So, who was wrong about removing Saddam again?

Here is an interesting article by Christopher Hitchens. The following caught my eye:

On the morning that I received that note, the Washington Post carried a brief and heart-breaking report. It described a lawsuit, brought to the Baghdad District Court by a coalition of "civil society and human rights organizations." The suit demanded that elected Iraqi parliamentarians give back the salaries they have so far earned, and forego future payments, until they have overcome the paralyzing torpor that has deprived the country of the fruits of its hard-won right to vote. A short while ago, the same alliance of forces convinced the nation's Supreme Court to order the lawmakers to resume their negotiations.

I still have a tendency to rub my eyes when I read about this sort of thing, rather as I do when I read of Tariq Aziz's lawyers readying their appeal and meanwhile complaining about the prison conditions in which their client is being held. Citizens' groups approaching the courts; petitions about the seating of members of parliament; radio and TV networks disputing the issues and the outcome; millions of Iraqis joining the argument by way of cellphones and the Internet; Sunni and Shiite and secular parties competing for the allegiance of the Kurdish bloc in the assembly. … Do people understand the night-and-day difference that this involves?

Hitch, it's not that they don't know, it's that they don't care. Do you seriously think that people who wanted Saddam to remain and then to hand over Iraq to the likes of Al Qaeda and the Mahdi Army, give a damn about the people there?

UPDATE: Here is a particularly ripe example. Managing to be almost entirely wrong is not compensated for by an excess of malice.