December 30, 2006
-
Hanging Hussein
From hanging chads to hanging Hussein, where'd the legitimacy go?
Josh Marshall on this spectacle:
Myself, I just find it embarrassing. This is what we're reduced to, what the president has reduced us to. This is the best we can do. Hang Saddam Hussein because there's nothing else this president can get right.
Comments (10)
Oh, I'm sure you're right. There's no one else in the country who wanted this to happen. No one else in the world either for that matter. Just George.
I find it ironic that the former ruler of a country, someone WE supported and aided, didn't even get the same courtesy Jeff Dahmer or Ted Bundy got. Of course, he's not here, but who could not deny we're running the scene there, behind the scenes of course.
Hm. Sounds like I'm a minority in this crowd. Looked like justice to me. I read several articles from people in Iraq who not only wanted it, they celebrated it in the streets. One of the celbrators lost both parents, two brothers, a sister and 22 cousins to SH's actions. I think he wanted this.
I don't mourn the guy. It's just that all we've accomplished in Iraq is getting Hussein hung after three years and hundreds of thousands of deaths. Iraq is in the turmoil we brought, and will be for the next decade at least. The 'war on terror,' as fought in Iraq, has made us (and will continue to make us) less safe from terrorism.
Hussein is hung. Big frealkin' deal.
Hussein was a monster, he deserved to die for his crimes.
I bet if I transported you back to 1945 you'd be saying "big deal, Hitler is dead and they hung Mussolini."
You have no idea what that man did to his people.
If you are so worried about the War on Terror and doing something to make us more safe, why don't you enlist and do something about it instead of just sitting there and sucking air? All you do is pay it lip service.
Sorry for coming here and shitting all over your site, but your response is so typical of the left. I wonder if you'd be saying the same thing if the President's name was Clinton instead of Bush. Don't worry, your turn is coming. I can't wait to see how President Clinton or Obama will handle the War on Terror.
The great thing about being an American is being able to sit back and shoot your big mouth off while not having to do anything to back it up. Talk is cheap. You liberals are so big on human rights, but when somebody does something to get rid of a major violator you all cry foul, unless its your guy who does the ridding.
Your assessment of our accomplishments come from your over-exposure to a media that is in lock-step with the democrats and the hate Bush first crowd. You have no idea of the real situation on the ground, you just spout what you've heard.
desertvet, you really do not know what you're talking about when you're talking about me, and continued use of the you'd-support-Hitler strawman is a very quick way to get yourself banned from my Xanga site.
My response is not 'typical of the left,' no matter how dearly you wish it was. If you would put aside your own partisanship for a milisecond, you might grow to actually understand my position, rather than having to erect a strawman in order to protect your own.
So please be civil, OK? I can deal with passionately-argued points, but the strawman bullshit's gotta go. In the above bit, you assigned at least six positions to me that I don't hold.
So make your point, but stay factual.
The whole thing seems hypocritical to me. Execute a man for executing others? Hmmm... On the other hand, I don't know what you could have done with the guy for the rest of his life. Who would have wanted to pay to keep him in prison for years? The Iraqis? I doubt it; that would have just added insult to injury. I really don't know what the "right" thing would have been in this case.
ryc: Of course many people are related, if you go far enough back. I hadn't heard of The Genographic Project, but I was somewhat familiar with Bryan Sykes' book called The Seven Daughters of Eve, which uses mitochondrial DNA to find common ancestors. I have a distant cousin who paid to have the test done, and it assigned her to a particular geographic area 10,000 years ago. How that helps with tracing your fisherman great-grandfather in the 1700s, I really don't know.
The famous people I was referring to lived within the last 400 years or so. Of course, I may share a common ancestor with one of those people, but I would have to go back a lot further than 15 generations to find that link.
I don't necessarily think there is any sort of "theory of class and superiority" (at least, I hope I didn't imply that). Even if you have 10 famous distant cousins, you might have 10,000 who died without leaving a trace of their lives. I just thought it was interesting that so many "famous" people could be found within, for the most part, 15 or so generations of the family tree.
Then ban me. That's a typical leftist position also, all for free speech so long as it agrees with the left, but if Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh says it then they should be silenced. Why is it that when a conservative states an opinion its hate speech and must be banned, but when a leftist says it its "spirited debate in the finest traditions of dissent, as enshrined in the First Amendment?
I put up with a lot worse than what I gave you on my sit and noone is banned.
As for Iraq:
I was there. I saw with my own two eyes whats going on in Iraq. It has nothing to do with partisanship or politics.
You made the statement that all we've done in Iraq is get Saddam hung, and thats bullshit. I take offense to that not because of partisanship, but because I spent a years worth of blood, sweat, tears, and seeing more horror and carnage than a human being should trying to make Iraq a better place, and I got enough positive reinforcement from the ctitzens of al Thawra, al Rashad/Kahnsa, and Sadr City to know that what we did made a positive impact.
Once again, all you have to go by is the horseshit they peddle on the news and in the left-wing blogosphere (people with more opinions and political axes to grind than actual knowledge.)
Dude: I never said you committed hate speech. What you did was RUDE. You came here and assigned about a zillion bullshit motivations to me. Some people call that 'lying.' But nevertheless, I *invited you* to *continue* commenting, just to leave the ad hominem bullshit aside, just as I'd expect from anyone, and just as I'd do anywhere else. Do you *really* want me to accuse you of being dishonest?
If you disagree, then disagree. But don't couch it in this crap about how I'm all brainwashed by the MSM or the blogs or whatever, because that's just a cop-out on your part. You really, truly, do not know what you're talking about in that regard, and that's not an insult.
Since 2002, I've maintained that invading Iraq would be a huge mistake. I don't believe I've been proved wrong. In some parts of it, some positive things have been happening, but the point here is that overall, it's still been a huge mistake. That's not partisanship or brainwashing or anything, and it's not intended to be a swipe at anyone's military service there or anywhere. Last I heard, the President is responsible for the soldiers, not the other way around. I'm arguing that *Bush* fucked up, not you.
Fair enough, I apologize for my rudeness.
As a soldier, I am not without my mixed feelings about Iraq. However, I tire of the relentless use of the issue as a political stake being driven into the heart of George W. Bush. I could care less if people love or hate the President, I don't have the luxury of either of those emotions towards the man because he's my boss. What I think is unfortunate is that the effort there is a casualty of partisan politics. While millions of Americans say what they will about the war, and they say some pretty outlandish things about it, thousands of their fellow Americans are there laboring at it.
The funny thing is, everyone makes such a big deal of Bush saying that major combat operations were over (mission accomplished). They were! Ever since then we have been involved in rebuilding and shoring up the infastructure over there. Bush didn't bank on the insurgency. The war part of the mission was over in 2003. Since then everything has been hampered by politics at home, or the terrorist insurgency in Iraq.
My part of Operation Iraqi Freedom resembled a PR/police operation more than it did combat. I would compare it more to secular missionary work than warfighting. All we did for our year was attempt to upgrade and make better the lives of the people in our little sliver of Baghdad, and we succeeded at that. If anything, the little kids in our district will remember that the Americans were good to them. I think if what we did changes the long term perception of Americans for even a handful of those children, it will pay out positively for the world in the future.
Comments are closed.