August 02, 2003


Some people just can’t be trusted:

The eldest daughter of Saddam Hussein, whose husband was killed on the orders of the ousted Iraqi president, on Friday accused close aides to her father of betraying him and helping U.S. forces capture Baghdad.

"It was a big shock. It was clear, unfortunately the people who he had absolutely I understood, the main betrayal was by them," Raghd, 36, told Al Arabiya television in an interview in Jordan where she, her sister Rana, 34, and their nine children were given asylum.

"This is an act of treason. If somebody doesn't like you, they should not betray you. Betrayal is not a trait of Arabs," added Raghd, clad in black and a white veil in a sign of mourning.

Maybe she’s a Collingwood supporter. What’s to mourn, Raggie? We’ve beaten Carlton twice this year, the first time since 1990. Go Pies!

Posted by Tim Blair at August 2, 2003 12:45 PM

"Betrayal is not a trait of the Arabs." What a load of crock! Every Arab leader seizes and maintains power by betraying his family and friends.

Posted by: Sam at August 2, 2003 at 12:57 PM

"Maybe she’s a Collingwood supporter."

Maybe she is a member of the axis of evil.....

Posted by: The Referee at August 2, 2003 at 01:25 PM

He killed her husband and she's whining about *him* being betrayed? Man, do these people have their women brainwashed or what?

Posted by: Glenn Slaven at August 2, 2003 at 01:37 PM

I also wondered how his daughters could love Saddam after he killed their husbands.

I noted no word was mentioned about any remorse for how the Iraqi people were treated by Saddam and his sons. Are they unaware of what their father and brothers did?

Wonder why one of these women didn't bother claiming the brothers' bodies? Don't they care about giving them a proper burial, etc..?

Posted by: Chris Josephson at August 2, 2003 at 04:19 PM

The AP report describe the daughters as being "viewed by many as victims" because their husbands were killed their father.

Lovely. They can't even condemn that.

Posted by: Andrew at August 2, 2003 at 04:19 PM

Chris, I heard that the daughters were the ones who enticed their husbands to return to Iraq, and then handed them over to Saddam for execution.

The fruit never falls far from the tree.

Posted by: Tatterdemalian at August 2, 2003 at 04:56 PM

What a name to call your daughter, Raghead.

Posted by: Edmund Burke at August 2, 2003 at 07:46 PM

Just finished the truly excellent BBC series "The Harem", focussing on life in, and the role of, the imperial harem on the Turkish Empire.

Each Sultan would have many sons, some as many as 19. Being first-born was not an automatic guarantee of ascension; favouritism among wives and concubines was at least as important.

However, once a son took the throne, he was REQUIRED BY TRADITION to kill (usually by strangling) all his brothers. It did not matter what their ages were.

This was done out of long tradition, for the simple reason of preventing civil war. A surviving son/brother would provide a rallying point for pretenders to put forward.

I don't know if the Turks are considered "arabs", but given that the Ottoman Empire is the example often put forward for arab pride, it seems there is a long tradition of betrayal in exremis.

Posted by: Paul Wright at August 2, 2003 at 07:49 PM

Turks are most definately not Arabs.

Posted by: Ataturk at August 2, 2003 at 11:13 PM

And European kings never killed their fathers, brothers, sisters, nephews.....

Posted by: craig at August 2, 2003 at 11:26 PM

And your point is, Craig?

Posted by: Andrea Harris at August 3, 2003 at 03:40 AM

It's harsh, but I'd extirpate the entire bloodline. Just get 'em in a cellar somewhere and put a bullet in the napes of their necks. Daughters, grandchildren, nephews - the whole lousy bunch. Do what the Bolsheviks did to the Tsar et al. Otherwise we're just allowing another focal point to develop. Monstrous? Yup. But possibly preferable in the long run.

Posted by: David Gillies at August 3, 2003 at 04:04 AM

Dig deep. Not an apologists here. But, she didn't accuse close aides of betraying her father. If challenged with beer and one hundred dollars, I'll find the direct qoute. What she said was, to paraphrase, "as I have seen in the newspapers, my father was.....". More Gilligans Islands, going on here. As Churchill said..."Rumor is halfway around the world, before truth has even put it's pants on." Or something like that.

BTW, notice the lack of attribution qoutes to her statement.

Media: I'll filter truth, so that you may know what is.
Me: Fuck ya

Posted by: gimpy at August 3, 2003 at 09:22 AM

She's lucky Uday didn't feed her to his lions after he finished off her husband. Instead of which, she and her sister are now sponging off the Jordanian royal family, who are supported by the US taxpayer: your taxes at work.

Posted by: Rob (No 1) at August 3, 2003 at 02:33 PM

I think the most disgusting thing out of all of this is the softball treatment these beehortches got from CNN ... the sympathetic interviewing style, painting them as sufferring innocents, mainly because they are women. Women who happen to support a father responsible for the 60+ mass graves found in Iraq ...

Not to mention, I was watching a special (also on CNN) that was a biography of Uday and Qusay, and it talked about how all the kids in the family were raised without decorum and rules, and had incredible power to match. A reference to one of the Saddam daughters was an anecdote about how she threatened "I'll have your vagina cut out!" to a teacher who displeased her.

Far cry from the soft lighting and even softer questions on CNN.

Posted by: Bill at August 4, 2003 at 04:51 AM

'What a load of crock!'

Well said, Sam. I just love that expression.

Posted by: pooh at August 4, 2003 at 12:30 PM