posted on December 15, 2003 08:54:13 AM newwe replace it with thugs.
bunni - I see this as a temporary solution...until elections can be held.
Each area in Iraq is ruled by/governed by different, let's say political sides.
We're in the *very* early stages of working to bring 'order' to this country who for 35-40 years has had no 'self governing capabilites. It's going to take time.
Just look to the EU and what's going on there while they're trying to work to form a union. Fighting about everything...for now they're shelving this project. And they're a more mature, well established group of nations.
Once their elections take place, THEY will be calling the shots and our troops will only be there to supply the security needed to enforce their new governing laws.
This administration has said that we will only stay there as long as we are asked to stay, by the newly formed government.
Unfortunately, the real-world script has a lot of pages left to be turned. Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, reached at his home on Sunday, said, “It’s great that they caught him. The man was a brutal dictator who committed terrible crimes against his people. But now we come to rest of story. We didn’t go to war to capture Saddam Hussein. We went to war to get rid of weapons of mass destruction. Those weapons have not been found.” Ray McGovern, senior analyst and 27-year veteran of the CIA, echoed Ritter’s perspective on Sunday. “It’s wonderful that he was captured, because now we’ll find out where the weapons of mass destruction are,” said McGovern with tongue firmly planted in cheek. “We killed his sons before they could tell us.”
Unfortunately....We caught the wrong guy.
"The dying will continue because America’s presence in Iraq is a wonderful opportunity for a man named Osama bin Laden, who was not captured on Saturday. Bin Laden, it has been reported, is thrilled by what is happening in Iraq, and plans to throw as much violence as he can muster at American forces there. The Bush administration spent hundreds of billions of dollars on this Iraq invasion, not one dime of which went towards the capture or death of the fellow who brought down the Towers a couple of years ago. For bin Laden and his devotees, Iraq is better than Disneyland."
"Hussein was never a threat to the United States. His capture means nothing to the safety and security of the American people. The money we spent to put the bag on him might have gone towards capturing bin Laden, who is a threat, but that did not happen. We can be happy for the people of Iraq, because their Hussein problem is over. Here in America, our Hussein problem is just beginning. The other problem, that Osama fellow we should have been trying to capture this whole time, remains perched over our door like the raven."
posted on December 15, 2003 02:04:23 PM new
The Federalist does have a few observations on the implications of Saddam's capture.
First, President George Bush's handling of information about this operation was a fine case-study of genuine leadership. For example, the announcement that Saddam had been captured was made in Iraq, not at the White House. Tony Blair and other Allies were given time to comment before President Bush's remarks, and the President's comments were subdued and statesmanlike.
Second, Saddam's capture demonstrates how hard it is to find a rat in a hole in a nation the size of Iraq. The Federalist has argued that Saddam exercised little command and control over Ba'athist terror networks because there was a direct correlation between that exercise and his risk of exposure. (The same is true for Osama bin Laden.) Thus, it took ten months to locate Saddam. His discovery is a remarkable testament to the tenacity, perseverance and professionalism of our military.
Third difficulty finding Saddam certainly underscores the difficulty discovering his WMD stores. Though Saddam had little command and control with his loyalists, he had contact with a small circle of supporters in order to receive basic necessities -- food, water and shelter. However, Saddam's biological and nuke WMD require no sustenance, and can sit underground in a few holes as inconspicuous as the one he was extracted from -- undiscovered for generations. (As previously noted in The Federalist, our sources give us reason to conclude that Saddam had the teams who buried his WMD executed -- thus greatly reducing the number of individuals able to disclose the whereabouts of his WMD. There is a substantial body of intelligence supporting our position that Iraq shipped some or all of its biological and nuclear WMD stores to Syria and Lebanon's heavily fortified Bekaa Valley.)
Fourth, the media can't overestimate the psychological significance of Saddam's capture in terms of its symbolism. The Federalist has noted the great difficulty in winning the hearts and minds of a people who have spent the last twenty years under the bloody rule of the Butcher of Baghdad. Saddam's incarceration and the spectacle of his impending trial has lifted an enormous burden from the Iraqi people. That burden lifted manifested the moment Mr. Bremer announced his capture: at the press conference, some Iraqi journalists shouted "Death to Saddam" while others who had suffered torture and/or loss of family under Saddam, wept openly.
And a final note. Saddam, who has always ordered his loyalists to fight to the death, did not draw the pistol in his possession when confronted by American troops, opting instead to tell them, "My name is Saddam Hussein. I am the president of Iraq and I want to negotiate." (U.S. operators responded, "President Bush sends his regards." In the end, Saddam, like all such tyrants, proved to be nothing more than a coward.
"Another plague upon the land, as devastating as the locusts God loosed on the Egyptians, is "Political Correctness.'" --Charlton Heston
posted on December 15, 2003 03:39:33 PM new
"President Bush sends his regards" LOL I LOVE it.
------
So many others, who have been quoted today sure are sad Saddam was captured..... including the Palestinians, Arafat and the American Palestinians [to me, the HARD LEFT] were quoted in the WSJ today. Maybe some believe this is support of our country, and that they're just expressing an opposing view, but I sure don't.
begin/
America's Palestinians Here's a sampling of comments on Saddam's capture from the Howard Dean campaign's "Blog for America (some appear on this page and this one)[/i]:
Carrie B: "I can't believe this. I'm crying here. I feel that we now don't have a chance in this election."
Leslie in SF: "I think it is shameful that the ACLU has not commented on the obvious mistreatment Hussein has suffered at the hands of the American military."
Muslims4Dean: "If the Death toll mounts--good. It will teach the American people not to support Nazi Republicans who invase [sic] Muslim lands."
Johnny Smith: "Muslims4Bush [sic]-- don't think we can put it that way. We don't want Americans to die. But if Bush will not bring our boys home--then they're going to have to die so that Howard Dean can win."
The Angry Left is America's equivalent of the Palestinians: a self-destructive political movement based on nothing but a collection of grievances rooted in a falsified, self-justifying history.
These grievances so distort their view of the world that they lose the capacity for ordinary moral judgment and cannot understand something as simple as that the fall of a genocidal tyrant is a good thing.
posted on December 15, 2003 03:53:44 PM new
It will be interesting to see what the boys
who thought up "The Project for the New American Century" have up their sleeves for
us now.
We got the dictator who tried to kill Big Daddy Bush. Who else went after Daddy?
That might give a clue to where the boys are going next. They didn't give a fig about the people in Iraq. They care about themselves, their positions, their oil.....
Someone said to me today: "Now people will feel safe and will feel freer to spend more."
Huh? We didn't find WOMD and we didn't find anything that said SH was involved with 9-11, even though Cheney and his worker Bush tries to imply it. They have put such a spin on things that one of the radio stations said today around 60% of US citizens think
SH was responsible for 9-11.
Osama is still out there. Why would anyone in the U.S. think we are safer? Unless that person is Iraqi, has family in Iraq or military children fighting there of course.
posted on December 15, 2003 04:06:39 PM newCarrie B: "I can't believe this. I'm crying here. I feel that we now don't have a chance in this election."
I heard this one on the radio this morning, someone was reading the Dean site. Now that is some comment, when they capture a dictator like this, and she worries about the election??????
Leslie in SF: "I think it is shameful that the ACLU has not commented on the obvious mistreatment Hussein has suffered at the hands of the American military."
Now this comment is such BS, I was just reading a UP story, its off the page now, but it said, he basically was not talking and they were going to make him comfortable for now
make him comfortable, is not mistreating him. I can't for a minute believe ANYONE RIGHT now is mistreating him
Wanna Take a Ride? Art Bell is Back! Weekends on C2C-www.coasttocoastam.com
posted on December 15, 2003 04:19:35 PM newa clue as to where the boys are going next
That'll most likely depend on what information they're able to get from Saddam.
Here's another section on that subject from the WJS.
begin/
The Mother of All Plea Bargains
One great thing about the death penalty is that it can offer useful leverage when a coward like Saddam is in the dock. Ha'aretz reports on talk of a plea bargain:
"Deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein could be offered a deal in which he would give his captors information on if and how he hid weapons of mass destruction and if he smuggled some of them into Syria. In exchange, he would face life imprisonment and not be executed for war crimes, senior Iraqis attending a conference here on the future of the region have hinted."
--
comment then was:
If those weapons are in Syria, that country's Baathist dictator, Bashar Assad, may find himself on the run, just like Saddam. Hey Bashar, better keep a shovel handy.
"In the coming year the Democratic candidates just have to take off these kid gloves. I'd begin by asking some hard questions about Republican administrations' past relationship with Saddam. Put that photo of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand in 1983 in the commercials; ask hard questions about former Reaganites now serving in the Bush administration who supported Saddam to the hilt while he was gassing Iranian troops and Kurds; find out who authorized the US sale of chemical and biological precursors to Saddam; and be so rude as to bring up the horrible betrayal committed by Bush senior when he stood aside and let Saddam massacre all those Shiites in 1991, after they rose up in response to a Bush call for the popular overthrow of Saddam. The US military could have shot down those helicopter gunships that massacred Shiites in Najaf and Basra. Bush senior clearly told them to let Saddam enjoy his killing fields. And imagine, the Bush administration officials are actually getting photo ops at the mass graves their predecessors allowed to be filled with bodies!"
Juan Cole
posted on December 15, 2003 08:41:55 PM new
All this bantering and bickering back and forth makes absolutely no sense to me. What some of you seem to not realise is that both of the wars with Iraq never would have happened and SH would still be in power if he hadn't tried to export his brand of terrorizm on other nations of the world. Two examples that come to mind are SH's invasion of Kuwait and his payments to the families of Palistinien suicide bombers.
There are other countries that have WMD but because they keep it within their own borders and they don't threaten the livlyhood of their neihbors with total inialation or launch unjustified invasions they are left alone by us.
The leaders of the Arab nations are intently watching the events unfold in Iraq but notice that none of them that are/were friendly with Iraq have jumped into the fray. The reason is that they can see from what is happening in Iraq that the US is a nation not to mess with. Furthermore, very few Arab leaders have commented on SH capture because of fears of reprisals from their own citizens. They are all cowards, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Etc. as well as the past leader of Iraq SH.
posted on December 15, 2003 09:10:44 PM new
Isn’t it a violation of Geneva Convention to parade a prisoner, eg. show images of their medical examination?
Being that they will be kind enough to give Saddam to Iraq; can we please have David Hicks?
posted on December 16, 2003 08:11:33 AM new
Again, When did Saadam ever abide by the Geneva Convention????
Besides he wasn't PARADED anywhere, he was shown in a short video clip. But I guess you wanted to see all the video where he was bent over & the doctor searched him for Osama.
"Another plague upon the land, as devastating as the locusts God loosed on the Egyptians, is "Political Correctness.'" --Charlton Heston
posted on December 16, 2003 08:24:12 AM newWhen did Saddam ever abide by the Geneva Convention????
Now bear ...you know full well they only expect the US to follow the rules. Heck...they saw nothing wrong with allowing Saddam to thumb his nose at the UN sanctions for 12 years. We were at fault....should have given Saddam more time.
We're ALWAYS at fault. It's the "Blame America First" crowd. But harder to take when coming from American's themselves.
posted on December 20, 2003 06:03:23 AM new
BlackPressUSA.Com
December 18, 2003
Saddam's Capture Means Trouble for U.S. Officials
By Jacob G. Hornberger
News Analysis
FAIRFAX, Va. (NNPA)-In his official statement
celebrating the capture of Saddam Hussein, President Bush announced that 'the former dictator of Iraq will face the justice he denied to millions.'
Notably lacking from the president's statement, however, was whether the U.S. government would agree to relinquish control over Hussein's trial to the Iraqi
government or to an international tribunal consisting of independent judges.
Why wouldn't U.S. officials readily agree to relinquish jurisdiction over Hussein's trial? Because of their need to closely guard the secrets that Saddam Hussein has in
his possession - secrets that would cause no small amount of embarrassment to the U.S. government, including former president Ronald Reagan, former vice-president and former president George H.W. Bush (the
president's father), and Donald Rumsfeld, the
president's secretary of defense.
One of those secrets is the extent of the relationship that existed between the Reagan and Bush I administrations and Saddam Hussein, the details of which have never been fully disclosed by U.S. officials.
There is, of course, the famous photograph on the Internet in which Rumsfeld and Hussein are shaking hands and making conversation in Baghdad in 1983. How did that
meeting get set up? Who was involved in the decision-making process? What was discussed? What agreements were entered into?
Saddam's testimony at trial could provide some of the answers. And that prospect - of Saddam Hussein testifying freely, openly, and publicly about his relationship with Ronald Reagan, President Bush I, and
Donald Rumsfeld - would undoubtedly strike terror into the hearts and minds of many U.S. officials.
Imagine if the exact nature of the relationship between Reagan-Bush and Saddam Hussein were to hit the front pages of newspapers all over the world on a daily basis, as Hussein filled in his side of the details during his public testimony at trial.
And there's a bigger secret, whose details would undoubtedly terrify U.S. officials even more - that it was the Reagan-Bush administration that furnished Saddam
Hussein with the weapons of mass destruction (1) that he employed against the Iranian and Iraqi people, and (2) that U.S. and UN officials used as the excuse for imposing the brutal 12-year embargo against Iraq, whose resulting deaths of Iraqi children arguably were a principal motivating factor behind the September 11 attacks, and (3) that President Bush ultimately relied
upon as his principal justification for invading Iraq.
Consider the following excerpt from an article entitled 'How Iraq Built Its Weapons Programs' in the March 16, 2003, issue of the St. Petersburg Times: U.N. inspectors are working against the clock to figure
out if Iraq retains chemical and biological weapons, the systems to deliver them, and the capacity to manufacture them. And here's the strange part, easily forgotten in
the barrage of recent rhetoric: It was Western governments and businesses that helped build that capacity in the first place.
From anthrax to high-speed computers to artillery ammunition cases, the militarily useful products of a long list of Western democracies flowed into Iraq in the decade before its 1990 invasion of Kuwait.
In that same article, former U.S. Sen. Donald Riegle is quoted as saying, 'What is absolutely crystal clear is this: That if Saddam Hussein today has a large arsenal
of biological weapons, partly it was the United States that provided the very live viruses that he needed to create those weapons.'
As ABC News put it in an article entitled 'A Tortured Relationship,' Indeed, even as President Bush castigates Saddam's regime as 'a grave and gathering danger,' it's
important to remember that the United States helped arm Iraq with the very weapons that administration officials are now citing as justification for Saddam's forcible removal from power.
That same article made a pointed observation about President George H.W. Bush (the president's father): In 1988, the same year the Iran-Iraq war ended, a new U.S. president was elected. George Herbert Walker Bush came into office determined to pursue a policy of engagement with Saddam. In fact, his first year in office, President Bush signed a secret executive order, National Security Directive Number 26. It called for
even closer ties between the United States and Iraq.
In a September 25, 2002, article titled 'Following Iraq's Bioweapons Trail,' author Robert Novak wrote, An eight-year-old Senate report confirms that disease-
producing and poisonous materials were exported, under U.S. government license, to Iraq from 1985 to 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war.
Furthermore, the report adds, the American-exported materials were identical to microorganisms destroyed by United Nations inspectors after the Gulf War. The shipments were approved despite allegations that Saddam
used biological weapons against Kurdish rebels and (according to the current official U.S. position) initiated war with Iran.
Why did Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush enter into a close relationship with Saddam Hussein? Why did they furnish him with weapons of mass destruction? It's impossible to know for sure. But the most likely reason
was that U.S. officials intended for Hussein to use such weapons against the Iranian people during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s.
Were U.S. officials aware of Saddam Hussein's brutal nature when they entered into their pact with him and furnished him with weapons of mass destruction?
According to the St. Petersburg Times article, U.S. officials continued sending weapons of mass destruction to Hussein even after hearing that Iraqi forces had used
such weapons in the Iraqi town of Halabja in March 1988.
In a February 3, 2003, article entitled 'Reaping the Grim Harvest We Have Sown' in the Sydney Morning Herald, author Anne Summers cites a Washington Post report
stating that after Rumsfeld visited Saddam Hussein in 1983 as President Reagan's special envoy, 'U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial
role in shoring up Iraqi defenses' despite express warnings from the U.S. State Department that Iraq was engaged in 'almost daily use of CW [chemical weapons]' against Iran in violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol.
Citing a critical New York Times report in a August 18, 2000, MSNBC article entitled 'Rumsfeld Key Player in Iraq Policy Shift,' author Robert Windrem wrote, The New
York Times reported Sunday that United States gave Iraq vital battle-planning help during its war with Iran as part of a secret program under President Reagan - even
though U.S. intelligence agencies knew the Iraqis would unleash chemical weapons. The covert program involved more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency
who helped Iraq in its eight-year war with Iran by providing detailed information on Iranian military deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for airstrikes and bomb-damage assessments, the Times said.
The Times said it based its report on comments by senior U.S. military officers with direct knowledge of the program, most of whom spoke on condition of anonymity.
Given that these things have been buried and forgotten in the wake of President Bush's invasion of Iraq, to have it all drudged up again, especially by the worldwide press covering Saddam Hussein's trial, would undoubtedly be one great big nightmare for President Bush, his father, Secretary of
Defense Rumsfeld, and other U.S. officials. The reluctance to delve into this uncomfortable subject was recently confirmed by two episodes.
The first episode involved Rumsfeld's claim of a memory lapse regarding the matter, as reported by the Associated Press:
Are we, in fact, now facing the possibility of reaping what we have sown?' [U.S. Senator Robert] Byrd asked Rumsfeld after reading parts of a Newsweek article on the transfers.
'I have never heard anything like what you've read, I have no knowledge of it whatsoever, and I doubt it,' Rumsfeld said. He later said he would ask the Defense
Department and other agencies to search their records for evidence of the transfers.
The second episode involved Saddam Hussein's delivery of his weapons report to the United Nations shortly before President Bush invaded Iraq. U.S. officials hijacked the
report before it could be released to the public and excised the parts in which Hussein detailed who exactly had furnished him with the WMD. According to the Sydney
Morning Herald article by Anne Summers: What is known is that the 10 non-permanent members had to be content with an edited, scaled-down version. According to the German
news agency DPA, instead of the 12,000 pages, these nations - including Germany, which this month became president of the Security Council - were given only 3,000 pages. So what was missing? The Guardian reported that the nine-page table of contents included chapters on 'procurements' in Iraq's nuclear program and 'relations with companies, representatives and
individuals' for its chemical weapons program. This information was not included in the edited version.
If U.S. officials insist on retaining control over Hussein's case, what are they going to charge him with - 'misleading President Bush into mistakenly believing
that he still possessed the weapons of mass destruction that the president's father gave him'? Given that Iraq never attacked or threatened to attack the United States
and given that Hussein and Reagan-Bush were allies during the entire 1980s, what other offense against the United States could they conceivably charge him with during that period of time?
If U.S. officials relinquish control over Hussein's case to the Iraqis or to an international tribunal of independent (i.e., non-U.S. or British) judges, there's a good possibility that Hussein will be charged with
employing chemical weapons both against Iran and his own people. But how do they explain the failure to indict the U.S. officials who furnished him with those weapons in the first place? How do U.S. officials prevent the tribunal from permitting Hussein to testify to the world about such matters in an open (i.e., non-secret)proceeding?
If U.S. officials retain control over the case in order to charge Hussein with war crimes against the United States arising out of the resistance to the U.S. occupation, that would enable Hussein to argue that the
invasion itself violated the war-of-aggression principle enunciated at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, especially given that Bush's principle justification for
invading - that is, the continued existence of the weapons of mass destruction that Reagan-Bush had furnished Hussein in the 1980s - was groundless.
Moreover, who can doubt that Hussein will use his trial to charge the United States and the United Nations with crimes against humanity arising out of the brutal 12-
year economic embargo against Iraq, which contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people - an embargo that U.S. officials continually justified on
the claim that Iraq still possessed the weapons of mass destruction that U.S. officials had delivered to him during the 1980s? After all, don't forget that two high
UN officials resigned their positions on moral grounds arising out of the massive number of deaths that the sanctions were producing year after year.
If they charge Hussein with the mass graves arising out of the post-Persian Gulf War rebellion in the southern part of Iraq, won't Hussein and his legal staff defend
by arguing that the killings were necessary to suppress an illegal rebellion against the Iraqi government that had been inspired by the president's father?
How likely is it that U.S. officials will permit Saddam Hussein to be delivered to a tribunal whose judges they are unable to control - to judges who would permit Hussein to testify freely, openly, and publicly about
the details of his relationship with Reagan-Bush officials to a transfixed world.
Indeed, the real question is: Will President Bush permit Saddam Hussein to be put on trial for anything? As U.S. officials begin to reflect upon the legal quandary that
Hussein's capture has put them in, they will undoubtedly come to rue the day that U.S. soldiers treated his capture differently than the way they treated the capture of his two sons.
Edited to add: Forgive all the funky spaces. I was emailed this by my father and pasted it here. Too long to retype.
posted on December 20, 2003 06:57:38 AM new
Ahhhh yes....more from the 'Blame American First' club. How sad.
Why wouldn't U.S. officials readily agree to relinquish jurisdiction over Hussein's trial?
Because they want Saddam to recieve the DEATH penalty. And if tried according to how Wesley Clark would like to see it go....that wouldn't happen.
But, of course, those who Blame America First would never put any responsibility for Saddam's actions on Saddam...NO...the actions he's taken are THEIR OWN countries fault.
posted on December 20, 2003 07:51:23 AM new
This may shed some light on why the U.S. want's control. Now, the focus is trying to establish when Saddam destroyed the weapons in the 1990's
posted on December 20, 2003 02:56:35 PM new
Some here insist that the media should be ‘un-bias’ & keep referring to SH as ‘evil, evil, evil’ ‘and as part of the ‘axis of evil’.
Perhaps? Some here expect us to believe that SH ‘unilaterally’ manufactured and deployed weapons, on his own; without accomplices, and certainly no American ones.
Hang Him (if guilty) and hang his accomplices too; ‘former leaders’ or whatever you wish to call them.
Hang’em high, as an example, for all to see.
NOOOOO!
Some are more interested in the ‘evil’ actions from the likes of the Dixie Chicks, or Sean Penn.
posted on December 20, 2003 04:41:52 PM new
Hi Helen and Aust!
I didn't click on your links Helen, I ran my mouse over them, one is from a SF article, right? and the other is a blog.
I AGREE, I mean if it will end the bickering from Helen the Mother of all Liberals I say lets put, and gently, Saddam back down in his spiderhole, and let him be!
I think it was AWFUL those DOD films of a dr checking him, becaue he was complaining that he hit his head on the hole coming out Its got to violate the Geneva Covention, so they should stop it.
And quit referring him as a Dictator, he was/is the President of Iraq. I've seen footage of him kissing babies, and hugging old ladies. There has got to be a good side, and if the Iraqi's decide to have any trial, he should have the best lawyer there is, because he does have a good side, probably 60% good at that.
Then pull out of Iraq ASAP and leave it up to the Iraqi's whoever, doesn't matter, its their country, whichever party gets to the palace first, and have them run it.
Whaddya think?
Wanna Take a Ride? Art Bell is Back! Weekends on C2C-www.coasttocoastam.com
posted on December 20, 2003 04:46:54 PM new
I love this quote from one of Howard Deans blog
Leslie in SF: "I think it is shameful that the ACLU has not commented on the obvious mistreatment Hussein has suffered at the hands of the American military."
The American Civil Liberties Union
I mean, YES, the ACLU should help the Iraqi deposed President!!!!!
I mean what else is the ACLU for, but to help powerful Iraqis
Wanna Take a Ride? Art Bell is Back! Weekends on C2C-www.coasttocoastam.com
I'm on my way out but I just want to let you know that my article linked above is not a Science Fiction article.
It's a declassified document from the National Security Archive...George Washington University Library.
Information about the Archive...
"The National Security Archive was founded in 1985 by a group of journalists and scholars who had obtained documentation from the U.S. government under the Freedom of Information Act and sought a centralized repository for these materials. Over the past decade, the Archive has become the world's largest non governmental library of declassified documents. Located on the seventh floor of the George Washington University's Gelman Library in Washington, D.C., the Archive is designed to apply the latest in computerized indexing technology to the massive amount of material already released by the U.S. government on international affairs, make them accessible to researchers and the public, and go beyond that base to build comprehensive collections of documents on specific topics of greatest interest to scholars and the public."
posted on December 21, 2003 01:13:13 PM new
NTS. [You want to WHAT?] LOL
--------
And quit referring him as a Dictator, he was/is the President of Iraq. I've seen footage of him kissing babies, and hugging old ladies.
AND he DID get 100% of the votes from 100% of all Iraqi citizens. The U.S. has NEVER had a president who could claim that much support from their countrymen/women.
posted on December 21, 2003 02:48:22 PM new
Linda. shhhhh
I want to know what it takes to become a liberal
AND calling him a dictator is now politically incorrect
I would like to know what Helen would do for a new Iraqi gov't. (hey now we can just say WWHD )
What do you think of my idea Helen, U.S. totally leaves Iraq and the first person or party that claims the palace wins?
OH, and some US TV channel can make a reality tv show out it.... but stay out, just film it from afar!!!! Kinda like Survivor, but could be called, oh, The Race for the New Gov't in Iraq, or something
Wanna Take a Ride? Art Bell is Back! Weekends on C2C-www.coasttocoastam.com
posted on December 21, 2003 04:44:25 PM newshhhhh ...oh...okay...so sorry.
I want to know what it takes to become a liberal
Good thing you didn't ask me.
AND calling him a dictator is now politically incorrect.
On yes, that's what I've read. Well, it's not the first time I've said something that others deem isn't PC.
I would like to know what Helen would do for a new Iraqi gov't. Yeah.....that WOULD be interesting.
In the end, Saddam, like all such tyrants, proved to be nothing more than a coward.
