grandeur of spirit in Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf's lies. Anyone can lie, but this man did it so blatantly, and so transparently, that it somehow went beyond simple dishonesty to some kind of prophetic lunacy. That sounds a bit weird, but it kinda reminds me of the last few minutes of Aguirre, the Wrath of God, where Aguirre is alone on the raft, talking about how he was going to conquer all of New Spain and how he would stage history and all that. He was so obviously wrong, and so obviously deluded, and so obviously doomed to fail, that it went beyond mere lying to himself. I feel a certain admiration for him (Aguirre and/or Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf).
That sounded like a bunch of utter jibberish. Oh well.
Posted by: Julian Elson on April 12, 2003 02:41 PMLive from New York it's Saturday Night live with guest host Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf
Musical guests The Dixie Chicks and special guest stars Donnie Rumsfeld reading from Chicken Little and news byRichard Mellon Scaife
Ahem. He's still a war criminal complicit with the Baghdad regime. He's known to have conspired to kill a local CNN crew in northern Iraq. Yes, he was very amusing, but get over it!
Jeez... can't have a light-hearted bit of fun about the guy anymore. I know most people here like to think of themselves as socially responsible activist types, but it can be taken too far, you know!
Also, check out David Kenner's blog.
Posted by: Julian Elson on April 13, 2003 03:16 PMSahhaf was a genius whose immense talent was wasted because of the Iraqi regime [grin]
IMO, this is another reason to look forward to worldwide freedom and liberation, for oppressed peoples, wherever they may be (Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan… )
Because, in such a world, future Sahhafs will finally get a chance to utilize their God-given talent to the fullest extent possible, for the benefit of all humanity, rather than squandering it on mere piffle like Sahhaf did.
To me, Sahhaf’s true calling was sell-side research.
Here was a man surely destined to become the “mother of all equity analysts”.
His skills (sic) would have left even such worthies as Henry Blodget, Anthony Noto and Mary Meeker in the shade.
But it wasn’t meant to be [sigh]
Poor Sahhaf!
Wrong place, wrong time
To be honest, I think that concentrating on the fact that what he was saying was blatantly untrue misses the point. The impressive thing really was the way he said it.
So take a look at the following two quotes:
>>My feelings - as usual - we will slaughter them all.
and
>>Our initial assessment is that they will all die.
I'm sorry, but these are just beautiful. The second one, in particular, combines the use of what looks like formal military jargon ("our initial assessment...") with the one continuation that you would never, ever, hear in a real briefing. It really is perfect. Honestly, it sounds like the answer to a Zen Koan...
where are you?
Posted by: abeid on April 22, 2003 05:32 PM