And he thought it was hot in Iraq!

Sorry; should have been spelled Saddam.

I am ill at this news, seriously. It makes me very uneasy.

No, no, I don't give a rat's ass about Saddam Hussein's life - he should have suffered way more actually.

What I care about is the dangerous precedent that has been set: the United States can invade any country it wants, topple the government, and have the leader executed. No matter how evil and awful the guy was (and Saddam surely was evil), I don't think he should have been executed. I have a bad, bad feeling about this. It's just not...American.

Andrew

Andrew, Yes, we toppled his regime, but he was tried by Iraqi's and found guilty in an Iraqi Court of Law.

I agree with the suffering part!

What I'm uneasy about is what the wacos will do as retaliation. Those people (the radicals, not all of Islam) don't care about human life, theirs or ours.

We'll have to watch and see.

Im happy that the guy has been hanged. I hope he frys in hell.
THe only thing Im slightly worried about is IRAQi citizens, they are not safe, infact in extreme danger.

What I care about is the dangerous precedent that has been set: the United States can invade any country it wants, topple the government, and have the leader executed.

Unfortunately, it's not the first time we've run that plan in other countries.

I'm sorry but anyone who thinks the Iraqi government decided all on their own what to do with Saddam is a tad naive. Do you think had they found him innocent and released him that the US would have simply gone along? Of course not. The Iraqis were allowed to execute Saddam only because the US allowed and condoned it.

What if the Chinese invades Taiwan, and after they install a "free" government the new Taiwan government executes the former president? Are we going to be happy about that? The Chinese can use the same arguments we have to justify their actions.

Andrew

And you know darn well that the world, with us as the bandleader, would condemn China and their actions and place sanctions and the like on them.

Hey, that's why you guys love the pathetic UN so much.

But Saddam even lost there, too.

What would the left have had us do about Hitler? After all, who are we to impose ourselves on anyone who takes issue with Herr Schickelgruber's concerns about the German-speaking Sudetenland, Poland and borders with France from WWI?

Herb

From a New York Times story about the hanging:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/30/world/middleeast/30hussein.html?hp&ex=11675412 00&en=adda570db73a7e34&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Mr. Hussein, in handcuffs, was given to the Iraqis by American troops. The Iraqis led him from his cell to a judge’s chamber and then to an execution room

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki was still conferring with American officials late Friday night to work out the timing and resolve key details, like what to do with Mr. Hussein’s body, a Western official said.

Does that sound like Iraqis were able to do this all on their own??? Don't kid yourself.

Andrew

I take back what I wrote earlier.

Killing him was wrong.

Think about it. Bush lied to get into that war, no WMDs = no threat = no solid justification! Saddam actually told the truth on that front, Bush didn't.

Killed by a tribunal too. Several elements of due process missing.

The worst bit?

His death will not change a damn thing.

Posters on this board hand-wringing about Mr. Saddam's lack of due proces..

He had FAR more than he EVER gave his subjects.

You can't make this stuff up.

Spin on.

Herb

Somehow, I just new the Saddam supporters would come out of the woodwork when he was hanged.

The hand-wringing is over hypocrites who say we're spreading democracy, when the truth is both completely opposite ... and completely obvious.

Deane, please don't stoop yourself down to Wayne's level and start painting everyone "Saddam Supporters."

I agree that Saddam Hussein deserved to die for what he did. I am a huge proponent of Capital Punishment personally.

I do think the Middle East will EVENTUALLY be better off without Saddam. His Iranian neighbors are gleeing right about now. I imagine that our Jewish friends are breathing a sigh of relief as well.

I DO believe that he was given due process, and obviously his day (or a year and a half) in court. It can be said that he got more of a fair shake than the folks in Nuremberg did some 60 years ago.

That said, Andrew has a very valid point. Comparing this to Hitler's situation, as Herb did, is a bit outlandish. Hitler would have been executed because **HE** started the war. **HE** invaded Poland, France, the USSR, the Baltics, the Balkans, most of Europe and a chunk of North Africa. **HE** is the one who declared war on the United States. This was a LEGITIMATE war, folks. He would have died for his war crimes involving genocide, yes, but this was a war of **HIS** starting.

Saddam Hussein was removed from power under false (and changing) pretenses. He was charged, convicted, and executed on charges of mass-killing his OWN people, yes. That said, was it right for the Bush administration to invade Iraq, find, and eventually execute Saddam Hussein unprovoked? Especially when the reasoning given for the initial invasion proved to be WRONG? With the rest of the world almost unilaterally condemning the actions of our administration? And WHY FOR? Well, simple. Dubya had to get payback for Saddam putting a price tag on his father's head, so he invaded and had him executed. (Yes, I do truly believe that.)

If you want to call me a Saddam supporter Deane, go right ahead. It's just ... WRONG, IMO ... to dictate foreign policy like this.

Herb, what would have Nixon done? I GUARANTEE he wouldn't have invaded, and if he HAD I guarantee this would not have happened like this.

Spin THAT.

Thanks, Deane, I knew I could count on you to interpret my comment that "I don't give a rat's ass about Saddam Hussein's life - he should have suffered way more" to show my support for him! Thanks missing my point once again, on purpose or by accident.

Andrew

Thanks Deane you were right on cue.
We all know why MOST Americans don't support your views in America anymore.
Herb..
Thanks again for ATTACKING EVERYONE!

Comparing this to Hitler's situation.....

Yup, comparing just about anything to Hitler is extreme. There's always a better way to make your point than to push the Hitler Button!

Herb said>>>
What would the left have had us do about Hitler?

While the EXTREME right would have embraced his kill everyone but us attitude, I think the left would have put him on trial in Nuremberg just like the rest of the assholes that helped KILL over 6 million people!

>>>"We all know why MOST Americans don't support your views in America anymore."

Unfortunately, there are many of these people, but certainly not most. I don't know why the terrorists want to get their hands dirty messing with us, the liberals in the country are doing quite a good job slowly destroying America from within.

It won't belong until this "we love everybody, appeasement works" attitude will do us in. Flower Power lives.

I'm also very uneasy about saddam's execution. I'd sleep better if we had found WMDs -- the reason we went over there in the first place.

If Saddam was tried in the United States, he'd get off on a technicality because of fabricated evidence and couldn't be charged for earlier crimes, no matter how brutal.

Bush has smeared the reputation of the United States around the world for selfish reasons. As an American this is a low point for me. Far lower than the Watergate thing or the Monica thing. We now deserve all the sh*t that is gonna be tossed out way from people around the world.

I gotta say, even though it was the right thing to do, it still bothered me. All of it. The reasons, the method, the seeing it - all seemingly justified. Frankly, I don't WANT to be the kind of person that is happy about all of it. I'm GLAD I'm bothered by it.

Other things bother me too - so I think I can keep it in perspective and give it proper weight.

It makes me feel, well, better than him. And maybe I am.

Hitler would have been executed because **HE** started the war.

Guess what, lefties?

Saddam INVADED KUWAIT, one of our allies and trading partners.

Learn your history. You don't even have to go back to '39.

Herb

Damn, aren't you confused, Herb! Saddam wasn't executed for invading Kuwait, now, was he? It still comes down to America invading a country on false pretenses, arresting the leader, and having him executed. This is something that Stalin or Hitler would have done, not something I am proud that the United States of America would do. Honestly, I don't think Nixon would have done it, either.

It's the WMD's that gets me. The rest of it is not so much of a big deal.

But, this execution is the direct result of us engaging in an unjustfied war.

Herb spinning again>>>>
Saddam INVADED KUWAIT...

And we kicked his ass and got him out!!! That WAS wrong but did he invade someone this time???? NOPE!!!

Deane Johnson says ...
It won't belong until this "we love everybody, appeasement works" attitude will do us in. Flower Power lives.

There is a huge grey area between following the guy in the White house ... and appeasement.

Personally, I live in that grey area. There are bad guys out there who would like to get us, and we need to start being smart about that.

To get smart, we need to see the difference between evil people who are checkmated, or aren't an immediate threat (ie, Saddam when he was in power), and those people who really are dangerous (small bands of terrorists who can get across our borders from all over the world, and kill Americans).

No evidence yet that our current administration has a clue. I would trust Mr. Giuliani, Mr. McCain, or even Ms. Clinton before putting much faith in the Bush-Cheney crowd.

No, Trixter.

He was ALSO VIOLATING UN SANCTIONS AND SHOOTING AT OUR GUYS IN THE NO-FLY ZONE.

Oh, by the way. Mr. Kerry voted for the resolution to go after Saddam...or was that after he voted against it? Flip flop.

Spin all that.

Herbert Milhous Nixon III

Explain your throbbing hard on for John Kerry, please. This is the 4th unrelated thread in about 2 weeks in which you've brought him up.

It's the hair and the Chin.

Well at least Herb is getting closer to the PRESENT when talking about our CURRENT situations. I like that.

How long will it be before someone starts in with the conspiracy theories ( The video was doctored, Saddam is still alive and is a DJ at KINK, etc. )?

KINK....I thought I heard him on KUFO today!!!!
It was right after Elvis went on and just before that 10 minute span of dead air!!

"lefties" again? time to bring out the troll label and use it. He's apparently is more interested in hurling out generalizations and distracting us from the topic.

Herb, when's the last time UN sanctions included hanging someone??? You're badly off-base and out of touch on this one, no offense. Either that, or your true totalitarian colors are shining through in admiration of the type of action Hitler and Stalin used routinely. The fact that the United States would do it is revolting to me, no matter how evil the perpetrator.

Andrew

Herb...
DUHbya was going to Iraq for WMD's and then he was going after Sodomy....

BIGGEST FLIP FLOP OF ALL TIME! And HE started a war on a FLIP FLOP...


SPIN ON SPINSTER!

The US didn't hang anyone. He was tried by the Iraqi's in an Iraqi court under Iraqi law. He was hanged by the Iraqi's. The US guarded him through the entire process because of the danger of either escape, or an attempt on his life. He was turned over to the Iraqi's for the hanging. It was carried out by Iraqi's on a timetable established by Iraqi law.

Uh huh. And what do you suppose the US would have done had this Iraqi court found Saddam innocent and released him? Given him a new suit and $50 and let him go? Of course not. We let the Iraqis execute him because that's what the Bush administration wanted to happen. Please don't be so naive to think that the US-installed government in Iraq acted solely on its own.

Andrew

Did you see the story in the Sunday O? Seems our financial investment in this trial is more than the Iraqi one. Seems we built the courthouse!

There is more than a casual suggestion that we had significant involement with that whole process. It's not just an Iraqi thing.

>>>"what do you suppose the US would have done had this Iraqi court found Saddam innocent and released him?"

We would have done nothing. He had something like 19 more trials to go. If he were found innocent in all 19 of them, we would have done nothing. By the way, he'd last about 20 minutes after he was released.

>>>"Please don't be so naive to think that the US-installed government in Iraq acted solely on its own."

I thought the government was elected by the Iraqi's after they had voted on the constitution written by the Iraqi's. Since we don't like the constitution too well due to it's religious base, it's hard to make it look like it's our doing.

>>>"Seems we built the courthouse!"

We're building a lot of the infrastructure. Who'd you think would build it, Bin Laden?


Andrew and Missing, you're both fairly intelligent and thoughtful. Why is the bullshit flowing so freely tonight?

Maybe you should tell us why the bullshit is flowing tonight, Deane - better to ask the source.

Andrew

Can you point to one scintilla of evidence that what you say is true? Or, are we just dealing with anti-Bush rhetoric once again?

Well, here is the story online. The Boston Globe is running a different headline than the O is, but the content appears to be the same at first glance.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/12/29/critics_say_us_o rchestrated_death_sentence/?p1=MEWell_Pos5

Regarding anti-Bush rhetoric, no need for that. I'm sold already. The guy has earned no respect or credence from me. My concern with this really boils down to world perception and how that will impact our position in the future.

We really don't have the high ground in this, given our justification was false at the start. Seeing a story like this only adds fuel to the fire. Frankly, it's worrysome:

---

quote:

This is perceived as an American-dominated process," said Nehal Bhuta, an assistant law professor at the University of Toronto, who observed part of the trial for Human Rights Watch.

US officials say they asked the United Nations, the European Union and a host of countries to assist with the tribunal, but they all refused because they opposed the tribunal's use of the death penalty _ and the US decision to invade Iraq.

Pierre-Richard Prosper, former US assistant secretary of state for war crimes who played a key role in setting up the tribunal, said he approached other countries to take charge of witness protection, the exhumation of graves or judges training. Only Britain and Australia agreed to assist.

"At the time, everybody was saying, 'this is too American.' But it was American by default," he said. "I wanted to dilute the American role.

---

See above, Deane, my quotes from the NYTimes story. al-Maliki for example was calling the US asking how he should handle the Saddam execution - surely NOT the behavior of an independent government.

Notice how there was not a peep of protest about the Saddam execution from the Bush admin?

You can deny it all you want, Deane - the rest of the world is well aware that the US basically had this guy executed. The US was the muscle behind the Iraqi government - that's why we had to guard him.

If a mob boss has his goons hold you down and lets some other guy in the neighborhood they know who doesn't like you come over and beat the crap out of you, are you saying it's all the fault of the guy who beat you up and none of the goons or the boss? That's what you're saying here - the powerless Iraqi government did this all on their own. Bullshit.

Andrew

The cruelty of Saddam's history as a ruler is unfathomable, so in that respect, I would say that death serves him right. However, I think that the fate of what would happen in Iraq was sealed once Saddam was taken out of power. Violent supporters of Saddam and wannabes are out there, and it has proven impossible to catch them all. These guys are going to commit terrorist acts, using any excuse they can. Saddam, dead, is now a martyr to them. If Saddam had been sentenced to life in prison, he would have been a political prisoner to them. If Saddam had been set free, he would likely have been assassinated, and his supporters would have concocted various conspiracy theories placing the blame on the U.S., regardless of who the real killer was.

I'm ok with that too. Could not have happened to a nicer guy, but that's not the greater point.

You are quite right about his status now. There is no good path for us here, because we started the whole thing without justification.

Re: Our global position / reputation
http://cnnexposed.com/story.php?story=30

What you guys are doing is linking to opinions expressed by liberal writers in liberal publications. Proves nothing. They simply have the same viewpoint as you do.

Let's try it another way then.

What did Saddams death get us that's good! List the bennies for me. Maybe if there are enough of them, the ends can justify the means.

Edit: I'm not sure that's right either... So the dilemma here then is the writer bias? What do we do, add up the number and the noisier one wins?

Maybe it's a needle in the haystack kind of thing and we need to locate the one really objective guy, that nobody ever publishes because his ratings suck, manage to agree on that and take his words as truth then?

Saddam is gone, and that's probably a net good. I don't see much in the way of that.

The issue comes back down to us essentially not having the high ground --and us working really hard to make this all happen, on an unjust platform.

Saddam being gone might be the best thing we've done, but if world perception sees it as some self-serving thing, which a lot of the world does or we would have seen far more help on the tribunal and in our war efforts, then the good we did is seriously devalued.

Bias or not, that's out there.

A whole lot of people are asking where was the threat? They are now asking if we are just gonna do this to every little nation we don't like, for one reason or another. It's not as if we actually have to justify invading now do we?

We are known to just invade and let the results speak for themselves. The results in this one to date:

-installed islamic republic government, in place of secular one that kept multi-sect fighting at bay, granted the means were brutal though
-failure to establish a level of security that permits solid quality of life
-inhibition of oil production
-lots of dead people
-big bill and debt to go with it
-instability in the region in general
-breeding ground for potential terrorists that didn't exist prior to this mess
-devaluation of national currency (debt and multi-national movement away from petrodollar)
-conviction of our forces torturing people
-legislation to redefine said torture and imprisonment, sans due process, habius, etc...
-diminished relations with a lot of nations
-failure to establish proposed link between Saddam and 9/11
-diversion of forces indended to capture and bring justice to known 9/11 instigator: Bin Laden
-failure to demonstrate viable justification (Where are the WMD's we said were the reason for getting started?)

In the good column:

-we got saddam!
-multi-nationals eventually getting control of oil
-big ass boost to military industrial economy
-warm fuzzy for Bush family
-????

Got some more on this side of things? We really could use it.

>>>"What did Saddams death get us that's good!"

Irrelevant question. Saddam committed crimes against the Iraqi's. The Iraqi's charged him with those crimes. He was convicted and executed by the Iraqi's.

We don't need to get anything out of his death.

So we then just pass judgement as we see fit?

On a national level, we are the deciders?

Remember, we installed the government that drafted the law. Elections were held, but Iraqis didn't choose their potential leaders for the most part --they selected from lists we created. We funded the tribunal, built the court, and were involved with all the proceedings.

None of which would have happened had we actually been required to justify the whole thing in the first place. Where are the WMD's cited as the reason to invade Iraq Deane? That was the reason given before the UN. We have not met that burden yet.

Actually, if you step back and look Missing, you'll notice that your position has nothing to do with Saddam or the Iraqi government and how it came to be, it's all about your dislike of Bush. It's a sickness that clouds your thinking process on everything.

It has also hung over the Democrats nationally, but they are beginning to see the light and move on. You should also.

That's not the case at all.

I'm having a big problem with this all happening with no solid justification attached. This has denied us the high ground, making it very difficult to feel good about Iraq in general.

I would love to say, "great, that bastard Saddam is dead now. From now on it's gonna...."

And that's where it breaks down for me. I'm not mourning Saddam at all. He is a baddie and this whole affair could not have happened to a nicer guy. But I'm not getting the warm fuzzy on it.

Sell me. Where are the stories of victory? The impact on the world --the net good is what exactly?

What did we get that justfies invading on a lie? There has gotta be something, or we just hammered Iraq because we felt like it.

You are essentially telling me, that if I ignore a select set of known facts, I'll feel really good about Iraq. Please explain how this works.

Are there rules for what we are to ignore and what we consider valuable? Does some information not count because of what exactly?

I made a solid list of things above. Those are, for the most part, known things that are getting in the way of an Iraq warm fuzzy. Are those not a consideration? Why? Are they false? Why and how?

Bush is a known quantity. I personally think he should be held in low regard. But I've not expressed that here. What I've expressed is the results and how they really don't add up to that Iraq warm fuzzy. (Ok, a portion of it is aimed at "the decider", but overall it's not significant as none of those elements contribute to the core dilemma presented here.)

I'm open, but you gotta do better than, "You are just another anti-Bush person."

You clearly like the guy for his deeds in this whole affair. Ok, so sell me. Where's the upside? What am I --and a lot of other folks globally, missing that makes the difference?

We have sacrificed a whole lot for this. Dead Americans, lots of dead Iraqis, debt up the ass, etc...

To tell me we don't need to get anything out of this is really lame. There has got to be something you can point to that makes it all worth it. What is it, what could it be?

Bush invaded Iraq. He probably wishes now he hadn't, but I don't really know that. But the fact is, he did.

We're now at 2007 and have a given set of facts before us in the world. My interest is in how we move ahead from here, not what happened previously. It's done. I live for tomorrow, not yesterday.

We have a lot of problems facing us now and in the future. Mexicans and others pouring over the border, radical Muslims committed to destroying us and our way of life, Russia becoming more militant, China becoming a super, super power, and on and on. It really doesn't make sense to me that we wallow around in idealism. I'll leave that to the young and foolish on the left coast.

For these reasons, I couldn't care less what the flavor surrounding the hanging of Saddam is. He's just one more cockroach out of the way.

Deane, I can think for myself and I haven't really sampled anyone's opinion (beyond on this board) as to how they feel about Saddam's execution. For me, it has absolutely zero to do with my feelings about Bush. Saddam was a monster, but that doesn't mean it's OK for the United States to invade a country, arrest his leader, and see that he is executed. It still makes me ill. It's simply wrong, and it's something Hitler or Stalin would do, not the United States of America. I'd be just as appalled if Bill Clinton was in charge when this happened.

Of course, you haven't bothered to rebut the points we've made for the most part - you're just posting reactionary rhetoric without even considering what a few of us have been saying. Too bad.

Andrew

We simply have a different viewpoint which comes as no surprise to anyone, I'm sure.

I don't happen to think the US living in idealism will dissuade our enemies one bit. I think they respond only to being killed. Not my choice, it's theirs.

You're ignoring the UN's decisions against the guy.

You're also ignoring Saddam's shooting at our troops in the no-fly zone when the UN resolutions were enforced.

You're also conveniently ignoring the democrats who voted for the invasion of Iraq.

You're also ignoring that the intel we used was the same that the French, English and other NATO allies used.

I don't expect you to change your mind. You simply hate Mr. Bush too much.

Herb

Well, Herb, if you're not going to respond to my basic points about why I think executing Saddam was wrong, I'm not going to debate you on unrelated points. Have fun arguing with someone else!

Deane, I don't think there's any idealism involved in setting a good example for the world, that the United States should not invade countries on false pretenses (without UN saction), arrest the leader, and see the leader executed. It's just wrong. We did not execute the emperor of Japan after World War II, for crying out loud, and his country hit Pearl Harbor!!! We certainly could have had him executed - but the United States leadership after World War II saw things differently, I guess.

But, we have now set a new precedent for, for example, the Chinese, that it's OK to invade a country and have the leader executed if you can get away with it - and if we protest, they'll just shrug and point to what the US did in Iraq. To me, this is one of those things that could have profound consequences down the line, such as the way the US toppled the Democratically-elected Iranian government in 1953 and installed the Shah and his dictatorship. It took 25 years for the fruits of that action to spoil but eventually they did, and we are still dealing with them today in Iran.

Andrew

Ah yes, the conservatives yet one more time showing their ignorance on this site. Herb, you asked the question what would the left done about Hitler?

THE LEFT FOUGHT HIM IN WORLD WAR TWO, WHERE THE FUCK WHERE YOU?????

Remember FDR? That other liberal you love to hate was president at the time.

>>>"without UN saction"

I thought we had a UN resolution.

There was no 2nd UN resolution authorizing the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The 1st UN resolution convinced Saddam to let the weapons inspectors back in. Bush had promised to get a 2nd resolution when he asked the congress in October 2002 for authorization to invade - but he never got the resolution. Oops.

Andrew

>>>"but he never got the resolution."

So, apparently he decided to not let the French run our foreign policy.

We watched The Godfather (I) in our home theater last night. Now, those guys know how to keep things under control and how to get things done. I'm going to watch Godfather II tonight to get some more ideas on how things really work in this world.

Herb said>>>>I don't expect you to change your mind. You simply hate Mr. Bush too much.

As YOU neo-CONers did of Clinton...

END OF THAT WHOLE ARGUMENT!

No I'm not ignoring anything. Saddam was not innocent, and again his death is not a bad thing. How he got there is.

We didn't invade on that premise. (no fly) We invaded because we made the case that Saddam was a clear and present threat. After CNN ran the screen scroller, "The Regime was the weapon of mass destruction" we ended up with all kinds of post invasion crap, like the non-existant tie to 9/11, etc...

The vote was conditional on a solid justification being attached to the invasion. We now know, the decision to invade predated said justification, and said justification proved to be false too boot! This is a complete and total non-starter no matter what one thinks of the actual intel. Some say Bush lied, others say he made a mistake, meaning he was stupid. The preconception alone hoses this up.

See above.

Again, calling me a Bush hater does nothing to advance the idea that we have the high ground in this affair.

Though I do not support the death penalty, I've no problem with Saddam being gone. Setting everything aside, we just don't need Saddam. Good riddance. Honestly, jailing him would have just meant dealing with this for a long time. That's a good thing right there. Those he harmed see some closure too. That's another good thing, but these good things don't add up to our actions being just now do they?

It's the how that is the problem. If we were just in our deeds, don't 'ya think we would have seen more support for this whole affair? We would see a lot of press on how great America was for getting rid of Saddam. New alliances would become possible, global relations and support for the war on terror in general would have benefitted from it. There is lots more, when we have the high ground, but we just don't.

And Deane, all of those problems you list are valid and are a present day concern. Is the expense of killing Saddam worth our sharply diminished ability to deal with those? We are gonna pass the half-trillion dollar mark on this mess. Containment + diplomacy would have been a hell of a deal, all things considered, leaving a lot on the table to address these other pressing issues.

Where is the upside guys?

The headline in todays O, "Saddam likely to be Martyr". This is what we get when we make judgements without any solid due process to build a solid justification for them. (and I mean for justification for the conflict, not how his trial went.)

If we were just in invading Iraq, it would be very difficult for Saddam to end up being taken seriously as a martyr.

I don't hate Bush. Have written here many, many times there is almost no excuse for hate. None, if I can help it. I don't like the guy much, but that's really all about what he has done. All things being cast aside, Bush the personal guy might be a good neighbor!

Bush the leader, clearly sucks hard.

There is a difference, and throwing out the "hater" label is nothing but a big ass dodge.

Where is the upside guys? Tell me why I should feel good about this and how that makes Bush a better president for me. I could really use some solid info here. The facts published to date really do not meet this burden, and it's important to understand how you supporters are seeing satisfaction in this.

As an American, I need to feel we have done the right thing. I need to know our nation will be judged as being on the right side of things. My kids are gonna grow up here and have to deal with the aftermath.

What shall I tell them that will help them understand this is all good?


BTW, those are not just crap questions. I got the, "Ok Dad, Saddam is dead now. Does that mean things are gonna get better? Did we win yet?"

Just what the fuck do I tell an inquiring 15 year old huh?

I'm wide open here, looking for the upside. My reasons are on the table, the fact that prevent me from stepping over are there too. What gives, you gotta have something right?

Should I tell the kids the ends justify the means? Should I tell them that judgment of others, without some solid basis for it, is perfectly ok? Think of the example we set as a nation. Do we really want those same kinds of actions passed on to our future leaders?

Trust me, this is not a Bush thing at all.

>>>"Containment + diplomacy"

Containment: How do you do that? The Russians, the French, the UN were all stabbing us in the back on that approach.

Diplomacy: So, sitting down and chatting with a sweetheart like Saddam would work, huh? Damn, why didn't Bush think of that!

Diplomacy could address the other nations stabbing us you know.

Again, having the high ground means being able to make the case for better support overall.

And containment worked pretty well overall didn't it? We sure didn't find those WMD's Saddam was supposedly building with support from others.

He was being pissy about complying with the resolutions, but was toothless overall. Just what would he have done that justifies HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS Deane?

That's a dodge anyway. We had plenty of options, besides an all out invasion we could not justify at the time. Remember, the decision to do this was made prior to the justification as well.

C'mon, where is the upside? What do I tell the kids? What can I say to those people currently holding America in low regard?

From the President: "The sacrifice has been worth it. I haven't questioned whether or not it was right to take Saddam Hussein out. I mean, I've questioned it -- I've come to the conclusion that it was the right decision. - George W. Bush"

And this:

" Today, Saddam Hussein was executed after receiving a fair trial — the kind of justice he denied the victims of his brutal regime.

Fair trials were unimaginable under Saddam Hussein's tyrannical rule. It is a testament to the Iraqi people's resolve to move forward after decades of oppression that, despite his terrible crimes against his own people, Saddam Hussein received a fair trial. This would not have been possible without the Iraqi people's determination to create a society governed by the rule of law."

This, from the same President who believes he himself is above the law?

C'mon, you gotta have something that makes you feel good about this? What is it? What is the President thinking when he says the decision was the right one? Care to share?

A majority of Americans don't buy this. What's the inside secret? Surely it's really worth sharing right? Don't you want to see your President vindicated, particularly after his deeds are linked directly to your party, the GOP, taking it hard in the sack in this last election?!? (Just think of the ramifications in 08!)

Were that many Americans duped? Are they all wrong in their thinking that we need something better than what we are currently getting from our leadership?

And the other nations being unwilling to contribute to the tribunal? Surely they are misinformed too. Those great facts, a lot of people just don't see, would really help out there too. We could use some more support, does that not itself justify coming clean with the goods that make this all ok?


Or maybe, just maybe, you've got nothing. Seems to me, there is a strong case for that, barring some revelation that ties this whole mess together. We've been having some really great discussions with plenty of parties from all points in the political spectrum, open and willing to consider each others views.

If there was some really great news, surely that would have come out by now right?

Maybe, there is just nothing and it feels better to deny this than it does to reach some sort of acceptance and face the implications of that.

Missing, you're spending too much time thinking. It's better to shoot first and ask questions later. Just look at how Gulliani cleaned up New York with that approach.

"Ok Dad, Saddam is dead now. Does that mean things are gonna get better?"

Son, there are no guarantees in this life, but bad things happen to evil men who torture and oppress their people.

Probably not PC enough for many on this board, though.

Herb

Actually, there's a lot of evidence that our containment of Saddam was working, Deane. At the time the open-ended US air support for the no fly zones seemed like a huge pain although compared to today's situation it is a cakewalk. Saddam really was boxed in.

And had Bush given the weapons inspectors a year to re-evaluate Iraq in 2003 as Hans Blitz wanted, they might have well discovered the truth: that the 1998 Operation Desert Fox US bombing campaign was devastating to Iraq's remaining weapons campabilities (and almost toppled Saddam at that time - his military people became despondant after . US intelligence didn't understand this until after the 2003 invasion - but then again, we hadn't had anyone in Iraq except for the brief return of weapons inspectors late in 2002.

If you want to understand the Iraq war from a military perspective, as told by people in the US military, read Thomas Ricks's book "Fiasco." It's certainly not written by a liberal.

Andrew

Andrew, for the record, I would now prefer we hadn't invaded Iraq. I agree, there are a lot of scenarios that could have worked better. However, it's easier for all of us to see that with 20/20 hind site.

Truth of the matter is, if the French, Germans, Russians and UN weren't cheating under the table the whole thing could have been resolved very quickly on the order of which you describe.

Follow the money!

Deane, the problem with this cop out ("Gee, if we only knew that Iraq was a bad idea then with the 20/20 hindsight we have n ow") has been proven to be not true. Some very well-known people in Republican circles expressed their strong doubts publically and privately before the invasion - so it wasn't just Janeane Garofalo who turned out to be right ahead of time.

Brent Scowcroft for example wrote an editorial in late 2002 predicting much of what happened in Iraq; this the former national security advisor to Bush's father. Former Secretary of State James Baker was also known to be opposed to the invasion of Iraq at that time, and it's clear Colin Powell was opposed too but acted the like the good soldier in public, saluted, and supported his president in public.

George H. W. Bush wrote this five years before the invasion about why he didn't go all the way to Baghdad in 1991:

Trying to eliminate Saddam .. would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ...there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.

Sheesh - if Bush ignored the advice of his own father and a former president of the United States, who WOULD he listen to???

So don't tell me we didn't know Iraq could be a catastrophe with 20/20 hindsight - the people who had dealt with Iraq most in the past had said so in 2002, and they weren't liberal Democrats. George W. Bush simply ignored them, because he wanted to go to war, period. Too bad his father wasn't president at that time - he would have made the right choice.

Andrew

"Son, there are no guarantees in this life, but bad things happen to evil men who torture and oppress their people."

This is not bad actually.

If we are talking about Saddam getting the axe, it largely works. Care to apply this same bit to our current President?

Hmmm... gets a little messy doesn't it?

"Care to apply this same bit to our current President?"

No. Because Mr. Bush is not evil, having freed over 30 million people who were oppressed."

Herb

Fair enough.

How about all the INNOCENT women and CHILDREN that have died in Iraq that had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11????

DUHbya isn't responsible??? Where does the blame lie Herbaroni???
Oh! That's right it's Clinton's fault....

Trixter, when it comes to conservative politics to you the glass is always empty.

Sorry, that's not reality, especially in Iraq.

Herberoni

Bush is not evil - to SOME. There are lots of poeple who DO think he is evil. Some of those very people are U.S. citizens too. They count.

I'm sure there are people around who think Bush is evil. Those type people are totally confused and have lost their grip on reality.

There is a lot of difference between disagreeing with policies he has implemented, and him being evil. A lot of difference.

Do you think we've ( in The U.S. ) ever had an elected official that is evil?

Perhaps we need another thread as to exactly what evil is.

In movies and TV programs, evil people go out of their way to spread more harm and damage than they need to.

However, in real life, I think evil happens far more often through oversight or thoughtlessness or cluelessness. People who are not intrinsically evil themselves are still capable of letting evil occur through their actions.

"In movies and TV programs, evil people go out of their way to spread more harm and damage than they need to.

However, in real life, I think evil happens far more often through oversight or thoughtlessness or cluelessness. People who are not intrinsically evil themselves are still capable of letting evil occur through their actions."

This might fit the bill here.

I don't know if Dubya is inherently evil or not. I honestly don't think he invaded Iraq on an evil pretense ... and I honestly don't think he meant evil on the innocent Iraqi people who have died as a consequence.

That said, I think that MOST of us (Deane included) can deduct that the end result has been evil. Shiites and Sunnis offing each other by the hundreds. Over 3,000 American and over 600,000 Iraqi casualties. A country now plunged into civil war. All directly BECAUSE of Bush's actions.

I think Bush MEANT well in trying to "help" the Iraqi people. Just like Vietnam, however, the end result has been evil and terror on the locals.

"This might fit the bill here."

To many, it fits the bill for Bill Clinton. His stripping of our military to the point where aircraft had to be cannibalized for parts is a good example.

Pardoning super-sleaze Marc Rich is another.

Declassifying secret technology as commerce is another.

Going after the Waco religionists is another.

Sending Elian Gonzalez back to the arms of the evil black-heart Castro is another.

Lying under oath is yet another.

Bill Clinton was a seriously flawed but slick politician.

Herb

Did anybody die? Besides the Waco Wacko Cultists, I mean.

Does anybody remember the Singer/Swapp polygamist family seige in Utah in 1988 when Reagan was (p)resident?

I do, since it was basically a few miles down the road from my house in Park City. That 2-week standoff and total mess was finished up by the FBI when Reagan was president.

Basically, it's Tit for Tat, Herb.

Herb, Clinton freed millions of people in Kosovo, Bosnia, and Haiti.

Andrew

Good grief...

Nobody cares. Bush is the guy in charge right now. What? Have to keep bashing Clinton to keep Bush looking better, or really afraid we will get another like him?

A whole lot of Americans liked him huge. Say what you want, that counts for a lot.

All I see here is a dismissive wave of the hand.

Classic.

Herb

Exactly!

Nobody cares. Seriously, everybody here knows you just can't deal with Clinton. No amount of discussion will ever change that, and I think we've heard just about all of it.

If you need some gratification or therapy, from time to time, feel free, but nobody really cares.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070101/wl_mideast_afp/iraqjusticesaddam_0701011445 32

Saddam hanged in violation of Iraqi law?

Interesting...

(My interest is the lack of the warm fuzzy --this does not help!)

"Seriously, everybody here knows you just can't deal with Clinton."

Seriously, everybody here knows that the overwhelmingly left-leaning partisans here hate Mr. Bush.

Herb

I say "Exactly(!)" also to what Missing said in his previous 2 posts to Herbie the Love Bug, and I'd vote for Clinton again, if that were possible.

Get over it, already.

(waving ham-fistedly to Herb)

At least you're honest about your ham-fisted waving.

But we have a major difference in opinion about defending our nation.

To the left, it's ok to perjure one's self and let classified material get into the hands of our enemies.

To conservatives, it is not.

It reminds me of Marion Barry, the convicted felon and democrat, who was re-elected by his constiuents.

And you guys say you want clean government? There should be plenty of material for discussion once the democrats take over congress.

Herb

Herb, millions of souls in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Haiti are free today because of William Jefferson Clinton, aka The Liberator. How could you possibly not see what a great president he was?

Andrew

"Seriously, everybody here knows that the overwhelmingly left-leaning partisans here hate Mr. Bush."

A lot of us that are right-leaning also dislike Mr. Bush.

You seem to have this chubby about Clinton, I am guessing because you just can't stomach the fact that a modern day Democrat will go down in the annals of US Presidents as one of the better ones. You make him seem like some bed-wetter or something.

Here's some of the facts Herb, some YOU should appreciate as a conservative:

-Bill Clinton signed into law the Welfare Reform act, making it harder for people to keep collecting government assistance without trying to better themselves by getting a job.

-The size of the federal government SHRANK during the Clinton years, it was smaller than it was during H.W.'s administration. Compare that to now, where Dubya, for all of his small government rhetoric, has the largest federal government bureaucracy in history.

-Bill Clinton BALANCED THE BUDGET. We had a budget SURPLUS under his watch. That hadn't been done since Herbert Hoover was in office.

So he stuck his hee-hee in an intern's hoo-hoo. Last I checked, adultery isn't illegal. Unjustly invading a soverign nation under false pretenses IS illegal, however.

And remember - when bad-mouthing who Clinton may have pardoned on his way out the door, keep in mind that your hero Nixon was pardoned by Gerald Ford, and millions of Americans, Republican and Democrat alike, were incensed. Don't be throwing them rocks through that little glass house, sir.

Bill Clinton was a seriously flawed but slick politician.

...And those eight years of peace and prosperity, heaven forbid we ever go back to that again! (rolling eyes upward)

Yeah, yeah, I can hear the arguments coming about how he left us open for 9/11. However, as I recall it, we stopped terrorists at the Canadian border one New Year's Eve when Clinton was prez, and his people lobbied Bush's people to pay attention to Al-Qaeda.

Herb...
YOUR all out HATRED for Clinton is disturbing.

Trixter...
YOUR all out HATRED for Mr. Bush is disturbing.

Besides, I'm not even that much of a Bush guy. But when the left piles on and lies about him, I'm certainly going to point out their error.

And I'm a Nixon man, remember?

Herbert M.

I don't remember any Bush lies.

...and BTW Herb, if I had to pick between the two, I would choose Nixon.

There is no question Saddam Hussein deserved everything he got, however, it would have been very interesting to see what newsworthy information would have come to light had he been allowed to stand trial for the even more heinous crimes in which he was accused of. No doubt there are some US politicians who avoided significant tarnishment to their records and legacies. It's enough to make you wonder the real reason why his execution was rushed through, without so much as allowing a single reporter or journalist to interview Saddam Hussein while imprisoned.