A Show Trial and a Show Execution

Convicted in a show trial that certainly appeared to have been timed to finish on the eve of last month's US elections, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was hanged in a show execution that just as certainly seems to have been timed to be carried out before the end of the worst year of the Iraq War.

Hussein was a bad player -- a totalitarian dictator who, with tacit approval from the U.S. and other western nation during the 1980s, killed his own people and waged a mad war with Iran. He needed to be held to account. But even bad players deserve fair trials, honest judgments and justly-applied punishments. The former dictator got none of these.

According to Human Rights Watch, which has a long and honorable history of documenting and challenging the abuses of Hussein's former government, the execution early Saturday morning followed "a deeply flawed trial" and "marks a significant step away from respect for human rights and the rule of law in Iraq."

"The test of a government's commitment to human rights is measured by the way it treats its worst offenders," says Richard Dicker, director of Human Rights Watch's International Justice Program. "History will judge these actions harshly."

For fifteen years, Human Rights Watch had demanded that Hussein be brought to justice for what the group has rightly described as "massive human rights violations." But the group argues that Hussein was not brought to justice.

In addition to objecting at the most fundamental level to the use of the barbaric practice of state-sponsored execution--which is outlawed by the vast majority of the world's nations--Human Rights Watch notes that Hussein was killed before being tried for some of his most well-documented acts of brutality.

The group notes the trial that did take place was fundamentally flawed.

A niney-seven-page report by Human Rights Watch, issued late last month, details the severe problems with the trial. The report, based on close monitoring of the prosecution of the former president, found that:

•"(The) Iraqi High Tribunal was undermined from the outset by Iraqi government actions that threatened the independence and perceived impartiality of the court."

• The Iraqi administrators, judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers lacked sufficient training and expertise "to fairly and effectively try crimes of this magnitude."

• The government did not protect defense lawyers--three of whom were killed during the trial--or key witnesses.

• "(There were) serious flaws in the trial, including failures to disclose key evidence to the defense, violations of the defendants' right to question prosecution witnesses, and the presiding judge's demonstrations of bias."

• "Hussein's defense lawyers had 30 days to file an appeal from the November 5 verdict. However, the trial judgment was only made available to them on November 22, leaving just two weeks to respond."

The report did not study the appeals process, But the speed with which the tribunal's verdict and sentence were confirmed suggests that the Iraqi Appeals Chamber failed to seriously consider the legal arguments advanced by Hussein's able--if violently harassed--legal team.

"It defies imagination that the Appeals Chamber could have thoroughly reviewed the 300-page judgment and the defense's written arguments in less than three weeks' time," said Dicker. "The appeals process appears even more flawed than the trial."

There will, of course, be those who counter criticism of the process by pointing out that Saddam Hussein did not give the victims of his cruel dictates fair trials or just sentences. That is certainly true.

But such statements represent a stinging indictment of the new Iraqi government and its judiciary. With all the support of the United States government, with massive resources and access to the best legal advice in the world, with all the lessons of the past, Iraq has a legal system that delivers no better justice than that of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship.

This is the ugly legacy of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq: An awful mess of a country that cannot even get the trial and punishment of deposed dictator right, a justice system that schedules the taking of life for political and propaganda purposes, a thuggishly brutal state that executes according to whim rather than legal standard.

According to Britain's Telegraph newspaper, "There was no comment from the White House, which was determined that the execution should appear to be an Iraqi event." The central role played by the US government in the process was not lost on the Telegraph, however, as the newspaper noted that: "the transfer of Saddam from American to Iraqi custody meant his death was imminent."

The term "transfer" is of course being used in a loose sense, as Hussein was hung not in an Iraqi prison but within the American-controlled Green Zone in central Baghdad.

Now that the killing is done, the governments of Iraq and the United States have confirmed what may have been the worst fear of those who condemned both Saddam Hussein and the US invasion and occupation that removed him from power. The crude lawlessness of Hussein has been replaced by the calculated lawlessness of a new regime.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book, THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism has been hailed by authors and historians Gore Vidal, Studs Terkel and Howard Zinn for its meticulous research into the intentions of the founders and embraced by activists for its groundbreaking arguments on behalf of presidential accountability. After reviewing recent books on impeachment, Rolling Stone political writer Tim Dickinson, writes in the latest issue of Mother Jones, "John Nichols' nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic, The Genius of Impeachment, stands apart. It concerns itself far less with the particulars of the legal case against Bush and Cheney, and instead combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the "heroic medicine" that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

The Genius of Impeachment can be found at independent bookstores and at www.amazon.com

Comments (212)

1. Thanks, LVLIBERTY1, for reminding me you're no better than Saddam Hussein, if not worse. I have a natural tendency to expect more from human beings but then you come along like clockwork to reacquaint me with the morally degenerate element within humanity.

   Posted by fromredbird at 12/30/2006 @ 03:26am

2. The plain fact of the matter is that a guilty party will always be less guilty in the eyes of history when subjected to a kangaroo court. They took a long time to accomplish exactly nothing.

   The imperative, of course, was this: Saddam Hussein could not receive a fair trial in front of an international tribunal because a fair trial would inevitably reveal the complicity of the USA in his crimes.

   Posted by fromredbird at 12/30/2006 @ 03:33am

3. What a pathetic, pitiful wretch you are LVLIBERTY1. It's truly stupendously impressive that The Nation continues to allow you to publish hateful, degenerate attacks against their own writers who are 10,000 times more thoughtful, responsible, emotionally mature, and intelligent than you are.

   I, for one, wish that they would permanently ban your worthless, revolting, little ass.

   Posted by fromredbird at 12/30/2006 @ 03:38am

4. "In a farewell message to Iraqis posted Wednesday on the Internet, Saddam said he was giving his life for his country as part of the struggle against the United States. "Here, I offer my soul to God as a sacrifice, and if he wants, he will send it to heaven with the martyrs."

   What a way to go (Courtesy of GW). Makes impeachment look a bit wussy.

   Wonder if John Nichols was praying for the ultimate Bush failure. Viz Old Saddie getting hold of the reigns again.

   Oh well, may as well get used to bad news. Who knows, we may see Iraq on the rails in a year or two and a modest stature of GW in the heart of liberated Baghdad and perhaps a donated oil well or two of his own.

   Hankies anyone?

   Posted by lrjones4 at 12/30/2006 @ 05:34am

5. I was against this execution, but harping on the fairness of the trial is almost absurd: would HRW been happy if there'd been an appeal - most likely denied - and then an execution? Read the details of this man's history - it's all over the papers today: from the Times to the Guardian - the man was incredibly brutal - Nicols underplays it by calling him a "bad player", which makes Sadam sound like a poor athlete - not a murderous dictator. It's interesting that the left is often timid about Muslim violence and backwards cultural practice - but here, when the Muslims have actually put down a man who tormented them, a real "bad player" - now the left finds its voice! Oh you brave people!

   Posted by jabelson at 12/30/2006 @ 06:35am

6. It would be ideal for Fromredbird to go and repeat his comments about Saddam and the US to those Iraqis in Dearborn Michigan. I'm sure he will find their responses quite enlightening (if he survives it).

   Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/30/2006 @ 05:42am

   It would "be ideal" for you to stand before God and repeat such hateful comments to Him. You represent the true evil in this country LV. You and your kind have wrecked the Republican party and have helped spread as much hate and violence across the globe as any Muslim extremist.

   In case you get all huffy because your "Christian values" are being attacked, why don't you spend some time reading about the Christians at the CPT (Christian Peacemaker Team). Here is their mission statement: "What would happen if Christians devoted the same discipline and self-sacrifice to nonviolent peacemaking that armies devote to war?"

   They were against killing Saddam because they know that violence begets violence.

   Posted by MiddleWay at 12/30/2006 @ 07:31am

7. [It's interesting that the left is often timid about Muslim violence and backwards cultural practice], [now the left finds its voice! Oh you brave people!]

   Posted by JABELSON 12/30/2006 @ 06:35am

   Whatever points you are trying to make are severly weakened when you use labels like "the left". Try giving us a definition of "the left". From what I see, these lines have been severly blurred over the last few years.

   Posted by MiddleWay at 12/30/2006 @ 07:40am

8. Saddam was definitely much, much more and worse than a "bad player," but state-sanctioned execution is not and never will be part of the solution to the incredibly violent problems our world is facing. And the bloodlust surrounding it is sad to see.

   Posted by Rintrah at 12/30/2006 @ 07:44am

9. They were against killing Saddam because they know that violence begets violence.

   Posted by MIDDLEWAY 12/30/2006 @ 07:31am

   What on earth does it have to do with you? This is the way the Iraq legal system works. If you want to make any change you better start with the Muslim religion and try to get that changed (In Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh), to forbid what is not forbidden is wrong. Consequently, it is difficult to make a case for abolition of the death penalty which is explicitly endorsed.)

   How about your own country and the use of capital punishment in many states; does that cause violence in your country?

   You are bleating too loudly for us not to be suspicious of your true motives.

   Posted by lrjones4 at 12/30/2006 @ 08:04am

10. How about your own country and the use of capital punishment in many states; does that cause violence in your country?

    Posted by LRJONES4 12/30/2006 @ 08:04am | ignore this person

    If by "your country," you mean the US, then, by the standards of non-impoverished, non-war torn countries, it's a pretty violent place. Capital punishment doesn't "cause" the violence, but it certainly is a contributing factor to the existence and acceptance of the notion that violence solves problems.

    Posted by Rintrah at 12/30/2006 @ 08:25am

11. I'm sorry, but...

    "Hussein was a bad player"?!?!?!?!??

    Simple question....would John Nichols say that Augusto Pinochet was a "bad player", or use a wee bit stronger language?!??!

    Posted by Mask at 12/30/2006 @ 08:25am

12. RESE, still haven't answered....

    WHERE were you on November 22, 1963?....Any witnesses that can corroborate that??!?!?!?

    Hmmm? Hmmm???

    Posted by Mask at 12/30/2006 @ 08:27am

13. Posted by LRJONES4 12/30/2006 @ 08:04am

    What does it have to do with me???? Are you really aking me why I should worry about what goes on in Iraq?

    So now Iraq is on its own two feet with a fully functional legal system and rule of law? Please. The US called all the shots in the trial. How ever bad he was, we were responsible. True strength is owning up to your mistakes. We have made many (and make many) that have cause more death and destruction in this region than Saddam. Let's not continue to blame Muslims.

    I will defer discussion about capital punishment for another time and place. My point about the CPT was to counter LV's insinuation that only Godless people are against the killing of this man.

    Posted by MiddleWay at 12/30/2006 @ 08:33am

14. DHS Forced Labor Prison Camp "Swift Luck Greens" coordinates.

    The Coal Mine IS the canary!

    Look at these pictures:

    http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=297

    See the 4th one labeled "East Annex?"

    I think it's this location

    CYPRUS SHOSHONE COAL CORPORATION PO BOX 530 HANNA WY 82327

    Latitude: 41.92 Longitude: -106.521944

    http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:r6uVGyYd6jEJ:oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ multisys2.get_list%3FFACILITY_UIN%3D110011605575+%22RAG+shoshone%22+long itude+latitude&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

    Map: http://www.gorissen.info/Pierre/maps/googleMapLocationv4.php?lat=41.92&l on=-106.521944&setLatLon=Set http://www.gorissen.info/Pierre/maps/googleMapLocationv4.php?lat=41.92&l on=-106.521944&setLatLon=Set

    Map: http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/lrt_viewer.map_page?sys_id=110011605575

    This shows the rail line loops at the Shoshone mine, plus a creek to the west called Stink Creek. http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?client=public&X=-11859000.6865528 &Y=5118000.35541027&width=700&height=400&gride=&gridn=&srec=0&coordsys=m ercator&db=&addr1=&addr2=&addr3=&pc=&advanced=&local=&localinfosel=&kw=& inmap=&table=&ovtype=&keepicon=&zm=0&out.x=8&out.y=8&scale=25000

    The Stink Creek location may be where the "north" facility is located here - shown here depicting possible hay/wheat fields: http://www.gorissen.info/Pierre/maps/googleMapLocationv4.php?lat=41.92&l on=-106.521944&setLatLon=Set

    Roads and rail lines: http://www.gorissen.info/Pierre/maps/googleMapLocationv4.php?lat=41.92&l on=-106.521944&setLatLon=Set

    A working coal mine and a shoe factory - to be worked by prisoners (dissidents)?

    I believe the location of the "East" facility to be in the Hanna Coal Basin.

    In one photo – the facility listed is called "Swift Luck Greens EAST" It contains a coal trolley repair facility and access to a rail line – indicating mining will be conducted. The following chart lists the Hanna Coal Basin "RAG Shoshone 1" facility as having stopped production of 1 million-plus tons of coal per year as of 2001: http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:gNcoT3lrnlsJ:www.wma-minelife.com/co al/coalfrm/coaldat.htm+coal+shoshone+1&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4

    Did the government close the mine only to TAKE it for their use? http://www.fmshrc.gov/decisions/commission/west199934202042004.html

    Read this guy's take: http://tinyurl.com/y48vxo

    FORCED LABOR CAMPS FOR FAMILIES - IN THE UNITED STATES?

    Michael Chertoff...you've got some splainin to do!

    .

    Posted by plunger at 12/30/2006 @ 08:34am

15. You are bleating too loudly for us not to be suspicious of your true motives.

    Posted by LRJONES4 12/30/2006 @ 08:04am

    Enlighten me, please.

    Posted by MiddleWay at 12/30/2006 @ 08:36am

16. RESE, PLUNGER....a quote from the great David Hume (Scottish philosopher)--

    "Does a man of sense run after every silly tale of hobgoblins or fairies, and canvass particularly the evidence? I never knew anyone, that examined and deliberated about nonsense who did not believe it before the end of his enquiries."

    sound like anybody you know?

    Posted by Mask at 12/30/2006 @ 08:41am

17. RESE, asked PLUNGER (and of course he didn't answer), I'll try you....

    Have your escape plan ready?

    Seriously, are you just going to "wait around" for them to haul you away to the "Halliburton concentration camp outside of Casper"?

    Or do even YOU not TRULY believe your own crap?

    Posted by Mask at 12/30/2006 @ 08:53am

18. Still waiting on my answer, RESE....

    When do you move to Canada or "go underground"? (remember "they" are tracing your Internet!)

    Posted by Mask at 12/30/2006 @ 09:00am

19. In what country do they house entire families in forced labor prison camps?

    The "United States of Michael Chertoff":

    http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=297

    Posted by plunger at 12/30/2006 @ 09:02am

20. What exactly does "international law" have to do with Saddam's trial? His crimes were against Iraqis, and was tried, sentenced and executed under Iraqi law.

    Funny how the same people who argue against globalization, want to live under a global justicial system, as approved by a global legislative system (U.N.). Local laws and customs are irrelevant to their world view.

    Furthermore, those who demand "international law" are always white, and who give backhanded racist comments when they insist that nothing is legitimate unless Europeans are involved in the process. In their mind an Iraqi court isn't good enough for them. The trial must be held in Europe, conducted by white judges wearing wigs.

    Posted by Zeddmen at 12/30/2006 @ 09:08am

21. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Inmate_Labor_Program

    Wikipedia:

    Civilian Inmate Labor Program -

    The Civilian Inmate Labor Program is a program of the United States Army provided by Army Regulation 210-35[1]. The regulation, first drafted in 1997 and went under a "rapid act revision" in January 2005, provides policy for the creation of labor programs and prison camps on Army installations. The labor would be provided by persons under the supervision of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

    Prison camps

    The regulation also sets forth policy for the creation of prison camps on Army installations. These would be used to keep inmates of the labor programs resident on the installations.

    In January 2006, Kellogg, Brown and Root reported that they had received a contract from the Department of Homeland Security to expand ICE DRO facilities "in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs."[3] A February news article comments that the "new programs" mentioned could include the Civilian Inmate Labour Program.[4] ICE has "joint federal facilities" with the Federal Bureau of Prisons.[5]

    External links

    1. ^ AR 210-35 Civilian Inmate Labor Program (PDF) (2004). Retrieved on 2006-03-09.

    Posted by plunger at 12/30/2006 @ 09:08am

22. Bush's Mysterious 'New Programs' By Nat Parry Consortium News

    Tuesday 21 February 2006

    Not that George W. Bush needs much encouragement, but Sen. Lindsey Graham suggested to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales a new target for the administration's domestic operations - Fifth Columnists, supposedly disloyal Americans who sympathize and collaborate with the enemy.

    "The administration has not only the right, but the duty, in my opinion, to pursue Fifth Column movements," Graham, R-S.C., told Gonzales during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Feb. 6.

    "I stand by this President's ability, inherent to being Commander in Chief, to find out about Fifth Column movements, and I don't think you need a warrant to do that," Graham added, volunteering to work with the administration to draft guidelines for how best to neutralize this alleged threat.

    "Senator," a smiling Gonzales responded, "the President already said we'd be happy to listen to your ideas."

    In less paranoid times, Graham's comments might be viewed by many Americans as a Republican trying to have it both ways - ingratiating himself to an administration of his own party while seeking some credit from Washington centrists for suggesting Congress should have at least a tiny say in how Bush runs the War on Terror.

    But recent developments suggest that the Bush administration may already be contemplating what to do with Americans who are deemed insufficiently loyal or who disseminate information that may be considered helpful to the enemy.

    Top US officials have cited the need to challenge news that undercuts Bush's actions as a key front in defeating the terrorists, who are aided by "news informers" in the words of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

    Detention Centers

    Plus, there was that curious development in January when the Army Corps of Engineers awarded Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root a $385 million contract to construct detention centers somewhere in the United States, to deal with "an emergency influx of immigrants into the US, or to support the rapid development of new programs," KBR said. [Market Watch, Jan. 26, 2006]

    http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/47/17936

    http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=297

    Posted by plunger at 12/30/2006 @ 09:25am

23. I am scared for this country, for what it has become. I lived abroad from 1997 to 2002 and came back to an unfamiliar - very hush hush society with more flagrant in your eyes corruption - yet the normal citizen cannot speak their opinion lest they be called "unpatriotic." We just executed a former President of a country. If this was done in the name of justice, how come we have not/ or did not execute Pinochet, Pol Pot, Ariel Sharon (butcher of Jenin civilian camp). Why have we not brought to justice Kissinger (for being behind most "CIA led" coups/juntas that led to bloodshed for many civilians, in so many foreign countries, including my birthplace, Greece. And then there is Bush, both of them, Gulf War (no large bully nation should attack a smaller nation - Iraq vs. Kuwait) where the hell was he was Turkey invaded Cyprus? But I am getting off track. And junior dry drunk Bush in the stained White House. I count the people of New Orleans that died in Katrina as part of his victims as well as every single American and foreign solider, all the civilians gruesome deaths in Iraq and Afganistan and everywhere else in the world we have caused death due to this crummy administration.

    Yes, Americans love violence and bloodshed, in it in their blood (excuse the pun). Europe has a longer history of bloodshed as well, but they have "grown up" and are using diplomacy to solve problems. Why cannot this be done here, in this country that offered so much hope to everyone including immigrants that came here with nothing and made something of themselves. Why every 7 to 10 years do we find it obligatory to invent some excuse to bomb other countries?

    Posted by galini at 12/30/2006 @ 10:07am

24. You might as well go ahead and say it directly and succinctly,Mr Nichols, instead of tap dancing around the main point of the article. George Bush is the one who deserves to be hanging in the gallows while the esteemed Saddam Hussein should have had his power in Iraq restored.

    Posted by dscott at 12/30/2006 @ 10:17am

25. Posted by DSCOTT 12/30/2006 @ 10:17am | ignore this person

    ya ever hear of nuance?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 10:36am

26. 1st , hanging was too good for the scum.

    2nd. It was a show trial, backed by the puppets of Chimpies faux guvt.

    3.Saddam was not a threat to the ME, Rev. Revenge. His threat o Israel is none of our concern. Israel is capable of defending itself with its own Berlin wall, phalanx of nuclear weapons and vats of chem and biological agents. They don't need us stomping into Iraq to protect them. As we have seen, the road to Jerusalem did not go through Baghdad. Confusion, do I turn the other cheek, or look for an eye?

    4: I notice the Iraqis are staying put in Dearborn. And 50,000 real Iraqis a month are fleeing the newest democracy in the ME. This hangin won't change a thing.

    5: Dr. Anthrax is on the loose, freed by the US Army, same with Chemical Ali. And that is why 3000 troops have been killed, to protect us from WMD's. Remember all of those WMD's?

    5: Next up, the rulers of Burma, Kazakhstan, Kim Jong Il, Uzbekistan, the dictator of Pakistan, 1/3 of the rulers in Africa. Then come the democratically elected leftists in S. America. We won't stop til ALL the bad guys are dead, right neo's?

    6: grrr, kill, kill.

    7: yeah, funny how we won't get a real war crimes trial with witnesses like Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, oil company execs that made friends with the Dead One and former members of Reagans cabinet. AKA appeasers, the people that turned a blind eye while Saddam killed hundreds of thousands. But it is far easier to mock "the left" for its desire to see a real trial than to look in the mirror and see your 2 votes for Reagan and his policy of helping Saddam.

    8: Peace on Earth, goodwill towards men. Tis the season.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/30/2006 @ 10:50am

27. What percentage of Iraqis do you think would like to see our very own Pres hanging? I think impeachment is good enough, but how about asking the Iraqis and then applying a similar trial method? International law be damned. (although by international law , and US, chimp is a war criminal)

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/30/2006 @ 10:55am

28. According to Ex Pres Ford, Saddam would still be rampaging, and reading the flowery expressions of love for him I am left with another confused neo mindset. sigh.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/30/2006 @ 10:57am

29. 7: yeah, funny how we won't get a real war crimes trial with witnesses like Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, oil company execs that made friends with the Dead One and former members of Reagans cabinet. AKA appeasers, the people that turned a blind eye while Saddam killed hundreds of thousands.

    this is the reason that there was no other trial for Saddam, and certainly not in a real court outside of Iraq. in an open court american complicity would have been exposed.

    hang Bush? nah, he should live out his life in ignomy, being reminded daily of the havoc he so blithely unleashed.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 11:00am

30. Well the right wingers have extracted another pound of flesh from Iraq with the Hanging.

    What troubles me is the denied moral equivalence.

    Help Me Understand.

    Saddam Hussein executed for gassing some hundreds of Kurds (in the eyes of the media because that is all the American people were told for months as a justification for illegal invasion).

    Bush kills 3,000 US troops (maimed some 20,000 or so more) and has probably killed some 600,000 Iraqis with his actions - all for lies told to the American people.

    Is there a disconnect here?

    The implications are obvious to me.

    Ah, but these are questions that our propagandist, blood thirsty media will never ask or insinuate.

    And these are the questions that mom and pop America will be denied from considering because if it ain't on American TV then it just does not matter.

    I reread the Declaration of Independence from time-to-time and think these words speak volumes about our present right wing government.

    "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

    Snip ....

    "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

    Truer words have never been spoken. And sadly, the American people have forgotten their American history.

    Posted by forgotten at 12/30/2006 @ 11:00am

31. Please forgive the Reseian cut and paste from National Archives, but we really need a reminder how we got to the hanging of saddam.

    "By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive against Iranian human-wave attacks. The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. (It had been included several years earlier because of ties with several Palestinian nationalist groups, not Islamicists sharing the worldview of al-Qaeda. Activism by Iraq's main Shiite Islamicist opposition group, al-Dawa, was a major factor precipitating the war -- stirred by Iran's Islamic revolution, its endeavors included the attempted assassination of Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz.) [crab- Al Dawa party now hold seats in Iraq parliament ]

    Prolonging the war was phenomenally expensive. Iraq received massive external financial support from the Gulf states, and assistance through loan programs from the U.S. The White House and State Department pressured the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing, to enhance its credit standing and enable it to obtain loans from other international financial institutions. The U.S. Agriculture Department provided taxpayer-guaranteed loans for purchases of American commodities, to the satisfaction of U.S. grain exporters.

    By the summer of 1983 Iran had been reporting Iraqi use of using chemical weapons for some time. The Geneva protocol requires that the international community respond to chemical warfare, but a diplomatically isolated Iran received only a muted response to its complaints [Note 1]. It intensified its accusations in October 1983, however, and in November asked for a United Nations Security Council investigation.

    Following further high-level policy review, Ronald Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114, dated November 26, 1983, concerned specifically with U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The directive reflects the administration's priorities: it calls for heightened regional military cooperation to defend oil facilities, and measures to improve U.S. military capabilities in the Persian Gulf, and directs the secretaries of state and defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to take appropriate measures to respond to tensions in the area. It states, "Because of the real and psychological impact of a curtailment in the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf on the international economic system, we must assure our readiness to deal promptly with actions aimed at disrupting that traffic." It does not mention chemical weapons

    Soon thereafter, Donald Rumsfeld (who had served in various positions in the Nixon and Ford administrations, including as President Ford's defense secretary, and at this time headed the multinational pharmaceutical company G.D. Searle & Co.) was dispatched to the Middle East as a presidential envoy. His December 1983 tour of regional capitals included Baghdad, where he was to establish "direct contact between an envoy of President Reagan and President Saddam Hussein," while emphasizing "his close relationship" with the president [Document 28]. Rumsfeld met with Saddam, and the two discussed regional issues of mutual interest, shared enmity toward Iran and Syria, and the U.S.'s efforts to find alternative routes to transport Iraq's oil; its facilities in the Persian Gulf had been shut down by Iran, and Iran's ally, Syria, had cut off a pipeline that transported Iraqi oil through its territory. Rumsfeld made no reference to chemical weapons, according to detailed notes on the meeting

    Rumsfeld also met with Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, and the two agreed, "the U.S. and Iraq shared many common interests." Rumsfeld affirmed the Reagan administration's "willingness to do more" regarding the Iran-Iraq war, but "made clear that our efforts to assist were inhibited by certain things that made it difficult for us, citing the use of chemical weapons, possible escalation in the Gulf, and human rights." He then moved on to other U.S. concerns [Document 32]. Later, Rumsfeld was assured by the U.S. interests section that Iraq's leadership had been "extremely pleased" with the visit, and that "Tariq Aziz had gone out of his way to praise Rumsfeld as a person"

    Although official U.S. policy still barred the export of U.S. military equipment to Iraq, some was evidently provided on a "don't ask - don't tell" basis. In April 1984, the Baghdad interests section asked to be kept apprised of Bell Helicopter Textron's negotiations to sell helicopters to Iraq, which were not to be "in any way configured for military use" [Document 55]. The purchaser was the Iraqi Ministry of Defense. In December 1982, Bell Textron's Italian subsidiary had informed the U.S. embassy in Rome that it turned down a request from Iraq to militarize recently purchased Hughes helicopters. An allied government, South Korea, informed the State Department that it had received a similar request in June 1983 (when a congressional aide asked in March 1983 whether heavy trucks recently sold to Iraq were intended for military purposes, a State Department official replied "we presumed that this was Iraq's intention, and had not asked.")

    (and now... my favorite communiqué ever from Ray-Gun)

    public condemnation was issued on March 5. It said, "While condemning Iraq's chemical weapons use . . . The United States finds the present Iranian regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims"

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/30/2006 @ 11:13am

32. Later in the month, the State Department briefed the press on its decision to strengthen controls on the export of chemical weapons precursors to Iran and Iraq, in response to intelligence and media reports that precursors supplied to Iraq originated in Western countries. When asked whether the U.S.'s conclusion that Iraq had used chemical weapons would have "any effect on U.S. recent initiatives to expand commercial relationships with Iraq across a broad range, and also a willingness to open diplomatic relations," the department's spokesperson said "No. I'm not aware of any change in our position. We're interested in being involved in a closer dialogue with Iraq" [Document 52].

    Iran had submitted a draft resolution asking the U.N. to condemn Iraq's chemical weapons use. The U.S. delegate to the U.N. was instructed to lobby friendly delegations in order to obtain a general motion of "no decision" on the resolution. If this was not achievable, the U.S. delegate was to abstain on the issue. Iraq's ambassador met with the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Jeane Kirkpatrick, and asked for "restraint" in responding to the issue - as did the representatives of both France and Britain.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/30/2006 @ 11:19am

33. Conclusion

    The current Bush administration discusses Iraq in starkly moralistic terms to further its goal of persuading a skeptical world that a preemptive and premeditated attack on Iraq could and should be supported as a "just war." The documents included in this briefing book reflect the realpolitik that determined this country's policies during the years when Iraq was actually employing chemical weapons. Actual rather than rhetorical opposition to such use was evidently not perceived to serve U.S. interests; instead, the Reagan administration did not deviate from its determination that Iraq was to serve as the instrument to prevent an Iranian victory. Chemical warfare was viewed as a potentially embarrassing public relations problem that complicated efforts to provide assistance. The Iraqi government's repressive internal policies, though well known to the U.S. government at the time, did not figure at all in the presidential directives that established U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. was concerned with its ability to project military force in the Middle East, and to keep the oil flowing

    ( so Luvvy can gloat about getting 14mpg in his Behemoth Mobile.)

    So, who is to blame for Saddams rule? Saddam and Reagan, and anybody that voted for him, not the evil left wing of the American electorate. Face it in the mirror.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/30/2006 @ 11:23am

34. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/30/2006 @ 11:28am

    Justice? where was your justice in 1983? Who did you vote for in 1984? whose liberty were you a-luvin then? The Iraqi people? Or were you more pissed at the hostage holders in Iran?

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/30/2006 @ 11:32am

35. Nichols, I want to make a correction to my posting of 2:13 am. It would be ideal for Fromredbird to go and repeat his comments about Saddam and the US to those Iraqis in Dearborn Michigan. I'm sure he will find their responses quite enlightening (if he survives it).

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/30/2006 @ 05:42am

    I would repeat these comments to the people you designate without the least hesitation:

    The plain fact of the matter is that a guilty party will always be less guilty in the eyes of history when subjected to a kangaroo court. They took a long time to accomplish exactly nothing.

    The imperative, of course, was this: Saddam Hussein could not receive a fair trial in front of an international tribunal because a fair trial would inevitably reveal the complicity of the USA in his crimes.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 12/30/2006 @ 03:33am

    Most of them would likely agree with the second paragraph and some might disagree with the second but I'm quite confident that most would agree that a fair trial is even more preferable to a kangaroo court when the charged party is clearly guilty. Only a wretch so out of the mainstream of human consciousness as you could conceive of those comments as being somehow dangerous to make. Not that I would be concerned if they were, anyway.

    The Nation should ban you permanently. You have proven yourself an apparently congenital sociopath repeatedly and your permanent banning from this site would be a wonderful mental prophylaxis. I believe that allowing you to unload your contaminated bilge on normal human beings on a daily basis only contributes to the advance of your disease.

    Posted by fromredbird at 12/30/2006 @ 11:37am

36. More sickness from the left, er wait, from God:

    From Para. 56 of Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), an encyclical letter on various threats to human life which Pope John Paul II issued on March 25, 1995.

    "This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God's plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is "to redress the disorder caused by the offence."(46) Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfills the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people's safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated.(47)

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/30/2006 @ 11:40am

37. For all of you lefties on this blog, screaming about what you feel is wrong with this country or the trial and execution of SH is not going to change anything, nor wishing for a revolution either.

    History shows that every country has a bloody past. Some more than others. The only thing history can do is tell it like it was and hope that those who read it will not repeat the past. (Easier said, than done...) Every country on this planet feels they are "more sophisticated, more friendly, more civil, more diplomatic, and a better respecter of persons, than their nearest neighbor. Remember, arrogance and snubbery doesn't have a favorite....

    Besides, nobody here is going to "overthrow" this government (especially you intellectuals). Many of you are way too comfortable with your lifestyles and none of you will truly stick your necks out to achieve that lofty goal. Some of you think the poor and desenfranchised should revolt, after all "they are the ones being taken advantage of and the most oppressed", right?

    What say you??...(to quote Bill O'Reilly) "keep it pithy".. :-)

    Posted by ACook at 12/30/2006 @ 11:42am

38. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 12/30/2006 @ 11:37am

    Hey, someone has to change Sharons bedpan. Might as well let him do it in public.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/30/2006 @ 11:43am

39. I was against this execution, but harping on the fairness of the trial is almost absurd: would HRW been happy if there'd been an appeal - most likely denied - and then an execution? Read the details of this man's history - it's all over the papers today: from the Times to the Guardian - the man was incredibly brutal - Nicols underplays it by calling him a "bad player", which makes Sadam sound like a poor athlete - not a murderous dictator. It's interesting that the left is often timid about Muslim violence and backwards cultural practice - but here, when the Muslims have actually put down a man who tormented them, a real "bad player" - now the left finds its voice! Oh you brave people!

    Posted by JABELSON 12/30/2006 @ 06:35am

    Are you so truly dullwitted that you can't see the issue is the trial not the criminal? What the hell does "Muslim violence" mean, anyway? Saddam Hussein was a secularist, through and through, and most of his enemies were religious. They are the same death squads running free in Iraq now and are much closer to al-Qaeda-type thought than Saddam Hussein was. I prefer to not use terms like "dullwitted" but you've got to display at least a modicum of intelligence and more than an intermittent contact with reality.

    Posted by fromredbird at 12/30/2006 @ 11:44am

40. What say you??...(to quote Bill O'Reilly) "keep it pithy".. :-)

    Posted by ACOOK 12/30/2006 @ 11:42am

    "While condemning Iraq's chemical weapons use . . . The United States finds the present Iranian regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims"

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/30/2006 @ 11:45am

41. HMMM, secular "liberals" are more concerned about the morality of state-sanctioned execution than the so-called "Christians."

    Georgie finally got his man, the one who attacked this country, and caused the deaths of 3000 U.S. citizens, and who ran an international jihadist group...oh wait, that was Osama. Saddam is just he guy who made Poppy look bad and who probably had lots of stories to tell about how the U.S. provided much of his WMD's. Saddam - bad, evil man, contained, pretty much toothless, and not even remotely involved in the attacks of 9/11 (ok, he probably cheered)- was relentlessly pursued, his country illegally invaded, and he was convicted in a trial that only the bloodthirsty or complicit could call justice; Osama - bad, evil man, ignored, connected to and very much in charge of jihadists all around the world, and the mastermind of the attacks of 9/11 - was treated like public enemy number 1 until the propaganidsts could build enough of a case to attack Saddam.

    Saddam was bad because he killed his own people and had little regard for the sanctity of life. But who holds the record for killing his own citizens in the good old USA? Who was so intent on spanking Saddam for making Poppy look bad that he has thrown away almost 3000 brave, courageous American lives just to "get his man?" That'd be the commando in chief. Hypocrisy of the highest order, and yet it'll be the holiest of holier-than-thou's who will attack me for my statements of fact - hypocrisy again.

    Going to church and quoting scripture doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage and honking makes you a Chevy.

    Posted by Turk33 at 12/30/2006 @ 11:47am

42. Saddam was judged from the witness and their remaining familys that Saddam had killed...and in turn he was executed for those crimes by Iraqis...

    And most of the posts here are still calling for BUSH and CHENEY as the problem and very little anti Saddam...all from the usual suspects..it is a shame

    Posted by john maasch at 12/30/2006 @ 11:50am

43. "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

    Truer words have never been spoken. And sadly, the American people have forgotten their American history.

    Posted by FORGOTTEN 12/30/2006 @ 11:00am

    The problem is not our form of government, the problem is the people who are violating our form of government and being allowed to get away with it.

    Posted by fromredbird at 12/30/2006 @ 11:50am

44. Europe has a longer history of bloodshed as well, but they have "grown up" and are using diplomacy to solve problems.

    Posted by GALINI 12/30/2006 @ 10:07am

    Ummm, does ethnic cleansing in the Balkans ring a bell? Or do you not consider those people "Europeans"?

    Posted by Zeddmen at 12/30/2006 @ 11:52am

45. I am scared for this country, for what it has become. I lived abroad from 1997 to 2002 and came back to an unfamiliar...society...

    Posted by GALINI 12/30/2006 @ 10:07am

    ---------------------------------------------------------------

    Such a sad, but true, observation ... only I have seen it changing over a much longer period and, from that perspective, even more disheartening viewpoint. I was in Europe when Nixon was forced to resign and all were transfixed by methodical case being built by Sen. Sam Ervin's investigation committee. It was a MUCH different Republican party then with many principled Congressmen and Senators of that party incensed at the behavior of their leader - so different now from the current GOP goose-steppers that put party ahead of the nation, the law, the people ... The writing was on the wall for Nixon. The US was insisting on the rule of law. And I was proud.

    Since then [ Viet Nam was terrible, but the people did (and could then, in contrast to now) force its end, to their credit ], the nation has been on a downhill course. Every time I return, and I travel abroad often, I see significant change in American society. It started slowly and gradually and now is at a gallop. In these last years, it is almost a country I do not recognize. It is far, far from the land that was marching for justice when I was in college.

    The election of the pusillanimous Dems gives only a glimmer of hope and the possible contenders for the White House seem but ciphers. There may be a Truman among them, but I very much doubt it. And there are two more years to the present criminal administration. With namby-pamby Dems and time left to the thugs now on Pennsylvania Avenue, I also fear for the nation, especially considering the incalculable damage this regime has managed to do in six years - and what they may still do in another two.

    But the most upsetting trend is in the US citizenry. They have become politically irresponsible and putty in the hands of a manipulative media. This last election should not have had one close race; there should have been other Chafee-like results. How extreme must the criminality of the regime be? How much economic harm has to be done? How many civil rights and protections of freedom must be abridged? How many "renditions", torture and other extra-legal activities must be revealed? How many must be killed and maimed? How much will it take for a significant majority of the American electorate to react with outrage? Say, with the outrage they showed at witnessing Bull Connor set loose his dogs in Selma?

    America is a nation that has lost its path. It has lost its compass for democracy, rule of law and justice. It has failed to learn from its past and prepare responsibly for its future. It has come to value principal more than principle. The social contract is broken.

    Posted by Tiresias at 12/30/2006 @ 11:53am

46. "While condemning Iraq's chemical weapons use . . . The United States finds the present Iranian regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims"

    Posted by CRABWALK 12/30/2006 @ 11:45am

    Crabbie, so what!?? You can't go back!!!

    Posted by ACook at 12/30/2006 @ 11:53am

47. The only thing history can do is tell it like it was and hope that those who read it will not repeat the past. -ACCOK

    vietnam/Iraq?

    algeria/Iraq

    Spanish American War? Remember The Main!! Of course the Spanish blew it up, how the hell else would it blow up and sink? a boiler exploding? Nonsense, it was the Spanish. Mohammed Atta met with iraqi intelligence services in the Czeck republic.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/30/2006 @ 11:54am

48. For some of us with liberal points of view (those of us able to evaluate different points of view without our heads exploding), it is possible to think that Saddam was evil AND that Bush and Cheney should be held accountable for their actions. It must be comforting for you to be able to only see things in black and white - but we live in a technicolor world.

    Posted by Turk33 at 12/30/2006 @ 11:56am

49. Sometimes a good show trial is just what the doctor ordered and, even though I'm not from the show-me state, I love a good show.

    Show time folks!

    Posted by SonnyJim at 12/30/2006 @ 11:58am

50. Posted by ACOOK 12/30/2006 @ 11:53am

    So what? so what? Your boy stood by Saddam, fueled his war, watched as he gassed Iranians and his own people. You wait 20 years, creating a cause out of thin air, bringing war death and destruction to a sovereign country. Then blame "the left" for wanting a real trial?

    Wackos, any port in a storm.

    When are you going to Burma?

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/30/2006 @ 11:58am

51. My 11:56 post was a response to JOHN MAASCH 12/30/2006 @ 11:50am:

    Posted by Turk33 at 12/30/2006 @ 11:59am

52. TIRESIAS, this country and other countries will continue to change whether we like what we see or not. America cannot and will not go back to being what you or others want it to be. This is not your America the way you were used to seeing in the 60's and 70's. It's the 21st century. Technology you couldn't even imagine is the norm. It's going to be up to the next generation to know what's best for them. The old folks are going to have to sit this one out.

    Posted by ACook at 12/30/2006 @ 12:00pm

53. Posted by TURK33 12/30/2006 @ 11:56am- AMEN Bro.

    A show trial is good enough for Saddam, but hearings in congress are anathema.

    is there peace in iraq today? Will there be peace on the morrow? Did the deaths of Uday and Qusay bring peace?

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/30/2006 @ 12:04pm

54. Posted by ACOOK 12/30/2006 @ 11:53am

    "So what? so what? Your boy stood by Saddam, fueled his war, watched as he gassed Iranians and his own people. You wait 20 years, creating a cause out of thin air, bringing war death and destruction to a sovereign country. Then blame "the left" for wanting a real trial?"

    "Wackos, any port in a storm."

    "When are you going to Burma?"

    Posted by CRABWALK 12/30/2006 @ 11:58am

    Look, what Reagan and Saddam did was a devil in the making. Reagan was under a lot of pressure to get American hostages out of Iran (which your boy, Jimmy should have done before he left..) He took advantage of bad situation...

    Posted by ACook at 12/30/2006 @ 12:07pm

55. The old folks are going to have to sit this one out.

    Posted by ACOOK 12/30/2006 @ 12:00am

    Ignoring history now? As I watch the Talking Heads on the telly, I have noticed a dearth of aged wisdom. Many of the "experts" are my age or younger (40ish). maybe we should be paying attention to what the elders, like The Pardoner Ford and Lee Hamilton, have to say. Instead of listening to David Brooks and Rich, still wet behind my ears, Lowery.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/30/2006 @ 12:08pm

56. Technology you couldn't even imagine is the norm.

    and who invented that technology? the personal computer? a bunch of hippie freaks in a garage in silicon valley, that's who. don't count the boomers out quite yet.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 12:11pm

57. I am not saying I am sad they are dead, I am gleeful, but their deaths have not achieved the desired result.

    ACOOK< reagan played both sides, he worked behind the scenes TO KEEP THE HOSTAGES HOSTAGE, giving weapons to the Iranians. Reagan was such a great guy, and he had a steel trap memory.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/30/2006 @ 12:11pm

58. Notice, I made the topic how leftists would attack Bush and the US instead of celebrating justice for the Iraqi's. Seems I was right.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/30/2006 @ 11:28am

    You didn't make the topic anything, you wretch. You're the equivalent of Charles Manson saying, "the prosecutor is unfairly attacking me when the real topic should be Sharon Tate's privileged lifestyle." Do you put an X-mark on the front of your Ford F-350 just like the one between your eyes?

    Posted by fromredbird at 12/30/2006 @ 12:13pm

59. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/30/2006 @ 12:11am

    You mean the "intellectual elite" hippies? In the Gomorra of our day, California? Gasp.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/30/2006 @ 12:13pm

60. Ummm, does ethnic cleansing in the Balkans ring a bell? Or do you not consider those people "Europeans"?

    Posted by ZEDDMEN 12/30/2006 @ 11:52am | ignore this person

    this is a tricky one. do you mean geographically? culturally? politically? the Balkans have always been a backwater.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 12:13pm

61. the morally degenerate element within humanity.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 12/30/2006 @ 03:26am | ignore this person

    describes you and some of your sainted arabs quite well.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 12:15pm

62. I, for one, wish that they would permanently ban my worthless, revolting, little ass.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 12/30/2006 @ 03:38am | ignore this person

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 12:16pm

63. I'm sure he will find their responses quite enlightening (if he survives it).

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/30/2006 @ 05:42am | ignore this person

    bloodthirsty little sucker, ain'tcha

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 12:17pm

64. Posted by GALINI 12/30/2006 @ 10:07am

    Nonsense.

    Posted by john maasch at 12/30/2006 @ 12:17pm

65. The LVLIBERTY1/JOHANNESROLF Israel-first tag team hard at work. Neither of them have ever seen an ethnically-cleansed Palestinian village that they didn't like.

    Posted by fromredbird at 12/30/2006 @ 12:20pm

66. The always reliable JOHANNESROLF, bringing supplicating "liberal" balm to the most vicious right-wingers onsite.

    Posted by fromredbird at 12/30/2006 @ 12:24pm

67. Mr. Nichols fails to place Saddam's execution in a proper historical context by omitting most significant factors about this man. Saddam Hussein was not an ordinary dictator. He was a genocidal one. In the annals of history Saddam will go down alongside Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Pol Pot and Nikolae Causescu. And just as no one regrets the demise of those dictators, nobody, except the looney-leftists like Mr. Nichols himself, will look back at Saddam's execution as an instance of injustice.

    If there was ever a perfect instance of justice, we just witnessed it when the hangman placed the noose around this remorseless, conscienceless, sadistic tyrant.

    Sir, I understand that you do not like George W. Bush and oppose the war in Iraq. And that's fine. But execution of a man who has caused the deaths of more than one million people rises far above your petty political biases. Get a grip.

    Posted by mill1453 at 12/30/2006 @ 12:25pm

68. http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/

    Chimpy joins Calvin in a New Years resolution. Bill Watterson is a prophet.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/30/2006 @ 12:25pm

69. the most vicious left-winger onsite,FROMREDBIRD

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 12:27pm

70. Posted by CRABWALK 12/30/2006 @ 12:25am

    Dead-on and what's truly amazing is that he gets away with it.

    Posted by fromredbird at 12/30/2006 @ 12:29pm

71. ut execution of a man who has caused the deaths of more than one million people rises far above your petty political biases. Get a grip.

    Posted by MILL1453 12/30/2006 @ 12:25am

    Looking forward to the effigial hangings of Robert E. Lee, Jackson, the traders that spread disease to the natives of the Americas, Luvvies ancestors etc. Be careful what you wish for. That is why a fair trial should be the goal.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/30/2006 @ 12:30pm

72. Posted by MILL1453 12/30/2006 @ 12:25am

    Except the Nazi's got the Nuremberg Trials, which were nothing like the kangaroo court that convicted Saddam. And just the fact that you lumped Saddam in that list makes your judgement suspect. He was bad, but he was bush league compared to most on the dictators on your list.

    Posted by Turk33 at 12/30/2006 @ 12:32pm

73. TURK, MILL,

    Armenian genocide? Any hangings for that?

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/30/2006 @ 12:34pm

74. "Technology you couldn't even imagine is the norm."

    "...and who invented that technology? the personal computer? a bunch of hippie freaks in a garage in silicon valley, that's who. don't count the boomers out quite yet."

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/30/2006 @ 12:11am

    JR dear I can't agree with you on this one. In my perview, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs revolutionize and catapulted the tech industry to where it is today. The hippe freaks you so lovingly acknowledge, can't touch what these guys and the Japanese has accomplished in the last 20 years.

    The teckkies of today will run circles around you and me and the other hippies. I bet your 16 yo set up your plasma tv with no problems and programed your I-pod and cellphone...(hehehe, wink, wink)

    Posted by ACook at 12/30/2006 @ 12:35pm

75. the most vicious left-winger onsite,FROMREDBIRD

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/30/2006 @ 12:27am

    What are you, JOHANNESROLF, other than an appendix-like feature of the right-wingers at this site? You are viciously bitter because I punctured your ardent support of ethnic-cleansing israel and the myths that you attempt to promote about israel.

    Posted by fromredbird at 12/30/2006 @ 12:36pm

76. But execution of a man who has caused the deaths of more than one million people rises far above your petty political biases. Get a grip.

    Posted by MILL1453 12/30/2006 @ 12:25am | ignore this person

    It has cost the Iraqi people 600,000 dead, so far, to bring Saddam to justice. Rumania and Cambodia got rid of their tyrants at far cheaper cost. and who eliminated the Khmer Rouge? why our old enemy the Vietnamese, formerly known as the North Vietnamese, or Viet Cong. you may get a grip yourself.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 12:39pm

77. And Bill Gates is using his billions, made off of substandard programming, to do what might be considered lefty works. end disease, curb hunger in youth around the world and promote education (ie, a new group of "elite") . All without an Army or tanks.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/30/2006 @ 12:41pm

78. I am viciously bitter because you punctured my ardent support of ethnic-cleansing arabs and the myths that I attempt to promote about Palestine. FROMREDBIRD

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 12:42pm

79. JR, we wouldn't be in Iraq if good people there got rid of Saddam the same way Rumania did or even Italy. Oh and Pol Pot died of old age before they could try him...nobody got him..(which is sad..)

    Posted by ACook at 12/30/2006 @ 12:43pm

80. Besides, nobody here is going to "overthrow" this government (especially you intellectuals). Many of you are way too comfortable with your lifestyles and none of you will truly stick your necks out to achieve that lofty goal. -ACCOK

    Well, to judge by your reaction to words, would you stand by an armed revolution in this country? I think not. Of course it would not be an ivi-say ar-way. You won't even support the laws we have now.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/30/2006 @ 12:47pm

81. JR dear I can't agree with you on this one. In my perview, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs revolutionize and catapulted the tech industry to where it is today. The hippe freaks you so lovingly acknowledge, can't touch what these guys and the Japanese has accomplished in the last 20 years.

    Jobs and Wozniak are the hippie freaks I am talking about, read a book Sweetie. Gates did not invent anything, though his contribution is very great. the Japanese have not been great inventors, the americans have. the history of electronic technology is something I have lived through and participated in, unlike you for example. I was among the first to use a video recorder and video cameras. I was there.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 12:47pm

82. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/30/2006 @ 12:47am

    Sequoia.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/30/2006 @ 12:48pm

83. I am viciously bitter because you punctured my ardent support of ethnic-cleansing arabs and the myths that I attempt to promote about Palestine. FROMREDBIRD

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/30/2006 @ 12:42am

    Are you saying that the Palestinians were the ethnic-cleansers in Palestine rather than the zionist settlers? That would be a new benchmark in your misrepresentations.

    Point out one instance, one, where I have supported "ethnic-cleansing Arabs". Let's see you put your money where your mouth is.

    Posted by fromredbird at 12/30/2006 @ 12:48pm

84. Crabbie, what do you have against Bill Gates? He's a private citizen just like you and can do what ever he wants with the money he's made whether you think the "programming" is substandard or not.

    Posted by ACook at 12/30/2006 @ 12:49pm

85. FREI, your a GREEN!!!

    I never knew!!

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/30/2006 @ 12:49pm

86. I was among the first to use a video recorder and video cameras. I was there.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/30/2006 @ 12:47am

    Impressive.

    Posted by fromredbird at 12/30/2006 @ 12:51pm

87. JR, we wouldn't be in Iraq if good people there got rid of Saddam the same way Rumania did or even Italy. Oh and Pol Pot died of old age before they could try him...nobody got him..(which is sad..)

    Posted by ACOOK 12/30/2006 @ 12:43am | ignore this person

    perhaps if we had waited. Mussolini died because the allies had invaded Italy and caused Italy to switch sides. Pol Pot was overthrown but escaped justice. perhaps if the US had invaded Cambodia, caused a civil war and caused the death of more than half a million

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 12:51pm

88. Posted by GALINI 12/30/2006 @ 10:07am

    Nonsense.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/30/2006 @ 12:17am

    ------------------------------------------------------

    As usual, utterly thoughtless and kneejerk.

    Posted by Tiresias at 12/30/2006 @ 12:51pm

89. I don't disagree with that, COOK. I think you missed my point. He is doing good work with his dough, other than building a monstonsity of a home. And he is doing it NOT at the point of a gun.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/30/2006 @ 12:51pm

90. JOHANNESROLF is going to put his money where his mouth is any minute now.

    Posted by fromredbird at 12/30/2006 @ 12:52pm

91. Are you saying that the Palestinians were the ethnic-cleansers in Palestine rather than the zionist settlers?

    there was enough ethnic cleansing to go around back in '48. jews were expelled from all arab countries. for you, an inconvenient truth.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 12:53pm

92. Posted by ACOOK 12/30/2006 @ 12:43am

    Or maybe if we had let Iran engage Iraq without Reagans help.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/30/2006 @ 12:53pm

93. Sequoia.

    Posted by CRABWALK 12/30/2006 @ 12:48am | ignore this person

    60 rings and counting.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 12:54pm

94. Chimpies sign should have read "Fishin' Accomplished"

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/30/2006 @ 12:55pm

95. "Besides, nobody here is going to "overthrow" this government (especially you intellectuals). Many of you are way too comfortable with your lifestyles and none of you will truly stick your necks out to achieve that lofty goal." -ACCOK

    Well, to judge by your reaction to words, would you stand by an armed revolution in this country? I think not. Of course it would not be an ivi-say ar-way. You won't even support the laws we have now.

    Posted by CRABWALK 12/30/2006 @ 12:47am

    Crabbie, even you wouldn't stand by an armed revolution, let alone participate in one. Nobody here on this blog is a Che Rivera.

    As for support of the laws of this land, I support them and support better inforcement of them. What about you?! Would you perfer to do away with laws that you don't agree with but does work well for the overall public to keep the peace?

    Posted by ACook at 12/30/2006 @ 12:57pm

96. I was among the first to use a video recorder and video cameras. I was there.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/30/2006 @ 12:47am

    Impressive.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 12/30/2006 @ 12:51am | ignore this person

    something good to say about me? must be irony.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 12:57pm

97. posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/30/2006 @ 12:54am

    Posted by CRABWALK 12/30/2006 @ 12:08am

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/30/2006 @ 12:57pm

98. Are you saying that the Palestinians were the ethnic-cleansers in Palestine rather than the zionist settlers?

    there was enough ethnic cleansing to go around back in '48. jews were expelled from all arab countries. for you, an inconvenient truth.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/30/2006 @ 12:53am

    Immediately after the zionist settlers ethnically-cleansed Palestine. But you're weasling. To put your money where your mouth is you have to point out where I supported "ethnic-cleansing Arabs". I have stated at this site more than once that expulsion of Jews from Arab countries after the zionist settlers ethnically cleansed Palestine was wrong.

    Put your money where your mouth is, JOHANNESROLF.

    Posted by fromredbird at 12/30/2006 @ 12:59pm

99. Posted by ACOOK 12/30/2006 @ 12:57am

    Expert rating by the NRA (I quit when they decided cops were worth less than jacketed bullets) . Fully armed.

    You seem to have a problem holding our pres to his oath of office, to defend the const. Enforcement has been lax.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/30/2006 @ 1:01pm

100. So is Johannesrolf on this one.

     Posted by FREIHEIT 12/30/2006 @ 12:56am | ignore this person

     thanks. in the early 70s I consorted with video freaks and phone freaks, anyone remember what they did?

     both video recorder and video camera were invented in the US, but popularized and commercialized by Japanese firms, Sony and Matsushita, read Panasonic

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 1:02pm

101. Cutting and running.

     (my impression of Reagan in Lebanon)

     Peace, justice, fair trials for even the most viscous. That is what separates us from the animals that hung mercenaries from a bridge.

     Posted by crabwalk at 12/30/2006 @ 1:04pm

102. I have stated at this site more than once that expulsion of Jews from Arab countries after the zionist settlers ethnically cleansed Palestine was wrong.

     was that in the fine print? well it is refreshing to hear you say it again. my compliments.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 1:04pm

103. JOHANNESROLFE, I'll check back in about 45 minutes to see if you're ever going to put your money where your mouth is but after that my weekend is on the schedule.

     Point out where I supported "ethnic-cleansing Arabs".

     Posted by fromredbird at 12/30/2006 @ 1:05pm

104. Bizarro world.

     Those who claim to be conservative supporting Bush who wrecked our economy and expanded government while tapping our phones and trying to tell us what we can and can't do in our bedrooms.

     Those who claim to be Christian advocating war, capital punishment, and revenge.

     Those who claim to be patriotic Americans show their support by putting stickers on their SUVs and shopping; all the while trusting that their government will do what's right.

     Those who want the Constitution upheld, government accountability, individual rights and some answers from those who screwed it all up called liberal, leftist, communist, unpatriotic, cynical, Godless, and weak.

     Posted by MiddleWay at 12/30/2006 @ 1:06pm

105. Peace, justice, fair trials for even the most viscous.

     viscous: having a thick sticky consistency between a solid and a liquid.

     enjoy your day, my friend Crab

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 1:07pm

106. Posted by MIDDLEWAY 12/30/2006 @ 1:06pm | ignore this person

     you are describing Bush's "down is up" world

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 1:09pm

107. Crabbie, I support the constitution alright, buy your newly elected dems are the one who doesn't support the rule of law. Remember, they made them and they can break them. The only thing we can do is throw out the bums and elect the most honest ones we can.

     Careful about calling people animals, JR takes offense to that...:)

     Posted by ACook at 12/30/2006 @ 1:10pm

108. I see the great antichrist lv?l is once again lost in his rose colored glasses world of BS. Why do you blame the left get a clue it was the right who put Saddam in power and the right who created a war to take power from him and the leaders of the right who should be tried as war criminals for their lies and manipulations that created this feasco.

     Posted by dycel8r at 12/30/2006 @ 1:10pm

109. Careful about calling people animals, JR takes offense to that...:)

     Posted by ACOOK 12/30/2006 @ 1:10pm | ignore this person

     yes, I do. pardon me if I remind you that blacks in this country, and others, have been denigrated in just that way. I would hope that you and others will join me in that.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 1:12pm

110. Acook, The only thing we can do is throw out the bums and elect the most honest ones we can.

     we did just that last november. you are right the job is not finished, we get another chance in '08.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 1:14pm

111. Middleway, Christians don't have the corner market on "advocating war, capital punishment, and revenge."

     And liberals aren't the light at the end of the tunnel on "those who want the Constitution upheld, government accountability, individual rights and some answers from those who screwed it all up called liberal, leftist, communist, unpatriotic, cynical, Godless, and weak."

     You need to stop painting everyone with a broad brush and understand that the views in this country is too diverse of any of us to really deal with. (Polls don't cut it because the sample groups a too small to be of any significance and they are not representative of the nation as a whole..that's why I don't quote them.)

     Posted by ACook at 12/30/2006 @ 1:17pm

112. Acook, The only thing we can do is throw out the bums and elect the most honest ones we can.

     thanks for reminding us. DeLay, Frist, Hastert,Foley, etc, the line forms at the right

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 1:18pm

113. JR, don't forget there are just as many on the left that need to go as the right....

     Posted by ACook at 12/30/2006 @ 1:23pm

114. JR, don't forget there are just as many on the left that need to go as the right....

     Posted by ACOOK 12/30/2006 @ 1:23pm | ignore this person

     the american electorate evidently disagrees with you there.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 1:27pm

115. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 12/30/2006 @ 1:05pm | ignore this person

     I wouldn't wait. I'll go as far as to say that your coverage on this issue has been "fair and balanced"

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 1:28pm

116. Acook, Christians don't have the corner market on "advocating war, capital punishment, and revenge."

     no they don't. they're just more hypocritical about it, what with their god jive, their attitudes of superiority, and their moralizing to others.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 1:36pm

117. Posted by ACOOK 12/30/2006 @ 1:17pm

     "Christians don't have the corner market on "advocating war, capital punishment, and revenge."

     I did not say that. The Republican party were the ones who first (or best) put religion into politics. I don't think anyone will dispute that they have the support of the most vocal Christians these days. I find it bewildering that putting forth a ban on gay marriage and ending abortion is so important to them that they chose and choose to support this war. I know they don't speak for all Christians, but as long as the rest continue to stay quiet, they might as well.

     "And liberals aren't the light at the end of the tunnel"

     I would definitely agree. You see, I am not a liberal. However, whenever I make a comment about how preemptive war is bad, how denying people basic rights is wrong, how Bush is by far, without a doubt, the unbelievably WORST president we have ever had, I get called liberal, leftist, unpatriotic, etc.

     "You need to stop painting everyone with a broad brush and understand that the views in this country is too diverse of any of us to really deal with."

     I have been arguing this point for a long time, and I will admit to some hypocricy with my last post. This was me venting at the absurdity of using labels to argue points, especially when everything is backwards as I pointed out.

     Posted by MiddleWay at 12/30/2006 @ 1:37pm

118. The Republican party were the ones who first (or best) put religion into politics.

     they were not the first. the Whig party did that too. figures.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 1:49pm

119. "The test of a government's commitment to human rights is measured by the way it treats its worst offenders..."

     Actually, the test of a governments commitment to human rights is the equal treatment of all those arrested and prosecuted for a crime, and the fairness of the punishment for those convicted.

     If a person commits a crime, it shouldn't matter who they are, but what they did. If they are convicted, the severity of the punishment should depend on the severity of the crime, so in fact the worst offenders would be punished the most.

     /Saddam deserved to hang, but the American people didn't deserve a half trillion dollar bill to do so.

     Posted by Snarfangel at 12/30/2006 @ 1:57pm

120. /Saddam deserved to hang, but the American people didn't deserve a half trillion dollar bill to do so.

     Posted by SNARFANGEL 12/30/2006 @ 1:57pm | ignore this person.

     and where did that money go? to haliburton and the military industrial complex, who have done very well. far more costly, if such a thing is possible, has been the cost in human lives. america will make more money, but these lives are lost forever.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 2:03pm

121. Middle, there will always be individuals that will never agree with you on anything. You are entitled to your opinion. This country has experience both good and bad Presidents. Some like who they've elected, others don't.

     The world is full of possibilies. We don't know what the future holds for the US government. Some say it's going to crash and burn, other say we will continue to lead and still others don't know what to think.

     "I find it bewildering that putting forth a ban on gay marriage and ending abortion is so important to them that they chose and choose to support this war. I know they don't speak for all Christians, but as long as the rest continue to stay quiet, they might as well."

     I can't say I agree with this statement. Christians are probably the most vocal group in America because they are the largest. It's the non-christians who are staying quiet.

     Posted by ACook at 12/30/2006 @ 2:11pm

122. I am viciously bitter because you punctured my ardent support of ethnic-cleansing arabs and the myths that I attempt to promote about Palestine./FROMREDBIRD

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/30/2006 @ 12:42am

     Are you saying that the Palestinians were the ethnic-cleansers in Palestine rather than the zionist settlers? That would be a new benchmark in your misrepresentations.

     Point out one instance, one, where I have supported "ethnic-cleansing Arabs". Let's see you put your money where your mouth is.

     Posted by FROMREDBIRD 12/30/2006 @ 12:48am

     JOHANNESROLFE, I'll check back in about 45 minutes to see if you're ever going to put your money where your mouth is but after that my weekend is on the schedule.

     Point out where I supported "ethnic-cleansing Arabs".

     Posted by FROMREDBIRD 12/30/2006 @ 1:05pm

     I wouldn't wait. I'll go as far as to say that your coverage on this issue has been "fair and balanced"

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/30/2006 @ 1:28pm

     Your lame equation of myself with Fox News is laughable. Once again, JOHANNESROLFE talks s*** identical to that spouted by the right-wingers on this site and, of course, can't put his money where his mouth is. Big surprise. Slither away. I have better things to do.

     Posted by fromredbird at 12/30/2006 @ 2:13pm

123. It's the non-christians who are staying quiet.

     Posted by ACOOK 12/30/2006 @ 2:11pm | ignore this person

     not me. I have marched in NyC and in Washington to protest this god forsaken war.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 2:14pm

124. But before I go let me mention that your slanders against me of "anti-semitism" are equally bulls***. Let's see you point out one instance of that. Go ahead. Put your money where your big mouth is on that, too.

     Posted by fromredbird at 12/30/2006 @ 2:16pm

125. Your lame equation of myself with Fox News is laughable.

     I see you got it, very perspectatious of you. enjoy your day.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 2:17pm

126. Birdy, I don't recall calling you anti-semitic.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 2:18pm

127. What does it have to do with me???? Are you really aking me why I should worry about what goes on in Iraq?

     So now Iraq is on its own two feet with a fully functional legal system and rule of law? Please. The US called all the shots in the trial. How ever bad he was, we were responsible. True strength is owning up to your mistakes. We have made many (and make many) that have cause more death and destruction in this region than Saddam. Let's not continue to blame Muslims.

     I will defer discussion about capital punishment for another time and place. My point about the CPT was to counter LV's insinuation that only Godless people are against the killing of this man.

     Posted by MIDDLEWAY 12/30/2006 @ 08:33am

     No just your unbridled arrogance in assuming you know what is going on in Iraq. If you had any idea what the Iraq legal system was like, even over the last 30 years during the Saddam era, you wouldn't have expected a Rolls Royce version to be up and running in a few short years, particularly when important players in the system are being picked off by those who oppose a legal system that might give Iraq a much fairer justice system than it has ever had.

     The impression that I get is that you would hate to see Iraq become what it was at the beginning of Saddam's rule ie a rich, highly educated nation with potential to become an economic powerhouse in the ME. The horrible part about you and your cohorts is that you would deny the Iraqis that opportunity because of your consuming hatred for Bush and his policies. That shows, more than anything, what sort of person you, as well as others who take your position, rather than the image you project bolsered with all that pseudo religious crap you go on with. One wonders if you are not merely behaving as petulant children do, because you can't influence this government's Iraq policy as you were able to do with the administration in the Vietnam days.

     You seem mean, shrivelled up, small-minded people who demand that your analysis of the world's problems must be the guide for all policy with respect to Iraq and the ME, or the Iraqis and the Arabs can go to hell. In my book decent people would take the approach yes we have stuffed up but how can we make up for this and help give the Iraqis a future that is better than what they had under Saddam and better than what they are now experiencing. I'm hopeful that some of your politicians on both sides are thinking along these lines.

     Beyond your hatred of Bush and his policies you reveal an underlying elitist American attitude, which is essentially racism, evidenced in your scarcely concealed gloating over the number of Iraqis who have been killed. Yet you seem to want to shed crocodile tears for the poor deal one who was the prime cause of their past suffering, and largely instrumental for their present woes, because of the failed state he bequeathed to them, has got.

     I notice others here are longing for the good old days when, they imagine, America was a beacon to the world of deomcratic purity and uprightness. Bullshit. Crabs has been going out of his way to prove what a corrupt and duplicitous lot you were in the Iran/Iraq war. We knew that all along and not only because of that conflict and issue.

     You were still dealing with the aftermath of your shocking enslavement of human beings for a couple of centuries in the middle of last century when truly enlightened nations like Great Britain had shown the world the way forward in the early 19th century.

     You were behind many of the other democracies in many rights issues including women's suffrage and of course you are perhaps the only Western democracy that still practices capital punishment.

     You have always been in catch up mode so don't come the raw prawn about how benighted your nation has become under Bush. That is another fabrication from which to justify letting the Iraqis go to hell.

     Do you really want your country to be known as the mightiest economic and military power this world has ever known but never been able to help nations weighed down under corrupt and tyrannical governments unless there is some material benefit in it for America?

     However flawed Saddam's trial was and a better evaluation of that can only be had when the trial transcripts have been read and evaluated, it is a start, that you as an historically flawed democracy have little right to criticize.

     The Iraqis have shown themselves to be a courageous people, not only by the way they conducted this trial but by every way in which they have attempted to move forward to a better future for themselves and their children. That you should sit on the sidelines and mock those endeavours gives us some insight into why your nation loses heart in potentially great endeavours.

     Thank goodness you don't represent all Americans.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 12/30/2006 @ 2:27pm

128. MIDDLEWAY, two points

     1. "I did not say that. The Republican party were the ones who first (or best) put religion into politics."----Posted by MIDDLEWAY 12/30/2006 @ 1:37pm

     Not really either. Did you forget about Dr. King or Father Berrigan in the 60s? "Religion" isn't just "conservative fundamentalist Christianity".

     2. "You see, I am not a liberal."---Posted by MIDDLEWAY 12/30/2006 @ 1:37pm

     If not, what aspects of modern liberalism do you DISagree with, then?

     Posted by Mask at 12/30/2006 @ 2:29pm

129. I can't say I agree with this statement. Christians are probably the most vocal group in America because they are the largest. It's the non-christians who are staying quiet.

     Posted by ACOOK 12/30/2006 @ 2:11pm

     Well, I would have to disagree with this point. By far, the largest group in America are the ones who seem like they couldn't care less what happens in this country.

     If I asked 100 random people who they thought represented Christian values in this country, what percentage would say the Republicans?

     Posted by MiddleWay at 12/30/2006 @ 2:30pm

130. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/30/2006 @ 2:21pm | ignore this person

     correct on both counts, thank you. from the Iraqi website:

     Al-Baath Party Official Party Official Media

     Orientation Official Political Party of Iraq and Syria.

     Platform Baath Party, formally the Baath Arab Socialist Party, is the party in power in Syria and Iraq. Its main ideological objectives are secularism, socialism, and pan-Arab unionism. Baath Party was from the beginning a secular Arab nationalist party. Socialism (not Marxism) was quickly adopted as the party's economic dogma. From its earliest development, the motivation behind Baathist political thought and its leading supporters was the need to produce a means of reasserting the Arab spirit in the face of foreign domination. Moral and cultural deterioration, it was felt, had so weakened the Arabs that Western supremacy spread throughout the Middle East. Arabs needed a regeneration of the common heritage of people in the region to drive off debilitating external influences.

     Leadership Regional Command Leadership of the Baath Party is held by Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Regional Command Leadership of the Baath Party is held by Bashar Al-Assad in Syria.

     Funding Funded within Syria and Iraq.

     History The official founding of the Al-Baath Party may be dated from its first party congress in Damascus on April 7, 1947, when a constitution was approved and an executive committee established. However, significant expansion beyond Syria's borders took place only after the war of 1948, when lack of Arab unity was widely perceived as responsible for the loss of Palestine to the new state of Israel. Articulated as the principle of Arab nationalism, the Baath movement was one of several political groups that drew legitimacy from an essentially reactive ideology. Nevertheless, Baathist ideology spread slowly by educating followers to its intellectual attractions. The Iraqi branch of the Baath Party was established in 1954 after the merger of the Baath with Akram al-Hurani's Arab Socialist Party in 1952, to form the Arab Baath Socialist Party. In February 1963 the Baath Party came to power in Iraq and one month later, in March 8, it came to power in Syria after the March Revolution. Inter-party disagreements were one of the major factors that led to the Correction Movement led by Hafez al-Assad, the movement ended years of conflict within the party. In July of 1968, a bloodless coup brought to power the Baathist general Ahmad Hassan al- Bakr in Iraq. Wrangling within the party continued, and the government periodically purged its dissident members. Baath Party remains committed to a unified Arab nation even though as a practical matter, domestic concerns in Iraq have commanded the most attention. Nonetheless, current Iraqi foreign policy under Saddam Hussein is significantly motivated by Baath Party ideals. Presently, about 2.4 million of Iraqis are estimated to be Baath Party members. In Syria, the Baath membership exceeds 1 million.

     It must however be remembered that the Nazis called themselves Socialist too. neither party should be confused with socialism, so you're wrong about that. but nice try at the smear.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 2:31pm

131. because you can't influence this government's Iraq policy as you were able to do with the administration in the Vietnam days.

     we already have, vide Rumsfeld's departure, the Iraq report, etc

     been shaking the sand out of your ears too hard, Oz?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 2:35pm

132. While a reasoned response is certainly possible, "Fuck you, John, and the horse you rode in on", seems to cover it.

     Posted by jballard701 at 12/30/2006 @ 2:56pm

133. I really don't understand what the problem is, he got what he deserved. We all know the things he did were crimes against humanity. The killing of thousands of people. He and they recieved all the justice that was entitled.

     Posted by dlewisdon at 12/30/2006 @ 2:59pm

134. JR,

     Freithei is correct, the NATION should ban FROMREDSHIT...there is nothing from FROMREDBLOODINTHEDIRT worth getting angry about...why do you even bother responding...if you notice...you are the only one who does...

     Jr, start the new year out on a positive note...push the button and Fromred to notnihg...it works..he is as much fun as Rese and Plunger combined...only more taxing..he is ill and really should seek some type of therapy.

     Posted by john maasch at 12/30/2006 @ 3:04pm

135. While a reasoned response is certainly possible, "Fuck you, John, and the horse you rode in on", seems to cover it.

     Posted by JBALLARD701 12/30/2006 @ 2:56pm | ignore this person

     to whom is this addressed?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 3:05pm

136. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/30/2006 @ 3:04pm | ignore this person

     sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't. sometimes I ignore folks sometimes I don't. Happy New Year to you and yours.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 3:08pm

137. Maasch, you didn't like "fair and balanced"? I thought that was hilarious, if I do say so myself.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 3:10pm

138. anybody notice that Zero has not been heard from?

     I am proud when I am attacked from both sides of the aisle, so to speak. it shows to me that I have, at least sometimes, avoided falling into a rut.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 3:13pm

139. "Perhaps you can go to Dearborn Michigan and explain your posting to the Iraqi's who are dancing in the streets in celebration of this maniac receiving the justice he deserved."

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/30/2006 @ 02:13am

     You go party with the folks who would dance to an execution. I bet you miss the good old days, of public executions. (You sexually repressed types, need to get your jollies somehow).

     The rest of us, who find public displays of joy, over the death of any other human being revolting, shall demure. We may not have a shred of sympathy, but our remaining shreds of dignity, prevent such lewd displays of inhumanity.

     Go hang out with your equally sick god, and leave the rest of us, who recognize that the "Iraqi" government, is actually our own, to figure out how we can save face, despite having the likes of you, in our midst.

     Useless excuse...

     Eric

     Posted by Malcontent at 12/30/2006 @ 3:38pm

140. Lst night I cracked a cold beer and performed the Iraqi celebration dance! Saddam is dead ( should have been tortured like he did his victims ) and the left furious! Innocent victims like Nick Berg have their heads sawn off and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are exterminated by Saddam and the left says NOTHING, but when any murderous dictator, terrorist, or even Tookie Williams get's what's comin' to them, the left goes ape-shit! More proof of the devastating effects of the MENTAL DISORDER KNOWN AS LIBERALISM! Anyway, what a great, joyous way to start the new year, knowing that liberals are pissed and another one of their heroes is dead. Now, if only the like's of Ramsey Clark and other low-life, scumbucket, oxygen thief, terrorist sympathizing, murderer defending, victim ignoring liberals could suffer the same fate as Saddam, it would be a better world for all of us! Happy New Year!

     Posted by barry25 at 12/30/2006 @ 3:42pm

141. Sorry, but all I have to say is . . .

     good riddance.

     Posted by Hman23 at 12/30/2006 @ 3:44pm

142. Malcontent, I am overjoyed at the extermination of Saddam! I have no sympathy or concern for those on this planet who kill, murder, torture, rob, beat or steal from innocent human beings, or for those who defend them ( namely you )! My only concern is for the innocent, law-abiding, peaceful, loving and caring people on this planet whop respect their fellow man, and those who violate their rights can go to hell. If that is evil in your eyes, so be it. Happy New Year, it's a great day for all of humanity!

     Posted by barry25 at 12/30/2006 @ 3:49pm

143. Saddam was judged from the witness and their remaining familys that Saddam had killed...and in turn he was executed for those crimes by Iraqis...

     And most of the posts here are still calling for BUSH and CHENEY as the problem and very little anti Saddam...all from the usual suspects..it is a shame

     Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/30/2006 @ 11:50am |

     It's interesting how none of the right-wingers posting here take any account of the fact that Saddam did most of those horrible things with the active support of the US and other Western countries. Had they not propped him up in so many ways, he would not have been able to do what he did. Do any of you folks read anything other than right-wing newspaper columnists?

     Posted by oneworld at 12/30/2006 @ 3:53pm

144. If I ever win the lottery, I'm going to purchase a HUGE motor home and dedicate my time to travel to all executions of low-life murderous scum in this country. I'll set up a disco ball under a canopy outside of it in front of the prison gates, break out a keg of beer and the BBQ, turn up the music, grab my bullhorn and party like it's 1999! I'll infuriate the mentally challenged liberal death penalty protesters, and we'll all have a grand old time! ZERO SYMPATHY FOR THOSE WHO INTENTIONALLY TAKE THE LIVES OF INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS!

     Posted by barry25 at 12/30/2006 @ 3:54pm

145. Oneworld...WRONG! Saddam did just fine with his oil revenues. Blaming the US is old, tired, childish, and just plain dumb! Go to the Dr., get some prozac, and fight that damn disease ( liberalism ) that is ravaging your brain!

     Posted by barry25 at 12/30/2006 @ 3:57pm

146. This was timed to bury the news that U.S. casualties is slipping over the 3000 mark.

     Posted by G0560 at 12/30/2006 @ 4:08pm

147. GO560, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You lunatic! Ya, and that bulge in Bush's jacket was the remote control he uses to fly planes into the WTC, cause Tsunami's, and blow up levee's in order to kill the black people he hates soooo much ( excluding Condi )! Get your head checked SON!

     Posted by barry25 at 12/30/2006 @ 4:20pm

148. I love clownin' you liberal lunatics, and I'm damn good at it!

     Posted by barry25 at 12/30/2006 @ 4:21pm

149. I really don't understand what the problem is, he got what he deserved. We all know the things he did were crimes against humanity. The killing of thousands of people. He and they recieved all the justice that was entitled.

     Posted by DLEWISDON 12/30/2006 @ 2:59pm

     I can think of no better summation of a conservative view of justice: that being a roadblock to vengeance, that being the fact that Saddam didn't suffer the exact fate of his sons is proof of the fairness and benevolence of the judicial system, or, as in LRJONES's wild screed, that being that in spite of the fact that the US has overseen such a disproportionately high amount of the revamping of the Iraqi government, we should still be happy that the Iraqi court system behaved at a junior high school level rather than an elementary school level (and he accuses anyone else of arrogance while giving this trial a pat on the back the likes experienced by participants in the Special Olympics).

     Know what? This trial was important for more than administering the verdict and punishment. This was Iraq's re-introduction to modern justice. This was a lesson for all. This was to be a demonstration that the court system was open and balanced and that justice will be served with impartiality. What are we to expect to come from this? Certainly future Iraqi defendants should expect nothing better than the most celebrated criminal in their lifetimes. And that is an indication of, once again, our failure to ensure that democratic values are going to be instilled up and down Iraqi society.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/30/2006 @ 4:38pm

150. Well, the execution video shows a dignified person facing death calmly and staring it in the face. I would like to see in the same circumstances some of the righteous chit-chat blog addicts now cheering this shameful deed.

     On the merits of it, this latest addition to the endless list of US unlawful acts may very well backfire. At the very least, it will confer on Saddam an aura of martyrdom. But we're all responsibile, having allowed a borderline criminal idiot such as Bush, as well as his phony Democrat "opponents," to hold their posts.

     Posted by chinpoko at 12/30/2006 @ 4:45pm

151. To view a cynical and satirical visual of George Bush playing a round of "Hangman"...link here:

     ww w.thoughttheater.com [thoughttheater.com]

     Posted by Daniel DiRito at 12/30/2006 @ 5:02pm

152. Once again this Administration has set us back as far as our image and reputation is concerned. Our DNA is all over this farce and charade. First and foremost, the man should not have been tried as he was especially while this country was not even able to governed itself and protect itself from within. Saddam should have been held in a neutral location and once Iraq had demonstrated it was a legitimate entity without appearing to be what it is (a chaotic country supported by the USA) should Saddam had been handed over to face justice for all the abuse, torture, and killing that had been handed out during his rule. Looking back, (I hate to admit to this) but I do believe it would have been better for everyone involved, if instead of the USA taking custody of Saddam like it did, the Iraqis should have taken him and Iraqi justice and revenge could have been handled the way this part of the world is accustomed to (like dragging his body down the streets of Baghdad and hanging his body from some rafter for the people of Iraq to view and maybe personal gratification for all Iraqis would have been garnered) I do believe if events like this had transpired then maybe all the negative vibes and press we have received would not have been generated. At least no USA DNA would have been on his demise, except for his capture which would have been understandable since we had invaded the country. But what really is ironic with all this is the fact that when Saddam was captured in his rat hole there was jubilation from this white house and the president even went on TV to express his cow-boyish delight and surprisingly his execution has not shown this same delight and cockiness. In fact our fearless leader kept his regular bedtime curfew (I believe 9 or 10 o'clock). Something else I found troubling is, as an American, I believe it was really distasteful for the some cable news networks to show the citizens of Dearborn, MI jumping up and down with joy over this evil man's execution. At first I thought the clip was from the streets of Baghdad. We in America do not have parades and pep rallies when death and executions are meted out. Maybe someone from the State Dept should school the American-Iraqi citizenry of Dearborn that behavior like this is really tacky! I seem to remember when the immigration rallies held around the country this summer were occurring; Foxnews and other conservative organizations had a field day over the demonstrators, whether they were legal or illegal, expressing this kind of bravado and glee and to have the nerve to display their nation flag. I am pretty sure I saw the flag of Iraq. I would really like to ask some of these good people of Dearborn since this evil man have been executed, would they feel safe to return home now!!!!!

     Posted by jala1950 at 12/30/2006 @ 5:11pm

153. You seem mean, shrivelled up, small-minded people who demand that your analysis of the world's problems must be the guide for all policy with respect to Iraq and the ME, or the Iraqis and the Arabs can go to hell. In my book decent people would take the approach yes we have stuffed up but how can we make up for this and help give the Iraqis a future that is better than what they had under Saddam and better than what they are now experiencing. I'm hopeful that some of your politicians on both sides are thinking along these lines.-LRJONES

     We have been asking for almost 4 years. The same people that "stuffed" it up are still not making correct decisions, and are blocked by the earlier mistakes. Should we just sit and let them keep working their magic? or should we exercise some of the rights we have, and march, and write and talk? Ask for some accountability?

     That is some pretty America-hatin stuff up there in that post LR. Pointing out dark-sides to our history gets you all sorts of new labels.

     ---

     Posted by BARRY25 12/30/2006 @ 3:42pm

     speaking of mental disorder, hey Barry. Still with the factless ranting I see. I guess you missed the memo, the terrorists won the midterms. Bush lost. You should be duct taping yourself in.

     ---

     Posted by TJBEHRENS1 12/30/2006 @ 4:38pm

     NO, you da man!, Dat's right. You Da Man.

     the law and order side hates laws and order, that is why Iraq is Utopia for them.

     Posted by crabwalk at 12/30/2006 @ 5:26pm

154. First Mr Nichols' "bad player", now...

     "a dignified person"!??!?!----Posted by CHINPOKO 12/30/2006 @ 4:45pm

     Geez, at this rate, another year or two and Saddam will be a "great thinker" and "humanitarian"!

     Posted by Mask at 12/30/2006 @ 5:32pm

155. Remember when the war was about reason #18; to restore the rule of law to Iraq?

     Too bad he didn't call on a better attorney, like maybe John Edwards?

     Posted by crabwalk at 12/30/2006 @ 5:38pm

156. I love clownin' you liberal lunatics, and I'm damn good at it!

     Posted by BARRY25 12/30/2006 @ 4:21pm | ignore this person

     If you wish to be praised by others, do not praise yourself.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 5:46pm

157. "The Iraqis have shown themselves to be a courageous people"

     they have shown that in the face of 600,000 dead, killings that they the Iraqi people visited upon each other, with America's help. the invasion and occupations have unleashed a blood bath among Iraqis, and at least blood showers against american troops. Is this what winning looks like? Bush cannot define winning. well, victory is winning, and winning is victory. and then they'll be our ally in the war against terrorism.

     let me get this straight. after years of making war in Iraq, against Iraqis, they will then become our ally? can we and our Iraqis, read Shia, really kill all the 2.6 million Sunni who are baathists?

     let's see 600 000 in four years. roughly 16 years at this pace. $8 trillion, $12, 000 american troops lost, 80,000 american casualties.

     the surge will of course throw these projections off and we'll be able to revise them later.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 5:58pm

158. has anyone asked or answered the question about Saddam's execution, WHY NOW? so that Bush will get a bounce before he announces his Iraq strategy?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 6:00pm

159. TIRESIAS, this country and other countries will continue to change whether we like what we see or not. America cannot and will not go back to being what you or others want it to be. This is not your America the way you were used to seeing in the 60's and 70's. It's the 21st century. Technology you couldn't even imagine is the norm. It's going to be up to the next generation to know what's best for them. The old folks are going to have to sit this one out.

     Posted by ACOOK 12/30/2006 @ 12:00am

     -----------------------------------------------------------

     It would be useful if you could read what was posted rather than what you think was posted. Nowhere did I mention technology nor did I in any way indicate I wanted to turn back the clock. What I did mourn was the loss of values that have occurred over the last decades at an accelerating rate. Now it may be that your fabled next generation will be able to come up with insights and constructs that replace justice, and other virtues, or their opposites, with new concepts, but, somehow, I doubt it. These issues have been addressed for millenia and, I dare say, will be addressed for as long as Man walks the planet. Or do I misapprehend history as much as you did my post?

     Since you gratuitously introduced the "miracles" of technology to be found in the future, I shall present a few points for consideration. As one who has been actively engaged in basic research that portends what future technological developments may occur, I think I am in a reasonable position to address your assertions on the superiority of the "next generation." I also think I am in a pretty good position to imagine what may happen. And while you may think developments are always astounding and bolts out of the blue, that is rarely the view taken by the scientist or the knowledgeable engineer.

     However, unless America's youth and those of the other Western nations change radically, their rapidly decreasing interest and participation in basic science and technology and their diminished ability to perform in those areas is not going to produce the marvels you expect. If there is any "next generation" that will do so, it is to be found in Asia where the young have the interest, drive and discipline to engage in such enterprise.

     My post was directed at the situation in America and did not concern those across the Pacific or any other land, for that matter. The "next generation" is going to be saddled with burdens, both financial and structural, that will probably prevent it from doing anything other than surviving. The financial burden created by this administration of lunatics will be paralyzing.

     In the long run, even more devastating, I suspect, will be this corrupt regime's legacy of interference in the scientific enterprise. For example, stem-cell research has already been so severely inhibited that the US may well lose its dominance in pharmaceuticals - perhaps even medicine. The present regime's lack of support and cut-back in basic research from what was corrected in the Clinton administration is going to leave no foundation for your wonderful "next generation" to build upon. If you think these technological "miracles" are created from isolated acts of genius unrelated to any previously developed context, then you have a comic-book understanding of science.

     America became scientifically dominant because the German and Italian fascists drove their best scientific talent out of their countries, countries that had a heritage of investment in science, particularly Germany. The US was able to capitalize on the investment of those nations, but its historical anti-intellectualism, so well represented by the POWH, his supporters and manipulators, is returning the US to its pre-WWII scientific position of being just another participant in the endeavor. So if you think the US is going to produce even a reasonable number of these unforeseen developments, and they are almost never unforeseen, then dream on.

     But, of course, you make it clear that the "next generation" will require no previous achievements, no assistance, nor any insight from any other group, especially from those of more advanced years. In these times, any nation that does not use all of the talent and wisdom of all of its people will not be competitive. All one need do is consider most of the Arab world, where the talent of ~51% of its population is ignored, to understand how devastating such an exclusionary attitude is. Your blatant ageism is not only self-defeating, it is disgusting.

     Posted by Tiresias at 12/30/2006 @ 6:05pm

160. lvliberty1, you silver tongued devil, you. flattery will get you everywhere. thank you for your kind wishes and kind compliment. truth be told I secretly value every single contribution here, with yours not the least of them. I hope that came out right.Enjoy your family, give them all you can. may you find a balm in Gilead.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 6:07pm

161. What say you??...(to quote Bill O'Reilly) "keep it pithy".. :-)

     Posted by ACOOK 12/30/2006 @ 11:42am

     ------------------------------------------------------

     By whom they quote, yee shall know them.

     Posted by Tiresias at 12/30/2006 @ 6:25pm

162. Birdy, I don't recall calling you anti-semitic.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/30/2006 @ 2:18pm

     You are as full of s*** as LVLIBERTY1, whose fulminations you can't restrain yourself from bracing up whenever the subject of israel comes up and other times, too.

     OK Bird, I can settle this once and for all. you are an anti-semitic swine, your understanding of middle east history comes straight from Arafat. happy? I will not make the mistake of answering you again, you will rest safely in the ignore bin.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 10/10/2006 @ 8:33pm

     LIAR

     Posted by fromredbird at 12/30/2006 @ 6:26pm

163. Then, of course, there are always the really valuable contributions to adult "discussion" by you of such as the following:

     who knows WHAT redbird does for a living?

     I am announcing a contest. winner, most creative, will receive a virtual palm d'or.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 11/09/2006 @ 5:31pm

     I'll start things off. he used to have a job emptying Arafat's bedpan. since that individual is dead, I imagine he performs the same service for his wife, who isn't.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 11/09/2006 @ 5:41pm

     You're a scapegoater of the type that would have made the nazi propaganda rags proud in the 1930's.

     Posted by fromredbird at 12/30/2006 @ 6:29pm

164. Thank you for eliciting/prompting such posts Mr. Nichols.

     Posted by lewwelge at 12/30/2006 @ 6:35pm

165. Seriously.

     Posted by lewwelge at 12/30/2006 @ 6:37pm

166. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 12/30/2006 @ 6:29pm | ignore this person

     I stand corrected, and you have my apology. that was pretty raw.

     I am no better than many here, and hopefully no worse.

     I have found you articulate, committed to a fault, combative, pugnacious, bellicose, belligerent. possessing a strong sense of justice, to say the least. and those are just the good qualities.

     may I propose we aim to reduce the sometimes operatic rhetoric? including but not exclusively the N word. that one. as you may have guessed by now I am not in favor of anyone being banned.

     my best wishes to any festivities you might embark on with friends or relations.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 6:45pm

167. . . . it was the right who put Saddam in power and the right who created a war to take power from him . . .

     Posted by DYCEL8R 12/30/2006 @ 1:10pm

     It seems like many liberals (I definitely separate Johannesrolf in this regard), you lack some fundamental knowledge of history. Getting your history knowledge from MoveOn or other leftist sites doesn't guarantee you actually are presented with facts.

     Saddam Hussein was a Socialist (not a rightwinger). . .

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/30/2006 @ 2:21pm

     correct on both counts, thank you. from the Iraqi website:

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/30/2006 @ 2:31pm

     What's really remarkable is that neither one of you can read a simple sentence and recognize that DYCEL8R never said that Saddam Hussein was a rightist. JOHANNESROLF is probably just diving in clueless in an effort to garner more praise and compliments from religious nutcase LVLIBERTY1 to temporarily satiate his sickening self-love complex.

     Posted by fromredbird at 12/30/2006 @ 6:45pm

168. For those who might be interested in the perspective of actual Iraqis, living in the mess we've made of that country, and pondering the death of Saddam...

     What has me most puzzled right now is: why add fuel to the fire? Sunnis and moderate Shia are being chased out of the larger cities in the south and the capital. Baghdad is being torn apart with Shia leaving Sunni areas and Sunnis leaving Shia areas- some under threat and some in fear of attacks. People are being openly shot at check points or in drive by killings… Many colleges have stopped classes. Thousands of Iraqis no longer send their children to school- it's just not safe.

     Why make things worse by insisting on Saddam's execution now? Who gains if they hang Saddam? Iran, naturally, but who else? There is a real fear that this execution will be the final blow that will shatter Iraq. Some Sunni and Shia tribes have threatened to arm their members against the Americans if Saddam is executed. Iraqis in general are watching closely to see what happens next, and quietly preparing for the worst.

     This is because now, Saddam no longer represents himself or his regime. Through the constant insistence of American war propaganda, Saddam is now representative of all Sunni Arabs (never mind most of his government were Shia). The Americans, through their speeches and news articles and Iraqi Puppets, have made it very clear that they consider him to personify Sunni Arab resistance to the occupation. Basically, with this execution, what the Americans are saying is "Look- Sunni Arabs- this is your man, we all know this. We're hanging him- he symbolizes you." And make no mistake about it, this trial and verdict and execution are 100% American. Some of the actors were Iraqi enough, but the production, direction and montage was pure Hollywood (though low-budget, if you ask me).

     That is, of course, why Talbani doesn't want to sign his death penalty- not because the mob man suddenly grew a conscience, but because he doesn't want to be the one who does the hanging- he won't be able to travel far away enough if he does that.

     Maliki's government couldn't contain their glee. They announced the ratification of the execution order before the actual court did. A few nights ago, some American news program interviewed Maliki's bureau chief, Basim Al-Hassani who was speaking in accented American English about the upcoming execution like it was a carnival he'd be attending. He sat, looking sleazy and not a little bit ridiculous, his dialogue interspersed with 'gonna', 'gotta' and 'wanna'... Which happens, I suppose, when the only people you mix with are American soldiers.

     My only conclusion is that the Americans want to withdraw from Iraq, but would like to leave behind a full-fledged civil war because it wouldn't look good if they withdraw and things actually begin to improve, would it?

     Posted by Lillian at 12/30/2006 @ 6:49pm

169. I think of Napoleon's tribute to Frederick the Great ...

     do you know Frederick's biography? his adolescence? a tragedy where he was forced to watch the execution of his gay(?) special friend ordered by his father. he was happiest when with the boys in the regiment, and he liked them tall. emperor gossip. don't spread it around.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 6:51pm

170. And, from the same author, lastmonth, after the verdict...

     … Execute the dictator. It's that simple. When American troops are being killed by the dozen, when the country you are occupying is threatening to break up into smaller countries, when you have militias and death squads roaming the streets and you've put a group of Mullahs in power- execute the dictator.

     Everyone expected this verdict from the very first day of the trial. There was a brief interlude when, with the first judge, it was thought that it might actually be a coherent trial where Iraqis could hear explanations and see what happened. That was soon over with the prosecution's first false witness. Events that followed were so ridiculous; it's difficult to believe them even now.

     The sound would suddenly disappear when the defense or one of the defendants got up to speak. We would hear the witnesses but no one could see them- hidden behind a curtain, their voices were changed. People who were supposed to have been dead in the Dujail incident were found to be very alive.

     Judge after judge was brought in because the ones in court were seen as too fair. They didn't instantly condemn the defendants (even if only for the sake of the media). The piece de resistance was the final judge they brought in. His reputation vies only that of Chalabi- a well-known thief and murderer who ran away to Iran to escape not political condemnation, but his father's wrath after he stole from the restaurant his father ran.

     So we all knew the outcome upfront (Maliki was on television 24 hours before the verdict telling people not to ‘rejoice too much'). I think what surprises me right now is the utter stupidity of the current Iraqi government.

     Posted by Lillian at 12/30/2006 @ 6:52pm

171. Iraq has not been this bad in decades. The occupation is a failure. The various pro-American, pro-Iranian Iraqi governments are failures. The new Iraqi army is a deadly joke. Is it really time to turn Saddam into a martyr? Things are so bad that even pro-occupation Iraqis are going back on their initial ‘WE LOVE AMERICA' frenzy. Laith Kubba (a.k.a. Mr. Catfish for his big mouth and constant look of stupidity) was recently on the BBC saying that this was just the beginning of justice, that people responsible for the taking of lives today should also be brought to justice. He seems to have forgotten he was one of the supporters of the war and occupation, and an important member of one of the murderous pro-American governments. But history shall not forget Mr. Kubba.

     Iraq saw demonstrations against and for the verdict. The pro-Saddam demonstrators were attacked by the Iraqi army. This is how free our media is today: the channels that were showing the pro-Saddam demonstrations have been shut down. Iraqi security forces promptly raided them.Welcome to the new Iraq.

     Posted by Lillian at 12/30/2006 @ 6:53pm

172. satiate his sickening self-love complex.

     Posted by FROMREDBIRD 12/30/2006 @ 6:45pm | ignore this person

     that does drip off the tongue, congratulations. and thank you Dr. Freud.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 6:53pm

173. A final note. I just read somewhere that some of the families of dead American soldiers are visiting the Iraqi north to see ‘what their sons and daughters died for'. If that's the goal of the visit, then, "Ladies and gentlemen- to your right is the Iraqi Ministry of Oil, to your left is the Dawry refinery… Each of you get this, a gift bag containing a 3 by 3 color poster of Al Sayid Muqtada Al Sadr (Long May He Live And Prosper), an Ayatollah Sistani t-shirt and a map of Iran, to scale, redrawn with the Islamic Republic of South Iraq. Also… Hey you! You- the female in the back- is that a lock of hair I see? Cover it up or stay home."

     And that is what they died for.

     Posted by Lillian at 12/30/2006 @ 6:55pm

174. Sorry for the long cutting and pasting...but those are Iraqi thoughts and words...that somehow seem to make it into the American consciousness.

     Posted by Lillian at 12/30/2006 @ 6:57pm

175. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/30/2006 @ 6:45pm

     If you are admitting that there is no evidence of any kind that I support "ethnic-cleansing Arabs" (rather an oxymoron, in any case, until "Western" meddling worked it's magic) nor any instance of me expressing anti-semitism I am more than willing to accept the apology. I would also be more than glad to renounce and apologize for any such instance of either case if anyone else can point it out.

     I prefer to discuss with you, or anyone else, US Mideast policy, if they choose, in an unheated manner but I would like to point out that I generally don't get heated up until first enduring a long train of abuses.

     I admit that last isn't the case with the deadender-type Republicans here, but I have about 99% of them on ignore anyway.

     Posted by fromredbird at 12/30/2006 @ 7:01pm

176. Personally, I wonder how many Americans even know what 'exactly' Saddam was tired and hanged for. We've heard all about the 'thousands' of Kurds he gassed, the brutality he inflicted on his own people, the reports claiming he is responsibile for the deaths of some 'two or three or four hundred thousand' over his tenure at the head of Iraq's government.

     Yet Saddam was tried, convicted, and hanged for his part in the killings of some 145 people. Will any evidence EVER be produced and examined regarding all those others? Somehow, I'm just guessing, we'll all be left with just having to accept the word of the CIA on those, now that Saddam is dead.

     How oddly convenient.

     Posted by Lillian at 12/30/2006 @ 7:04pm

177. Posted by LILLIAN 12/30/2006 @ 6:49pm

     Those are thoughtful comments you posted LILLIAN but the precise niceties about that miserable, criminal disaster have now gotten very long in the tooth. Overload, I guess.

     Posted by fromredbird at 12/30/2006 @ 7:07pm

178. t seems like many liberals (I definitely separate Johannesrolf in this regard), you lack some fundamental knowledge of history. Getting your history knowledge from MoveOn or other leftist sites doesn't guarantee you actually are presented with facts.

     Saddam Hussein was a Socialist (not a rightwinger). . .

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 12/30/2006 @ 2:21pm

     correct on both counts, thank you. from the Iraqi website:

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/30/2006

     -------------------------------------------------

     There are a very few who post, such as LVL, who are on my ignore list. Nevertheless, his droppings occasionally occur through responses from others. This one is characteristic in several ways and mostly by being so egregious. It should not be allowed to pass without comment, especially since it seems to have been so readily accepted. Quoting history is vacuous without understanding it, especially when dealing with the history of ideas such as 'isms where the actual "ism" must also be understood rather than just used as a pejorative.

     Latter day Saddam was a Socialist in the same way that present day LVL is a Christian. Calling oneself something and actually being it are quite different things. Joe Stalin was nominally a Socialist too. As a matter of fact, the Nazis called themselves National Socialists. What's in a name? It is what is done that proves the affiliation.

     And just as Christianity has its false teachers, prophets and adherents, so does every other movement. Further, just because one starts out in one camp does not mean there cannot be movement to another. All one need do is look at Bill Kristol who began as a liberal and has wound up as a reactionary. So yes, Saddam was a Socialist at the very beginning, but he soon went the way of Adolf and LVL ... fascist to the core. [Sometimes they are pejoratives.]

     Posted by Tiresias at 12/30/2006 @ 7:12pm

179. Posted by LILLIAN 12/30/2006 @ 7:04pm

     I think many of the "charges" against Saddam Hussein were just media bulls***, similar to the raving mushroom cloud stories. Tony Blair stated publicly that he murdered over 400,000 Iraqis. They've produced about 100-200 corpses. The gassing of Halabja? The US Army issued a report saying that it was the Iranians who were responsible. The whole thing is a joke.

     I don't have the least doubt that he could have been convicted in a fair trial for a number of misdeeds but I think the Bush admin's real fear, other than their shared guilt, was that the hyperventilated claims would have been exposed as lies.

     Remember Saddam's "people shredder"? Why no news photographs? Because it didn't exist. What about Saddam's "doubles"? Not interesting enough anymore to produce a photograph of one of them? They can't because they never existed. It was just crude propaganda to make Saddam seem more notorious.

     Posted by fromredbird at 12/30/2006 @ 7:18pm

180. Saddam's last words:

     that damn Osama.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/30/2006 @ 7:22pm

181. I'm out of here for today but want to mention on leaving the absolutely comical manner in which the Bush admin's supporters here are incapable of understanding why the United States of America shouldn't be presiding over a show trial identical in all respects to those produced by the regime of Josef Stalin and Adolph Hitler.

     Posted by fromredbird at 12/30/2006 @ 7:26pm

182. I'm out of here for today but want to mention on leaving the absolutely comical manner in which the Bush admin's supporters here are incapable of understanding why the United States of America shouldn't be presiding over a show trial identical in all respects to those produced by the regime of Josef Stalin and Adolph Hitler.

     Posted by FROMREDBIRD 12/30/2006 @ 7:26pm

     -----------------------------------------------------------

     You crazy left wing-nut! One was a national socialist the other a communist socialist, but they were SOCIALISTS!! ANTI-CHRISTS!! And don't you forget it!!

     Posted by Tiresias at 12/30/2006 @ 7:35pm

183. JR and FRB actually were civil to one another.

     Wow. I guess I'll saddle up the 'ol pig and fly to LL's orgy, now.

     Seriously, that's cool. You both alternately, made alot of sense and hurled alot of invectives. Maybe now you can both see that the other isn't a complete idiot. You guys were starting to get as bad as the actual factions you were speaking about.

     Progress. I guess that officially makes you progressives.

     Eric

     Posted by Malcontent at 12/30/2006 @ 8:22pm

184. This is a remarkable bit of dissembling. HRW has already - in their slef-righteous minds - already convicted Hussein of numerous crimes against humanity, just like they've convicted the United States numerous times over the years. For them to cry foul over a trial that convicted Hussein is absurd.Do they give people "fair trials" when they publish condemnations of governmental actions? I think not - nor should they! And how in the hell does running a monster like Saddam through the legal system demonstrate anything? If Saddam were to be tried for all of his crimes he'd die of old age before the process was finished - and many more than just three lawyers would be assassinated. It is incredible that people like Nichols, and many of the readers of his tripe, waste any time condemning the execution of a truly evil human being. The world is a better place without Saddam - can anyone deny that? Pretending that a "fair" trial - I believe his trial was fair - is necessary to prove Iraq's worthiness of associating with progressive thinkers is ludicrous. It is also, oddly and ironically enough, evidence that Nichols et al suffer from the very same malady they accuse their political enemies of promoting - neo-imperialism. Nichols is so arrogant that he - a man whose career is protected by the Constitution of the United States - believes he can impose his values on a people who have suffered far more than he can even begin to imagine. But the great Nichols feels justified in telling them how to deal with a man responsible for well over a million deaths and the destruction of a country. Ah, Mr. Nichols - you are a hypocrite - and a disgustingly arrogant and shameless one at that.

     Posted by redikop3 at 12/30/2006 @ 8:32pm

185. I don't wander around comments sections like this very often, but let me thank Lillian and RedBird dude - you guys will provide me with plenty of laughs and conversation starters at work next week. I'm especially looking forward to the response of my vegan married lesbian Kucinich voting friend to the suggestion that Saddam was basically a good guy framed by the CIA, or whatever the hell redheadbirdfeces was saying. Gee - every damn human rights organization in the world has documented Saddam's cries, you buffoon. Get real!

     Posted by redikop3 at 12/30/2006 @ 8:40pm

186. John Nichols is like most liberals, he makes things up. From his article, "In addition to objecting at the most fundamental level to the use of the barbaric practice of state-sponsored execution--which is outlawed by the vast majority of the world's nations..." So I looked up on Encarta and wikipedia and found this; 5 out of the world's 25 largest countries have outlawed capital punishment, and out of the all the nations in the world, 83 outlaw capital punishment while 110 allow it. Maybe John was referring to predominantly white countries that he feels are important. Or maybe "vast majority" has some hidden meaning I'm not aware of.

     Posted by david Arneson at 12/30/2006 @ 8:42pm

187. Posted by CRABWALK 12/30/2006 @ 5:26pm

     C,

     It is just exactly what you were doing with the Iraq/Iran paste ups. All your side has done since I have been here is say similar things about your country, with the proviso that America is not to blame because it is entirely this administration's fault. Isn't that what you are saying? That's how it comes across. Well how about all the other administrations that did rotten things in the ME and South America and back through your history? That by, your strange reckoning, was also not America acting?

     All I'm doing is showing you that you don't believe your own rhetoric because you object to it when a foreigner parrots your lines.

     Your group's propaganda matrix or starting point goes like this: America was once the great bastion of democracy "a light set on a hill" for all the world to follow, we had the greatest freedoms and the most perfectly advanced form of democracy until this administration stuffed it all up.

     That is your basic proposition.

     I was indicating, by using the data your side uses but for a different purpose, that that is palpable nonsense in light of your longer history. The real nonsense is that you are not still (as you were pre-Bush) a great, though imperfect bastion of democracy.

     If then your nation is all that and has a record of overthrowing a militaristic Japan in WW2 (for which we will always be thankful) and was a major player in defeating those forces which enslaved Europe, why does it seem to be such a strange thing to you that you have an administration that would like to nurture in Iraq those institutions, which you and those on the conservative side agree are what make your country great.

     That as I see it, is at the heart of what to do in Iraq as it is today. Is it worth the effort, in all that it potentially means for Iraqis, to put some real American can do effort into helping a now desperately poor but resource rich nation along the road to sound governance and prosperity for its citizens or do you pull out because you think your institutions are not what Arabs want or need and thus it is too difficult a task.

     If Iraq, due to your help, becomes a viable and prosperous nation and all that that entails with respect to other issues like Palestine, Iran and terrorism, the rest of the world is more likely to think the best thoughts about your country and its institutions and forget about WMD claims etc. You can build your reputation in a positive way or still remain the butt of the world's derision as a nation that failed to deliver on what perhaps was its greatest promise.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 12/30/2006 @ 9:45pm

188. Or maybe "vast majority" has some hidden meaning I'm not aware of.

     Posted by DAVID ARNESON 12/30/2006 @ 8:42pm

     I'm not surprised that it's hidden from you. He's referring to democratic countries. John Nichols may have been imprecise but these blog entries are off the cuff, as stated on the site. Your gotcha isn't a biggy and you should have been able to recognize it immediately at the Wikipedia entry since it says:

     Among democratic countries around the world, most European (all of the European Union), Latin American, and many Pacific Area states (including Australia, New Zealand and Timor Leste) have abolished capital punishment, while the United States, Guatemala, and most of the Caribbean as well as some democracies in Asia and Africa retain it. Among nondemocratic countries, the use of the death penalty is common but not universal.

     So, let me guess- you guys aren't satisfied with trials that replicate those of Josef Stalin and Adolph Hitler, you also prefer penalties on a standard with the least democratic, least developed countries of the world.

     God love you guys, very few others have the time or inclination.

     Posted by fromredbird at 12/30/2006 @ 9:56pm

189. Posted by REDIKOP3 12/30/2006 @ 8:32pm

     Posted by REDIKOP3 12/30/2006 @ 8:40pm

     REDIKOP, you have a couple of rudimentary problems-- your reading abilities are woefully substandard and even if they were commensurate with that of most adults you are additionally inept at absorbing the kind of conceptual thinking that produced things like the Constitution of the United States of America about two hundred years ago.

     Posted by fromredbird at 12/30/2006 @ 10:00pm

190. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 12/30/2006 @ 4:38pm

     TJ,

     I take perverse pleasure in lobbing the occassional grenade here when it gets a bit boring at the office or at this site.

     I take it you are an artie fartie progressive. Well though in our country the brighter students gain entry to maths/medicine/science courses it is not only the left overs that fill the humanities courses. Some actually do make those courses their first choice and usually are OK in the brains department. I've sort of assumed that about you. I tend to think of you as an honorary mathematician or leading edge particle physicist whose great mind is trapped inside an artie fartie disposition.

     You'll have to tell me about the American legal system foisted upon the Iraqis that has no provision for jurors. Think those backward Euros are into a bit of that sort of thing.

     We have a nutter over here who calls the non-jury system "truth" justice and the British system, which you pinched from them and we in turn pinched from you, the adversarial system which was developed by the shifty aristocracy of England to protect their assets.

     He said lawyers generally agree that our non-Truth system nets 5% of innocents and allows 30% to 40% of the charged guilty get off scot free. Depending of course on what legal fees one can afford.

     Wonder how Saddam would have gone with a non-Truth system? I think you will find that the Iraqi judges, in Saddam's trial, may have got a bit bamboozled by the defence barrister's attempts to apply non-truth system rules (Viz lying on behalf of their clients) in this case.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 12/30/2006 @ 10:51pm

191. FROMREDBIRD neglects to mention that out of the 10 largest democracies in the world only #10, Germany, bans all capital punishment. From his post defending John Nichols poorly researched blog entry FRB writes "I'm not surprised that it's hidden from you. He's referring to democratic countries. John Nichols may have been imprecise but these blog entries are off the cuff, as stated on the site. Your gotcha isn't a biggy and you should have been able to recognize it immediately at the Wikipedia entry since it says: ..."Among democratic countries around the world, most European (all of the European Union), Latin American, and many Pacific Area states (including Australia, New Zealand and Timor Leste) have abolished capital punishment, while the United States, Guatemala, and most of the Caribbean as well as some democracies in Asia and Africa retain it". Among nondemocratic countries, the use of the death penalty is common but not universal" Now, some democracies in Asia would have to include; India, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, all of which allow some capital punishment. What democracies would that leave in Asia that ban all capital punishment? Wikipedia has a list of democratic states and I count 53 that allow some capital punishment. FBR with his Euro-centric prejudices might not think they are up to his lofty standards, but they are representative, and most of them have growing populations, as opposed to shrinking populations in Europe.

     Posted by david Arneson at 12/30/2006 @ 11:44pm

192. Again, too bad you lunatic liberals weren't so upset when , say...Nick Berg had his head sawed off on videotape! How much did you morons have to write, spew, whine about then? Not much, right? You all didn't have much to cry about when the WTC fell, now did you? Were you spewing your crap concerning any of the countless acts of terror Saddam and the members of the " Religion of Peace " were perpetrating on innocent civilians around the world? No! You're all scum, and some day you'll reap what you sew, until then, look in the mirror and see your own true enemy! Pathetic little twerps is what you are!

     Posted by barry25 at 12/31/2006 @ 01:53am

193. Posted by LRJONES4 12/30/2006 @ 10:51pm

     I take great pride that I achieved perfect 800 scores on both the SAT and GRE math portions (not sure if you know what those American test scores are, but, trust me, they're good), all the while knowing I was about to dump those skills for "artie fartie" pursuits. Not sure why my artsy fartsy life is of concern or even of interest. And not certain on what basis you find greater intellect among those pursuing the brain numbing areas of math or medicine (science, for those who have truly creative minds, can be the home of astoundingly brilliant thought). Science and art move hand in hand to shape human activity to this remarkable world.

     If Saddam's trial seemed satisfactory to you, then I am pleased you are content. I had hoped for greater depth. Perhaps, as they do in this country, Saddam's crimes were so great that he needed to be moved to a different jurisdiction, i.e. The Hague. Oh...but that would have been messy indeed, what with a full and detailed debate about the nature of Saddam's terror. Yes, all the players were in place. It looked good, at least when Saddam and the judge weren't behaving like spoiled children. And his guilt was not in doubt, was it, so why all the fuss from those of us who were hopeful of a Saddam appearance at our next Manhattan cocktail party with Woody Allen? The reason is simple: Saddam's entire adult life has been a form of crime. It's not just this act or that. It's virtually every decision he ever made that should have been subjected to the openness of judicial proceedings. Was there enough to kill him with the narrowness of the trial? Well, I'm an artsy guy, LR, so there is never enough to have me happy to see someone dead. But I understand that in the nasty world of American/Iraqi bloodthirstiness there was sufficient cause. However, I just can't imagine a more wasted opportunity for Iraq to have been able to get all this shit out of its system and move forward in a more determined fashion to rid senseless violence from its future.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/31/2006 @ 02:47am

194. By the way, LR, watched A Cry in the Dark last night. Really, you people need to get your dogs and judicial system under control.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/31/2006 @ 02:49am

195. Posted by DAVID ARNESON 12/30/2006 @ 11:44pm

     Back to flog the dead horse one more time I see. Here's a map [tinyurl.com] showing the countries that retain capital punishment and those that don't, segmented by degree. The primary retention countries are in Africa, Asia (a main exception being the Catholic Philippines), India, and the Muslim world. There are quite a few countries that have not formally renounced the death penalty but have not employed it for ten years or more. Let's just look at the parts of the country list that you rubbed out of your comments (yeah, I'm actually going to go so far as to show all of them):

     Abolished for all offenses (88)

     Abolished for all offenses except under special circumstances (11)

     Retains, though not used for at least 10 years (30)

     Retains death penalty (68)*

     It's very clear that capital punishment is being discarded by most of the world and the countries where it is still in full force are less democratic and less economically developed, just as I said.

     You're accusation against me of Euro-centric prejudice is insipidly desperate. John Nichols's comments were correct in the essentials and you saying "like most liberals, he makes things up" is a howler on the order of Condoleeza Rice insisting in public, while adults watched, that an intelligence report entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In The US" was not an indication that Bin Laden was determined to strike in the US.

     Posted by fromredbird at 12/31/2006 @ 03:40am

196. Scroll down for the capital punishment map.

     Posted by fromredbird at 12/31/2006 @ 03:42am

197. And like I said earlier- God love 'em. Good night and good luck.

     Posted by fromredbird at 12/31/2006 @ 03:44am

198. Somebody is in dire need of a reality check. Apparently, common sense isn't a requirement for pontificating ones views

     Posted by AFineDay at 12/31/2006 @ 04:09am

199. "If Saddam's trial seemed satisfactory to you, then I am pleased you are content. I had hoped for greater depth. Perhaps, as they do in this country, Saddam's crimes were so great that he needed to be moved to a different jurisdiction, i.e. The Hague. Oh...but that would have been messy indeed, what with a full and detailed debate about the nature of Saddam's terror. Yes, all the players were in place. It looked good, at least when Saddam and the judge weren't behaving like spoiled children. And his guilt was not in doubt, was it, so why all the fuss from those of us who were hopeful of a Saddam appearance at our next Manhattan cocktail party with Woody Allen? The reason is simple: Saddam's entire adult life has been a form of crime. It's not just this act or that. It's virtually every decision he ever made that should have been subjected to the openness of judicial proceedings. Was there enough to kill him with the narrowness of the trial? Well, I'm an artsy guy, LR, so there is never enough to have me happy to see someone dead. But I understand that in the nasty world of American/Iraqi bloodthirstiness there was sufficient cause. However, I just can't imagine a more wasted opportunity for Iraq to have been able to get all this shit out of its system and move forward in a more determined fashion to rid senseless violence from its future".

     Posted by TJBEHRENS1 12/31/2006 @ 02:47am

     Don't think any here could disagree with the high ideals and expectations you had for this trial. Those obviously could have only been realised in something like the ICC in The Hague.

     That of course would have exhibited the scope and culpability of his crimes in an internationally acceptable legal way. That I'm sure would have satisfied most of the critics of the less than perfect fledgling Iraq legal system under which he was tried.

     There was however a need for a "show trial" not so much for the satisfaction of our sensibilities as those of the Iraq nation and that includes Sunnis as well as Kurds and Shia, because even the Sunnis were subjected to the same sort of terror tactics the others experienced.

     I don't know how the trial of Milosevic played out in your media but here it became a boring charade. How fair was it to have him imprisoned for 5 years and still not finish the case? Imagine Saddam being tried under that legal regime with the list of crimes that could have been brought against him. How long would it take, given the Milosevic debacle; five, ten or more years? Imagine what a travesty of justice such an outcome would have seemed to Iraqis.

     I would suggest then, that for all its faults, the trial of Saddam in Iraq by that court and appellate system was the only acceptable way to proceed. Because that location and process alone would meet the psychological needs of the Iraqi nation at this juncture in its history.

     So it's not really whether I or someone else is happy with the process but what suits justice and also meets the needs of the Iraqi people.

     On another note, despite what the critics would have us believe, the death of Saddam does give closure to the nation. We will need to wait to see if it can possibly make the present, desperate security situation any worse.

     PS. I come from a family with generations of mathematicians, physicists and engineers. The closest we ever came to an artie fartie is my younger brother, a psychiatrist who plays the violin in our symphony orchestra (I never mention him at the footy or the pub. Shivers mate I'm true blue).

     Posted by lrjones4 at 12/31/2006 @ 06:11am

200. By the way, LR, watched A Cry in the Dark last night. Really, you people need to get your dogs and judicial system under control.

     Posted by TJBEHRENS1 12/31/2006 @ 02:49am

     Haven't seen the film but thought Lindy Chamberlain had no chance once the coroner's verdict was overturned. It was said that the child's name Azaria had satanic undertones so the "truth" got around that she ritually killed her baby.

     Australia was at the time a far more secular country than the US and still is and being a Seventh Day Adventist didn't help her cause.

     Think she served about 3 years before she was exonerated. Shows that the jury system has its weaknesses.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 12/31/2006 @ 07:29am

201. All I'm doing is showing you that you don't believe your own rhetoric because you object to it when a foreigner parrots your lines.

     Posted by LRJONES4 12/30/2006 @ 9:45pm |

     I was not objecting, I agreed with some of what you wrote. I was pointing out that Your comments would be construed as America Hatin, cuz you said bad things about our history. That is not allowed by the Nationalist Thought Police. Ie, Luvvy, Rio, CPt

     ==If Iraq, due to your help, becomes a viable and prosperous nation and all that that entails with respect to other issues like Palestine, Iran and terrorism, the rest of the world is more likely to think the best thoughts about your country and its institutions and forget about WMD claims etc. You can build your reputation in a positive way or still remain the butt of the world's derision as a nation that failed to deliver on what perhaps was its greatest promise.

     Posted by LRJONES4 12/30/2006 @ 9:45pm

     Don't hold your breath.

     Posted by crabwalk at 12/31/2006 @ 08:17am

202. REDBIRDMAN John Nichols "In addition to objecting at the most fundamental level to the use of the barbaric practice of state-sponsored execution" I'll try some logic here, does it follow that Muslim countries are "barbaric", or do you have a work around for that too? "Abolished for all offenses (88) Abolished for all offenses except under special circumstances (11) Retains, though not used for at least 10 years (30) Retains death penalty (68)* Cleverly ignoring that 68+30+11=109 which is actually a vast majority over the 88 which subscribe to the Brussels notion that states can never execute anyone, (except the infirm and unborn and thats ok because you call it something different).

     Posted by david Arneson at 12/31/2006 @ 08:24am

203. Posted by BARRY25 12/31/2006 @ 01:53am

     Who types this stuff out for you, young boy? Obviously you can't read, based on this and other comment you have had transcribed here.

     Start with "The Butter Battle Book", then when you master the pictures in that, move on to ""The Sneetches"

     Posted by crabwalk at 12/31/2006 @ 08:25am

204. Your group's propaganda matrix or starting point goes like this: America was once the great bastion of democracy "a light set on a hill" for all the world to follow, we had the greatest freedoms and the most perfectly advanced form of democracy until this administration stuffed it all up.

     That is your basic proposition.-LRJONES

     I think you may have me confused with Ron Reagan, the "shining city on the hill" guy. The one that gave comfort and support to Saddam Hussein, and blamed the gas attacks on Iran. He is also easily confused with Vincent "The Chin" Gigante'.

     Posted by crabwalk at 12/31/2006 @ 08:30am

205. JRolf, Saddam may have once been vicious, soon he will be most viscous.

     Thanks for the giggle. sorry about the not-so-Freudian slip.

     ---

     Show trials are a beloved form of entertainment for Nationalists, always have been. We, the United states have even set up our very own drive-in, er boat-in, theatre in Castros Cuba. This place is only for the "most vicious (not viscous!!) enemy combatants". Except for the 400 + that were held for years with no charges, then released. Many of those went back to doing their thing, be it farmer or father. 17 have reportedly "returned" to the "battlefield," ie, the whole world, to fight us again, or for the 1st time.

     We have this Gulag so that all the tough guys can "feel" safe. It's all about the feeling. "Now that Saddam is dead, I feel better" All squishy inside, like a liberal.

     Posted by crabwalk at 12/31/2006 @ 08:47am

206. Don't hold your breath.

     Posted by CRABWALK 12/31/2006 @ 08:17am

     C,

     It wasn't so much the conservatives that you mention, as I'm an outrider in their camp. It was more the hypocrites on your side who are unwillingly to follow where the trail of their thinking leads.

     I had noticed that you and others pour shit on your country. Must be fun.

     How long we have to hold our breath or swing by our balls really depends on whether Bush, Gates and the Iraqis learn pretty quickly how to control an insurgency. If they can do, it's all pretty plain sailin' from there on matey.

     2007, 52 minutes ago when we blew a bit of dough on fireworks in Sydney and Melbourne. Saw it on telly.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 12/31/2006 @ 09:02am

207. well, at least Saddam got more in the way of due process than his sons received. and more discreet press coverage too.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/31/2006 @ 10:57am

208. REDBIRDMAN John Nichols "In addition to objecting at the most fundamental level to the use of the barbaric practice of state-sponsored execution" I'll try some logic here, does it follow that Muslim countries are "barbaric", or do you have a work around for that too?

     Saying that a people, culture, nation, etc. employ a "barbaric practice" is not remotely equivalent to saying that the people, culture, nation, etc. are barbaric. No workaround required, just rudimentary reading skills.

     In any case, whether I consider a country or countries barbaric is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not capital punishment has been discarded by a majority of the world's nations. You're feverishly trying to introduce red herrings to escape your basic error. That also explains why you're now trying to introduce your "Brussels notion" poop.

     Desperately counting "Retains, though not used for at least 10 years (30)" countries as capital punishment countries reveals another Republican who can't admit that he's wrong.

     Abolished for all offenses (88)

     Abolished for all offenses except under special circumstances (11)

     Retains, though not used for at least 10 years (30)

     Retains death penalty (68)*

     There are 113 countries that have discarded the death penalty and only 79 that still retain it even if you add in the "special circumstances" countries.

     Attempting to inject the issue of abortion has not made you less wrong either. It has only more starkly revealed you as desperate to avoid admitting that you're wrong.

     "Abolished for all offenses (88) Abolished for all offenses except under special circumstances (11) Retains, though not used for at least 10 years (30) Retains death penalty (68)* Cleverly ignoring that 68+30+11=109 which is actually a vast majority over the 88 which subscribe to the Brussels notion that states can never execute anyone, (except the infirm and unborn and thats ok because you call it something different).

     Posted by DAVID ARNESON 12/31/2006 @ 08:24am

     Posted by fromredbird at 12/31/2006 @ 11:21am

209. What could be better calculated to worsen the position of the USA than to subject the former leader of a country we illegally invaded without cause to a kangaroo court rather than a fair trial and then to hang him on television on the first day of a Muslim holy period [tinyurl.com]? more [tinyurl.com]

     You have to wonder if that is exactly the intention of the Bush admin for their own un-American purposes or if they really are that stupid.

     Posted by fromredbird at 12/31/2006 @ 11:37am

210. LR,

     You wrote, "Shivers mate I'm true blue." I like the sound of the words but can't get seem to make sense of them. Can you translate into International English?

     As for the issue of the day, I suspect that months from now this golden moment in Iraqi history will be as irrelevant and forgotten as all the current attention paid to tenure of our President Ford. I've been wrong before so this might just be another to add to my list of embarrassments. But I couldn't help thinking that Saddam's hangmen looked an awful lot like the hoods who appeared in video with Western hostages making horrible threats and often following through. And I couldn't help thinking about the trial/execution as akin to the rising obsession in this country with gastric bypass surgery, wherein gigantic folks with serious eating problems solve those problems by physically eliminating part of the utility of their innards: an extreme but potentially somewhat effective solution if it is accompanied with serious mental therapy to eliminate the source of the problem. Iraq, it appears to me, has had the surgery but has not yet learned to steer clear of the fast food restaurants. What the Iraqis got was justice performed for expediency. What the Iraqis needed was a trial to serve as a full-blown national enema, conducted with the utmost care and confidence, to serve as a symbol for the long-term stability that is to come for them.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 12/31/2006 @ 11:47am

211. You have to wonder if that is exactly the intention of the Bush admin for their own un-American purposes or if they really are that stupid.

     Posted by FROMREDBIRD 12/31/2006 @ 11:37am | ignore this person

     I believe it was the Shia who executed Saddam on a Sunni holiday. the Shia celebrate that day later. so it was a snub at the Sunni. american interests may have been involved in the rush to execution.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 01/01/2007 @ 9:08pm

212. To LVLIBERTY! and JABELSON --

     If you are for justice, then you are also for trying those in the US who provided Saddam the means to, as example, make the WMDs with which he allegedly "gassed his own people". Those facilitating bastards, you should know, were your heroes Reagan and Poppy Bushit, and Donald Rumsfeld.

     But, as with the usual fake Christians, hate is your creed, and hypocrisy your prayer.

     Posted by jnagarya at 01/05/2007 @ 11:48am