Opinion Focus

Washington Post opinion columnist Eugene Robinson was online Tuesday, Jan. 2, at 1 p.m. ET to discuss his recent columns and the latest news.

A Scaffold's Dark Portrait of Iraq, ( Post, Jan. 2)

The transcript follows.

____________________

Eugene Robinson: Happy New Year, everyone, and welcome to this inaugural chat of 2007. Today, as you know, Washington is focused on the funeral of President Ford. This morning's column, for reference, is about the cellphone video of Saddam Hussein's execution and what it says about present-day Iraq. And I'm sure other topics will spring up as well.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: Dear Mr. Robinson:

Greetings & Happy New Year! This is regarding article placement on the front page,Dec 31, 2006, Washington Post. I am so disappointed that an article about the passing of such a fine man as President Ford was placed directly next to an article about the execution of a monster. What were the editor's thinking? It is very offensive to me and the memory of President Ford. What is your take on this?

Thank you for your attention.

Eugene Robinson: We don't get to schedule the news, unfortunately. Those were clearly the big stories of the day, so they went on the front page.

_______________________

Richmond, Va.: Happy New Year, Mr. Robinson.

I am a bit perplexed about the so-called "shock" that the world is expressing over the events surrounding Hussein's hanging, and the video of it. It seems odd to single out this relatively simple execution (there was no torture -- a few "gotchas by the hangmen) when the country is in a brutal civil war with acts of savagery much more horrific than this hanging. What's the world saying about that?

Eugene Robinson: Happy New Year to you, too. I think one thing to keep in mind is that in Europe, Latin America and some other parts of the world, the very idea of capital punishment is anathema -- no matter how the execution is carried out or who's being executed. In this country, we assume that the moment of execution will be one of dignity. That may be too much to expect of Iraq, but it was what it was.

_______________________

Oklahoma City, Okla.: I have two real quick comments and would like your opinion of them. It seems to me that President Bush is more concerned about the legacy of his presidency than the welfare of the troops (My wife and I are two of them)or the GWOT. And it seems to me that if whenever he seems to be changing his mind on tactics or strategy VP Cheney reins him back in to make sure he "stays the course," so to speak.

Eugene Robinson: To speak to your second point first, I don't think President Bush needs Cheney or anyone else to convince him to stay the course. I think he firmly believes that he's right and everybody else is wrong about Iraq. Now that it has become clear that Iraq will still be a mess when he leaves office, he has begun to speak a lot about the judgment of history. I'm waiting for him to actually quote Fidel Castro's famous promise after his first attempt at revolution failed in 1953: "History will absolve me."

_______________________

Fort Washington, Pa.: Happy New Year:

Why do you think Pres Ford holding up his negative opinion of the Iraq War until his death has nor received more negative reaction? Not that his opinion could have stopped the war, but it could have changed the election or moved the impetus to a quicker end. Didn't he owe the soldiers who died since the Woodward interview more loyalty than the Republican Party?

Eugene Robinson: I guess I'm kind of contrarian on this issue, because I can see good reasons why former presidents might want to be cautious about publicly opposing a sitting president on such a big matter of foreign policy. You might ask what's the difference between making his views known while he's alive and allowing them to become public after his death, and I wouldn't be able to give you a good answer. But nothing about it feels terribly wrong to me.

_______________________

San Luis Obispo, Calif.: Eugene,

Good morning and Happy 2007.

Thanks for today's article about the execution of Saddam Hussein. I read about the execution with sick disappointment over the Iraqi government's overruling their own laws in their rush to execution and the taunting at the execution itself. It sounds more like tribal payback time than justice meted out to a tyrannical dictator, and it doesn't bode well for the minority rights of Sunnis under a Shiite-dominated democracy. It looks to me like one more "milestone" that doesn't show progress in ending the sectarian war in Iraq.

Eugene Robinson: Thanks. When you look back, there really wasn't ever any doubt about what would happen to Saddam Hussein once he was captured. The man was going to be executed. The only question was whether the deed would be done in a way that made the current situation in Iraq better or worse, and I fear it has made things worse. But we'll see.

_______________________

Hanover, Pa.: Regarding 'A Scaffold's Dark Portrait of Iraq.' Given the limitations of U.S. influence over any long-term outcome in Iraq, which version of Saddam do you believe will eventually dominate in his country? Do you think there will be just one popular version? How do you think the Kurds will view Saddam? Personally, I think our involvement in his execution has assured that he will receive much higher regard...perhaps unofficially...than he might otherwise have been given. Furthermore, I think our obvious involvement in his execution has in effect executed any remaining credibility of the U.S. backed Iraq government.

Eugene Robinson: Inside Iraq, Kurds and Shiites will always view Saddam as a monster, I am confident. It's possible that some Sunnis who otherwise would have cheered his death will now lament it. And Sunni Muslims in neighboring countries -- those countries that Saddam didn't invade, at least -- may see his execution as a conspiracy between the Americans and the Shiites.

_______________________

Gaithersburg, Md.: In a Dec. 21 interview with The Associated Press, Secretary of State Rice said the war was "worth the investment" in American lives and dollars.

Please tell me that the Secretary personally knows a family that has lost a family member in the war or that, if the war is worth the financial investment, she or others have willingly forgone tax breaks in order to better help the government finance the war. Or, for that matter, that any senior member of the administration knew a someone who lost a family member in the war, before that person before their family member died (and not as a result of a post-death meeting), or that any member of the administration has bought U.S. Savings Bond in the last decade (forget a War Bond), let alone willing forgo a tax reduction, in order that the money can support the U.S. effort.

Naive, aren't I?

Eugene Robinson: I'm afraid I don't know the answers to your questions. But, yes, naive.

_______________________

Burke, Va.: I've read reports that Mr. Bush is planning on giving a speech where he's going to call for sacrifice. What do you think he's planning on sacrificing? His tax cuts? Do you think he'll ask his daughters to serve? Or is sacrifice just for the little people.

Eugene Robinson: Obviously, the president isn't going to ship his daughters off to Iraq. This issue of sacrifice is one that I hear a lot about from readers these days, and it's one of the big points of dissonance between the way the president talks about the war and the way he has actually conducted it. If the future of freedom really does depend on the outcome in Iraq, then why did he send so few troops? Why didn't he give them adequate equipment? Why didn't he ask the nation to forgo a tax cut or two to pay for the war?

_______________________

New York City: It amazes me that these died in the wool Democrats always seem to lighten up on their vitriolic attacks against a Republican President. So many colleagues and pundits are now saying that Pres. Ford was a good guy and in retrospect he was correct to pardon Pres. Nixon. Also, so many Democrats speak so glowingly of Pres. G.H.W. Bush. Is this a game to Democrats? To attack mercilessly during an election, and then when the man is out of office to say, "Hey, is was not bad..." At least us Republicans can still point to the glaring deficiencies of both the Carter and Clinton presidencies.

Eugene Robinson: I don't speak for Democrats, but you've never heard me say that President Ford was right to pardon Nixon. But surely it's okay to acknowledge that Ford and Bush 41 were essentially decent men. As were Carter and Clinton.

_______________________

Charlottesville, Va.: Do you see a rupture between congressional Republicans and President Bush on the Iraq War? They have to run again in 2008, he doesn't. He knows that he will be judged on Iraq, if it's a failure, then he's a failed president. For congressional Republicans, Iraq might be a blip in a long political career. Or it might be the end of it.

Eugene Robinson: I think this will be one of the fascinating political stories of the year. Republican members of Congress heard the message from voters about Iraq, and some are still livid that the president waited until the day after the election to fire Donald Rumsfeld. You're now hearing some sharp criticism of Iraq policy from Republicans on the Hill. They have their eye on the calendar.

_______________________

Pittsburgh, Pa.: Do you think it possible that the U.S. turned out OK following Ford's pardon of Nixon not because of the pardon but IN SPITE of it? Might things have been better had Nixon gone through the legal process, so future presidents would have clearer guidelines for what constitutes in/appropriate conduct?

Eugene Robinson: Sure, it's possible. We'll never know. People forget that at the time, the pardon was seen by many people as an unbelievable outrage.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Do you really think that we will get a fully empowered Congressman to represent the District? Will we then be given Statehood? Looking at the people who run this District, do you really think we deserve this and have the capability to be a responsible voting member of Congress?

Eugene Robinson: I think it's an outrage that more than half a million Americans who happen to live in the District of Columbia have no voting representation in Congress. There's a bill in Congress now that would give the District a voting member of the House (and also add a House seat in Utah, thus ensuring no change in the balance of power between Republicans and Democrats). I don't know if this bill will make it through or not. I'm certain that statehood isn't coming anytime soon. And if the quality of elected officials were the criterion, I could suggest a lot of other jurisdictions that should be disenfranchised.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Why do short term historians (television and print media) not subscribe to the reality that hindsight is 20/20? It must be great to criticize someone else's decisions when you have seen the outcome.

Could we have sent more troops to Iraq?

Of course, but at the time that we committed to the war, most military and political leaders said the force was "small but potent."

Could we have avoided the war altogether?

Of course, but all of the intelligence, including from our allies, however flawed, led our leaders to conclude that invading Iraq would ultimately save lives and quell terrorist activity.

Let's not sit our our perch of reviewing recent history without considering the situations behind them. Writing history is much more than a review of events, it's an oratory of the people who mold and shape events under a set of circumstances. One of America's most beloved modern presidents, JFK, made one of the biggest foreign policy blunders of all time (Bay of Pigs), and his legacy has survived. The media MUST realize hindsight is 20/20 before condemning this president as a "discompasionate warmonger!!"

Eugene Robinson: Okay, but let's remember the whole history. Let's remember that many people opposed the war before it was launched, that many experts doubted the WMD intelligence, and that the attitude of most of our allies about the prospect of war ranged from deep skepticism to outright opposition. Let's also remember that Rumsfeld went into the Pentagon determined to overturn the Colin Powell "overwhelming force" doctrine that had prevailed in the first Gulf War, in favor of a smaller, lighter, more flexible force.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: Is it enough to be a decent man to be a good president? Jimmy Carter is a supremely decent man, but one who was ill-suited to the presidency. Franklin Roosevelt was one of our greatest president, but was also famously deceitful and manipulative. I'm sure that George W. Bush is a good friend, husband and father, but he has been a disaster.

Eugene Robinson: The answer is that no, it isn't enough to be a decent person to be a good president. I hope decency doesn't disqualify someone from being a good president, but it isn't nearly enough on its own.

_______________________

Dover, Del.: Have you read Joe Liebermans article, Why we Need More Troops In Iraq? What to you think of the article and 36 or 37 pages of comments on it? Thanks, and have a prosperous New Year, and...keep the great columns of yours coming!

Eugene Robinson: I read the op-ed but not the many pages of comments. I think Lieberman's position has been consistent, and it must be deeply held because it's not exactly popular these days. I think Lieberman is dead wrong, but at least there's a logical consistency to it that I don't see in advocating a "stay the course" strategy.

_______________________

Alpharetta, Ga.: You were on my favorite TV show on New Year's Eve. So, given the turn in sentiment, how do you think independents and moderate/liberal Republicans will feel about a "surge" should it occur?

Eugene Robinson: Many are already making clear that they don't like the idea at all. One of the many problems with sending more troops is that we don't have available enough troops to make a difference. "Surge" is a misleading term, because it implies a very short-term increase. But the consensus among military analysts seems to be that you'd need to add a lot more than 20,000 or 30,000 troops, and you'd have to keep them in Iraq for at least 18 months, maybe longer. Otherwise, you're just sacrificing more lives for a failed policy.

_______________________

Philadelphia, Pa.: Ford's motive re: his post-posthumous criticism of Iraq? Who knows, but maybe he was an astute enough political observer who, having watched Bush use Reagan's death as an opportunity to wrap himself in a predecessor's mantle, wanted to pre-empt another attempt. So, we hear Bush and Cheney talking about Ford's courage to run counter to public opinion in order to do the right thing -- as self-serving as one can be. But we now know what Ford really thought about Iraq and about this administration's strategy and conduct of the war.

Eugene Robinson: Good point. But President Bush is still attempting to claim at least one piece of Ford's legacy, inviting us to draw a parallel between Ford's unpopular pardon of Nixon and his own unpopular war in Iraq.

_______________________

New York City: You call Bush 41 a decent man - yet, my memory of your tirades against him say something different. Look in your archives!

Why can't you show more respect for the current President? IS it outrageous to say:

I, Eugene Robinson, a patriot who loves this country and would fight and die to protect her freedoms, must respectfully disagree with the policy of George Bush, our duly elected President of the United States of America....

Eugene Robinson: Uh, okay. Except that I wasn't writing a column when Bush 41 was president, so you're composing those archived "tirades" in your head. I ridicule Bush 43's policies when I think they are ridiculous.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Did you say that Clinton is basically as decent a man as Ford, Carter and Bush I?

If that's what you mean, could you please explain? The difference in the character of these men seems glaringly obvious to me.

Eugene Robinson: I said I believed they were all decent men, and I do. I didn't grade them on a scale.

_______________________

Charleston, S.C.: Mr Robinson,

Thanks for your insights. I was shocked at the malicious nature of the execution of Saddam. From what I have read in news accounts, this unit was supposed to have been specially trained for the purpose of this duty. Obviously, it turned out to be nothing more than a sectarian death squad. This cheapens the deserved punishment for this man and does a huge disservice to all his victims. It also enlightens us as to who is really controlling the Iraqi government. All the talk about the government being a puppet of the U.S. is hugely mistaken. The government is merely an arm of the radical Shia clerics. This was not only the execution of Saddam, it was a warning to Sunnis in Iraq. This showed the power of the Shia death squads and the clerics. Democracy and freedom were always a lofty goal for Iraq, this episode truly demonstrates that rule of law is a uniquely western ideal and will not work in the Middle East.

Eugene Robinson: I have to disagree on that last point. I don't believe that the rule of law will not work in the Middle East -- I'm not a cultural determinist. But I don't believe it can be imposed by an outside power at the point of a gun.

Thanks, everyone. See you again next week.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.