Saddam Hussein struggled briefly after American military guards handed him over to Iraqi executioners. But as his final moments approached, he grew calm.
He clutched a Quran as he was led to the gallows, and in one final moment of defiance, refused to have a hood pulled over his head before facing the same fate he was accused of inflicting on countless thousands during a quarter-century of ruthless power.
A man whose testimony helped lead to Saddam's conviction and execution before sunrise said he was shown the body because "everybody wanted to make sure that he was really executed."
"Now, he is in the garbage of history," said Jawad Abdul-Aziz, who lost his father, three brothers and 22 cousins in the reprisal killings that followed a botched 1982 assassination attempt against Saddam in the Shiite town of Dujail.
Not surprisingly, the moonbats have found a way to turn Saddam's actions into America's fault.
At Pandagon:
R.Mildred: the trouble is that saddam was no less barbaric than the british when churchill was in charge of the area, no less despotic...more humane and better for women than we are...
Weep for Saddam’s death, weep for the way his death and his joke of a trial is being used to obfuscate the role american politicians, many of whom are still running the government, played in putting saddam in charge of iraq, put the weapons he used into his hands, funded his wars and suppression of uprisings, how htey told the kurds to rise up with the promise of american support during Iraq I and then chickened out at the last minute, how every single badness that has happened ot iraq for the past 20 years can be traced to one or more current standing politician, civil servant or plutocratic businessman with an ear in congress or the senate or the white house.
Mark Foxwell: I mainly weep that he never got a chance (or didn’t have the inclination?) to spell out just how complict we Americans (the real powers behind his executioners) were in just about every vile offense against humanity he ever committed.
The nutjobs at DailyKOS were more explicit:
Kdoug: What should be the punishment for Bush?
He is responsible for the deaths of 650,000 Iraqis (Lancet); and nearly 3,000 Americans? Those looking for Justice ... what should be the punishment?
Bakabear: At the end of the war in Italy, Mussolini was executed on April 29, 1945, and his body, along with others, was hanged at an Esso gas station in Milan. As much as this would be so very appropriate for Bush, I'd rather see him in on trial in the Hague answering to charges against humanity.
vassmer: Of course, there will be those who are delusional and believe a man who was responsible for 9/11 was executed today (of course Bush will continue making connections to that fallacy."
Or the ones cheering are those that really get a kick out of murder/executions/war or killing darker skin people because somehow it makes them feel they are winning the war on terror.
Of course, tas at Liberal Avenger was a little more subtle:
Why has Saddam been sentenced to die for killing over 100 Shia? Did the Iraqi judicial system somehow forget about Saddam’s Anfal campaign wherein he used chemical weapons to kill over 100,000 Kurds? Why isn’t he being tried for this crime? Is it because the Reagan administration supplied Saddam with some of those chemical weapons, and Bush and his handlers don’t want the full extent of his Republican predessor’s involvement to become well known? And since George Hebert Walker Bush was vice president at the time, did he have direct involvement in our tax dollars being used to arm Iraq so Saddam could murder thousands? Or, to a lesser extent, did he know what was going on? Does Bush not want to see his Dad brought up for war crimes?
Just connecting the dots, maybe? asking. Speculating.
Because, you see, to the freakfest on the left, everything is eventually America's fault. Then they wonder why we question their patriotism.
UPDATE: More moonbat idiocy here.
Because, you see, to the freakfest on the left, everything is eventually America's fault. Then they wonder why we question their patriotism.
ReplyDeleteAwesome. It's required that I feel patriotic about our government when we enable, by selling weapons of mass destruction to them, a brutal dictator to murder over 100,000 of his own citizens in a systematic genocide. Sign me up for some baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and an American flag shoved straight up my ass!
Ever think that patriotism means trying to ensure that your country is moral? Fighting to make sure that your tax dollars don't pay for murder? Loving your country enough to rid it of governments that commit crimes against humanity?
It's not required that you feel any particular way about anything. But everything that happens in the world is not the fault of America. That Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator wasn't the fault of America. Stop blaming America for the evilness of other people.
ReplyDeletePolitics isn't pretty. But it must be a lot easier for you if you always expect perfect foreign policy.
BTW, I would love for my tax dollars not to support murder. You're in favor of defunding Planned Parenthood, too?
That Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator wasn't the fault of America. Stop blaming America for the evilness of other people.
ReplyDeleteOh really? So when we sell a dictator chemical weapons, and the know-how to use those chemical weapons, then it's somehow not our fault when that dictator uses those weapons to commit mass murder? How is the US not at least partly responsible for this?
Cause and effect, Sharon. You take an action and you have to suffer the consequences of it. This is second grade stuff here; a pretty simple concept. There's hardly even any critical thinking involved. You should be able to get it.
When will you people admit that you're just dead wrong? Ever?
BTW, I would love for my tax dollars not to support murder. You're in favor of defunding Planned Parenthood, too?
First of all, you're not in favor of your tax dollars now being used to pay for murder if you support America's foreign policy actions like arming Saddam enough for him to commit genocide. Secondly, abortion isn't murder. Killing a cluster of cells isn't murder; and if it was, you'd have to send me o prison because I kill clusters of cells everytime I slam my fingers on the keyboard to type out comments. And you'd have to be arrested for doing the same.
But it must be a lot easier for you if you always expect perfect foreign policy.
ReplyDeleteNah, just one that doesn't destabilize regions or invades countries because we're fightin' the commie bastards. Of course, America is and has always been guiltless whenever it kills millions of gooks, but damned if Saddam wasn't a madman. Sit back in comfort, Sharon. It seems to be easy for you, too.
tas,
ReplyDeleteWe sell lots of weapons. That doesn't make US responsible for the use. Secondly, Saddam was our ally because Iran took our citizens hostage. This really should be a no-brainer for you, but, obviously, you want foreign policy without pain. I'd love to see what that looks like.
Secondly, you don't think abortion is murder, therefore supporting an organization that performs abortion is ok with you. It's your opinion. There are lots of people who think that abortion IS murder. But the difference, whether you choose to look at it this way or not, is that my tax dollars are going for a policy I strenuously object to just like yours does. Welcome to the world of the average American taxpayer.
jackgoff,
ReplyDeleteIt's not that America is guiltless. It's that your ilk dislikes virtually ANY American foreign policy decision, particularly if it advances some American goal (losing American lives for "humanitarian efforts" is ok in your books provided it promotes no American policies). It's nice to say you don't want to deal with dictators. I want to see you make that work.
Sharon, there is no apt comparisan between our taxdollars going to support weapons sales to brutal dictators and abortion clinics at home for a couple reasons, the first of which being that abortion, in the eyes of mopre than half of America, isn't murder. And while some people believe it is murder, the one point that all sides have to agree on if that it's debatable. Just like it's debatable that a liberal could think that a government with lacking social policies leading to the deaths of people in the poorer class as murder, an opinion that many would disagree with.
ReplyDeleteThere are, of course, forms of murder that are undebatable. For example, if I shoot somebody with intent to slay them, then I've murdered a person -- there's really no grey area at that point.
The case of the Reagan administration selling chemical weapons to Iraq is another undebatable, clear-cut case of murder. Discussing the political motives around why the sale of those weapons happened doesn't excuse the fact that chemical weapons were then, and still are, illegal by international law that the US helped establish in 1925. And while some might point out that the US sold Saddam chemical weapons years before the dictator turned those weapons against the Kurds, the case of murder can still be made because the Reagan administration continued to provide Saddam with better ways to use his chemical toys after his slaughter of the Kurds began.
This is all on the public record, Sharon. I hardly see where this is a case of "debatable" murder... The Reagan administration knew exactly what Saddam was doing to the Kurds with the weapons they sold him and they did nothing to stop him.
tas,
ReplyDeleteThere can be an apt comparison between weapons sales to other countries and virtually any other U.S. policy you disagree with.
I'm still waiting for you to detail a foreign policy of any American president that didn't include dealing with bad guys. There isn't any. Your position is both naive and unreasonable because it assumes a position of absolute moral authority by the U.S. We sell weapons to countries which are more apt to support American objectives. We don't sell (and, in fact, oppose) selling weapons to countries which do not. That's it. You can bellyache about that policy but you know what you should do is what I was recently told on a liberal board: move to another country which supports your views. Frankly, I'm tired of the unworkable views of your ilk.
You know what, Sharon? It's my country too, and I'm sick of being told to move away from my homeland just because narrow-minded bigots like you disagree with what I have to say, so for daring to suggest that I leave, I have one reply: go fuck yourself.
ReplyDeleteI'm here. Either deal with it or, if you're so adverse to living on the same soil as me, then why don't you go fucking move you selfish twit?
BTW, thanks for avoiding all of the points I brought up in my last comment. You're quite the debating partner, Sharon; ignoring my points and telling me to move because you don't like me. I really learned a fucking lot from this comment thread, surely wasn't a waste of my time. Oh, and as far as your knowledge of US foreign policy motives go...
We sell weapons to countries which are more apt to support American objectives. We don't sell (and, in fact, oppose) selling weapons to countries which do not.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Reagan administration sold weapons to both Iraq and Iran. Oh wait, you can't correct me because I'm NOT wrong! I guess this blows your whole "Reagan sold weaposn to Iraq because it was in our interests" "argument" right out of the water. I hope contradictions don't make your head explode, Sharon, because there's going to be a huge mess to clean up on your monitor and keyboard if they do.
As for trying to tell me why the US sells weapons to dictators, I love how you act like this is a defense of genocide. By your "logic," Sharon, does this mean that it's OK for a dictator to use the weapons we've sold him to commit genocide as long as the dictator's foreign policy concerns are in line with America's same concerns? That alone makes everything right in your little world, Sharon?
Defending genocide because it's in the United States' interest... ANd people like you wonder why the rest of the world hates our fucking guts.
And, to top it all off, I bet you're a "Christian," too. How do your beliefs in foreign policy square away with those of your religion?
Egads. No wonder this country is FUCKED. UP. At least I know I'm normal and have a fucking conscience. You, Sharon.. Hooo boy. Maybe you should move, you're giving me a bad name.
I'm publishing tas's comment just so it will make Jes's head explode. It will give her more to whine about at other sites.
ReplyDeletetas,
I didn't address your points because I figured a moonbat stupid-ass view of foreign policy really wasn't worth picking apart argument by argument. Again, you've yet to explain how foreign policy would work in the real world if we decided we weren't going to deal with bad guys. Oh, wait. We'd have Jimmy Carter.
I gave you the same answer I get from moonbats like you whenever I contradict one of your inane talking points: move to another country. Hey, if your side thinks it's a winning argument, I figure it can work both ways.
And, yes, the Reagan administration did sell weapons to both Iran and Iraq at different times. I know foreign policy is soooo difficult for you to understand. You get the vapors that there are bad guys out there that we have to deal with because there are WORSE guys to deal with.
And tas, if I sell you cocaine, does that mean you have to snort it? No. It means I sold you cocaine. I'm not responsible for your behavior afterward. YOU are. So, we sell weapons to Saddam and he uses them against his people. It's NOT our fault.
I know you have forgotten all about the Cold War and Soviet aggression. I know you must be dumb enough that you've forgotten about communism's encroachment in the 1970s during the great American policy known as detente. But please. How do you conduct foreign policy if you ONLY deal with saints? That's not unlike the policy where we couldn't use informants who had criminal records because, well, they'd been criminals.
I'm not as stupid or naive as you are, tas. Foreign policy isn't always pretty, but you do the best you can with it. It is counterproductive to whine, wring your hands, and complain that, OMG! We sold weapons to bad guys! when you know WORSE guys are targeting your citizens.
BTW, I don't give a damn what the rest of the world thinks about the U.S. I've been out there. I've seen what they think and how they live. I'm old enough to know that they have bitched about America since WWII and regardless of what we choose to do, it will never satisfy them until THEY are determining our policies. But I guess idiots think that's a good idea.
Sharon, I suggest that you don't preach to me about foreign policy when you can't even get your facts straight. It's on the public record that the Reagan administration sold arms to Iraq from (at least) 1983 to 1987; and a quick check of Wikipedia tells me that arms sales to Iran took place at the same time. I dunno what excuse you're going to come up with next... Maybe you'll tell me that Reagan's foreign policy goals are so precise that they changed from day to day, month to month... You'll say anything except an admission that you're dead fucking wrong, so save your breath since I already know what's coming that thick skull of yours.
ReplyDeleteAs for this bullshit:
And tas, if I sell you cocaine, does that mean you have to snort it? No. It means I sold you cocaine. I'm not responsible for your behavior afterward. YOU are. So, we sell weapons to Saddam and he uses them against his people. It's NOT our fault.
You're ignorant of the facts, again. As I pointed out to you in a previous comment:
And while some might point out that the US sold Saddam chemical weapons years before the dictator turned those weapons against the Kurds, the case of murder can still be made because the Reagan administration continued to provide Saddam with better ways to use his chemical toys after his slaughter of the Kurds began.
If you know somebody is doing something wrong with what you have provided them, and yet you keep providing for them, then you become partly responsible for their actions. But I suppose the the twisted little world of Sharon, drug dealers are causing society no harm, just like US arms sales caused the Kurds no harm. Is that how it goes, Sharon?
Goddamn, you're unfuckingbelievably stupid. I have to wonder what your dealing is selling YOU to kill all those brain cells that you so obviously could use.
Just admit when you're wrong, Sharon. That's all you have to do. A person can only grow when they challenge their own beliefs and have the courage to admit that they were mistaken in the past. But it's obvious that you have no interest in self-improvement... It just feels so much better to whip out any inane argument in support of your shattered beliefs. But when you find yourself defending genocide, Sharon, genocide, then you have to ask yourself one question: How would six million Jews feel if they were able to read what you wrote?
Sorry, tas, you're still an idiot and your arguments are deplorable. Are you going to address MY question about foreign policy? Last chance.
ReplyDeletetas, you seem to be falling into argument number 1 in this post at Patterico:
ReplyDeletehttp://patterico.com/2007/01/02/5630/accepted-wisdom%e2%84%a2-the-saddam-nostalgia-edition/
Not surprising at all.
So arming Saddam, thus allowing him to commit genocide against the Kurds and giving that ethnic population, which has always wanted to separate from Iraq, even more of a reason to do so, that helped to stabilize the Middle East, Sharon? Jumpin' Jesus on a pogostick, are you fucking kidding me?
ReplyDeleteThen, after the Iran-Iraq War, Saddam invades Kuwait and threatens Saudi Arabia... Oh yeah, this strategy of stabilization worked like a fucking charm!
Please.
Sorry, tas, I'm not as flexible as you are. Too bad you can't answer my question, but that's normal for your side.
ReplyDeleteWow, you're not even publishing my comments anymore. That's an awesome debating tactic!
ReplyDeleteAu revoir, Sharon. But do keep in touch, I've always been curious about what Hitler's anus tastes like.
Nope, I quit publishing your comments when the spit was flying from your lying lips. There was no debate left once your eyes dilated.
ReplyDeleteReady to answer my question about foreign policy yet?
ReplyDeleteAh, well, I guess it ain't happening. But thanks for the exercise in moonbat idiocy! Drop in anytime!
ReplyDelete