posted on April 22, 2004 08:16:03 AM new
Bill Maher was on Leno last night and they commented on this article he wrote for the LA Times.
COMMENTARY
New Iraq Exit Strategy: Let's Bring Back Hussein
Well, why not? He's tanned, rested and ready.
By Bill Maher
"April is the cruelest month, mixing memory with desire" — boy, that one holds up. The memory of Saddam Hussein's statues coming down a year ago, and now the mess that is Iraq this April. It was almost as if the Iraqis said, "All right, we'll give you a year, and then it gets ugly."
I mean, I have been supportive of the noble idea of trying to plant a democracy in the Middle East. I've had no patience with people who have no patience with the long haul that is "planting seeds of democracy." Seeds don't sprout overnight; they're not magic rocks or those sea monkeys that grow in a fish tank. But it is also possible that these particular seeds will not, at this time and on this land, ever grow, no matter what we do. If that becomes painfully apparent — which could be very soon — then we need a quick exit strategy, and that's where it gets knotty.
We can't just leave, because we have a bad reputation as overseas quitters already (see Afghanistan). And we can't win this militarily: I hope even the dimmest bulbs see that by now. (Bombing mosques always goes over well in that part of the world, by the way.) So what do we do?
Here's an idea that I know is going to ruffle some feathers, and I agree it's not ideal, but just consider for one moment: We bring back Hussein.
Let me finish … yes, he would be nasty about it, like he always is, and brag how he defeated us again, but seriously, I think we can work with him now. Rumsfeld did before. It's just a matter of them getting back the nice vibe they had in the 1980s.
And honestly, he's tanned, rested and ready. He's had time to think, time to recharge his batteries. And speaking of charged batteries, no torture this time! We want Hussein the efficient administrator, not the brutal dictator.
Look, he's like Don Corleone now. He's lost sons: "Look how they massacred my boy — this war stops now!" Are we all so smug that no one considers for a moment that maybe the guy gets it? He knows the job, he knows the people, he's been there. Think Joe Gibbs, and watch when the Redskins win it all this year. So we have a little egg on our face at the ceremony where two Marines have to lift Hussein's statue back up on the spot where they pulled it down.
It's not like we haven't been there with him before.
posted on April 22, 2004 08:52:26 AM new
Sadly the world, if not the people of Iraq, would have been better off if Bush had just continued to manage Hussein rather than topple him. Instead we now have thousands of radical islamisists waiting to take over Iraq, and we can't stop them.
All kidding aside, we would be better off with Hussein back in power. He can handle the radicals and he knows we can take him down in a New York minute if we need to.
posted on April 22, 2004 08:59:08 AM newHe can handle the radicals...
Yes he could, and if we "handled" it the way he would do, liberals and lefties would be screaming all across this country.
harsh and swift death is the way he handled things, well not swift but death...
we could do the same very easily without his help.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
It's too bad that their blindness can't see they are killing more soldiers than President Bush ever has... Protest Loud and Proud! Your fellow taliban and insurgents are rejoicing at the support...
posted on April 22, 2004 09:12:26 AM newwe could do the same very easily without his help.
Yes, we could. However the beauty is if we let him do it nobody would blame us. The sad thing about all this given enough time Saddams rule will look like the good old days.
There may be a good idea in all this just by threatening to return him to Iraq in power. It would make all the extreme clerics shake in their boots and might keep them in line.
And the other thing is we would save billions. No fuss, no muss.
posted on April 22, 2004 09:35:47 AM newYes he could, and if we "handled" it the way he would do, liberals and lefties would be screaming all across this country.
No we can not handle it like Hussein can. We are not Islamic Arabs.
If we do it, we bring the whole Islamic world down around our neck.
It is amazing how Bush was able to take tons of world wide empathy for the United States after 9-11 and turn it into a fiasco.
posted on April 22, 2004 10:00:19 AM new
I think all who support returning saddam back to power should be placed right there with him under his authority and rule. So the first time they speak their mind he can cut out their tongues, put them feet first in the wood chippers, rape their daughters and wives, hang the heads of their loved ones on a stake in front of thier house, torture and kill them for thinking differently than he did/does.
That's what they are supporting so they MUST be willing to subject themselves to saddam's rule and subject themselves to his way of dealing with what he doesn't approve of.
posted on April 22, 2004 10:13:55 AM new
Just because I beleive that we were better off with Hussein was in power it doesn't follow that I should have to live there.
We support many regimes as bad or worse than Hussein, but don't have to live there. The Saudi "royals" are no better than Hussein, and Bush licks their boots.
And we've tried forcing democracy on another country before- it was Vietnam.
Besides, when did the US become the world's nation builder and policeman ?
We went into Iraq because of WOMDs, which Bush lied about.
Now we are having our soldiers killed to "create" a democracy that the Iraqi people either don't want or will not fight for.
I have a better idea-- let all those who support Bush's failed nation building initiative go do the fighting and dying in Iraq.
And let's include the Bush and Cheney kids too, as well as Haliburton management's kids.
posted on April 22, 2004 10:20:11 AM new
I'll put it another way reamond.
Saddam is no longer in power. Those wishing to return him to power should be willing to live under his regime, the way it was themselves.
What's fair to say others should have to live like/under....is fair for those offering this suggestion to do the same. Be willing to put themselves in the exact situation they call to put others back in....rather than being given a first chance to live in freedom and get a feel for what it's like.
And on the Besides, when did the US become the world's nation builder and policeman? Gee....ever since I've ever read anything political I think the US has supported that position, under both parties. My first recollection of that US policy comes from the John F. Kennedy's quote.
posted on April 22, 2004 10:56:55 AM new
I've always advocated just turning Saddam loose on the streets and whatever happens to him is our course of action. If he is exalted back to his current position (president), then we can never convince the people of Iraq that our way is better. If they beat the holy tar out of him, then maybe we will have the proof needed for our way of administering things. However, pretending that he will get justice in a court formed to try him is bogus. First off, the court is headed by a man who is the nephew of the leader of the Iraqi National Congress, who ironically just happens to hate Saddam. Then as if that weren't enough, the jusges are hand picked by this same nephew. Justice? Yea right.
posted on April 22, 2004 11:02:10 AM newIf we must choose between hussein.....the point is we already did. It's a done deal.
-----------
trai - I think most here understand 'satire' ...that doesn't keep us from discussing the benefits, or lack thereof, on whether Iraq is better off with or without saddam in power.
posted on April 22, 2004 11:45:18 AM newWhat's fair to say others should have to live like/under....is fair for those offering this suggestion to do the same. Be willing to put themselves in the exact situation they call to put others back in....rather than being given a first chance to live in freedom and get a feel for what it's like.
In that case, I guess President Bush and his coherts should pack their bags and move to Iraq and live in "democracy" and "freedom" as they see it now. Do you think he'd be willing to do that?
posted on April 22, 2004 01:17:30 PM new
I can't see Saddam being put back into power. Just isn't gonna happen. What we do have to do is figure a way out of the mess Bush landed us in. There are more "terrorists" over there now then there were before we invaded. The people who didn't hate us before sure do now, and their number is growing.
Bush's insistence that other nations must be run like ours, must hold the same ideals as ours, etc. isn't going to make us any friends, either. For a man who dumped on an opponent 4 years ago for what he termed "nation building," Bush has given the concept a whole new meaning and has embraced it with open arms. Talk about a flip-flop!
Sadly, I look back to shortly after Bush was elected, when he was doing his best to piss off China. I posted here in the RT that Bush would have us in a war sooner or later. I was right. And when Bush abandoned his search for Osama & began casting his net at other Muslims in the world, I also posted right here that the United States really can't stand alone. Turning world opinion against us is not a smart thing to do. Our strongest ally is England, and even there the people's patience is badly frayed. Bush is painting us into a corner. He is a dangerous man to have leading our country.
******
edited to put spaces where they belong. Darn keyboard!
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
[ edited by bunnicula on Apr 22, 2004 01:19 PM ]
posted on April 22, 2004 01:34:38 PM new
No, Saddam will never be put back in power. The trouble with Bush and his advisors is that they aren't listening to others.
From a BBC report:
Questions raised
But in the case of Iraq, the overall military game plan seems to have been set by the politicians, notably US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and a small group of senior Pentagon officials.
The British approach to post-conflict situations was doctrinally different to that of the US
The US currently has some 135,000 troops in Iraq.
Before the invasion, the then head of the US Army, Gen Eric Shinseki, said that in his view several hundred thousand troops would be needed to maintain security and stability.
His comments were simply dismissed by top Pentagon officials.
Now, the two serving generals have raised questions about the wisdom of excluding Baath party officials from the post-war administration.
The Pentagon insisted that the Iraqi army be disbanded and that brand new security forces be recruited and trained.
British criticism
But the two generals seem to share the view that the policy of casting senior Iraqi officers aside was a mistake.
British generals, too, have been speaking out.
Yesterday, the head of the British Army - Gen Sir Mike Jackson - told the House of Commons Defence Committee it was a fact that "the British approach to post-conflict situations was doctrinally different to that of the US".
There has been some criticism of US tactics from British, Polish and other commanders.
Perhaps peacekeeping in Iraq is too important to be left to the Pentagon.
Bush should just admit he screwed up and then get on with the business of trying to fix things the best he can and that means allowing other countries to have an input into how everyone can work together to clean up the mess that was made. That means gaining the trust of the Iraqi people and I have a feeling it will take a very long time.
posted on April 23, 2004 08:15:52 AM new
OMG !!!! Our commanders in Iraq are now recommending that Hussein's Baathist generals and other security officials be put back in charge of Iraq security !!!!
These are the same guys that gassed civilians, and ran the "rape and murder" rooms.
Hey Linda-- when is your man Bush leaving to go live in the hell hole he has creating in Iraq ?
How could god be so wrong to put a "leader" like Bush in charge ?
Gee, I don't get it. Bush prayed for guidance, he thinks god chose him for the job, but everything he does turn to sh1t.
posted on April 23, 2004 09:27:57 AM new
BAGHDAD, Iraq - The top U.S. administrator in Iraq announced on Friday an easing of the ban on members of Saddam Hussein’s disbanded party, a move that could allow thousands of former Baathists to return to their positions in the military and government bureaucracy.
Some Iraqi leaders welcomed the change, saying the strong purge had been a mistake from the start and fueled the anti-U.S. insurgency. The policy change, however, could face opposition, particularly among Kurds and Shiites who were brutally suppressed by Saddam and welcomed the purge of his followers.
Governing Council member Ahmad Chalabi said the shift was akin to putting Nazis back in charge of Germany. “This policy will create major problems in the transition to democracy, endanger any government put together by U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi and cause it to fall after June 30,” Chalabi said.
Also, Iraqis who served in Saddam’s army, including generals and other senior officers, are needed for the new Iraqi army and will be absorbed at quickly — provided they are found not to have engaged in criminal activity, the official said.
Gen. John Abizaid, the head of Central Command, disclosed last week that the military was reaching out to former senior Iraqi army officers to help shore up the struggling Iraqi security services.
posted on April 23, 2004 11:59:48 AM new
Nothing wrong with using former Baathists, and as desquirrel said Patton used former Nazis, but his sector was coming back faster with their help... Are you saying people can't change Kiara?
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
It's too bad that their blindness can't see they are killing more soldiers than President Bush ever has... Protest Loud and Proud! Your fellow taliban and insurgents are rejoicing at the support...
posted on April 23, 2004 12:28:57 PM new
It's a simple thing. People with any brains do what they have to to get ahead. If you're an engineer and you have to join the Nazi or Baath part to work, you do it. An it might be a good idea to hire that engineer given his previous employer's response to shoddy work.
posted on April 23, 2004 12:59:56 PM new
Maybe this is the step to speed our exit...
All baathists couldn't of been evil, no more than all Democrats are cowards...
There is no cookie approach available, as much as some here would like to believe.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
It's too bad that their blindness can't see they are killing more soldiers than President Bush ever has... Protest Loud and Proud! Your fellow taliban and insurgents are rejoicing at the support...
posted on April 24, 2004 02:09:18 PM new
I guess you would know about simpletons... one looks back at you from every mirror you pass.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
It's too bad that their blindness can't see they are killing more soldiers than President Bush ever has... Protest Loud and Proud! Your fellow taliban and insurgents are rejoicing at the support...
posted on April 24, 2004 03:23:57 PM new
Well 12 you can add to the name calling but you can't add to your argument, as usual I am having a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
posted on April 24, 2004 03:27:31 PM new
12 and Linda must be getting very frustrated trying to defnd Bush when each passing day Bush does something else stupid or reverses course from one of those idiot decisions they base on "character".
