We already know that Iraq bowed to US pressure and scheduled Hussein’s guilty verdict to run right up against our midterm elections. Guilty, sentenced to death, the whole nine yards. At least give the political appointees who enginnered this result some points for chutzpah.
None of that particularly counts as news. Whether Iraq hangs Saddam, cuts his head off or leaves him in jail until he dies of liver disease we have had him in custody for years and the chances of Iraq’s former dictator ever going free hover somewhere between zero and laughable. Even if we released him little to nothing would change. Saddam’s control centered on his aura of fear, the feeling that the very idea of opposing him might get you killed. One picture of Saddam mostly naked, unshaven in a dirty cell and it’s safe to say that the aura is gone for good. Plenty of Sunni leaders have kept their warlord street cred and it strains credulity to think that they would willingly step aside for Captain Underpants. The ink is already dry on Saddam’s role in history.
But about the news. You, me and a retarded magpie can see the political timing here so the odds are fairly good that sharper members of the press can see it. Think they will take offense at getting manipulated in such a brazen fashion? The oft-disappointed voice of hope in me says yes, but I’ve long since learned to ignore the pesky little bugger. Headlines will blare, corners will turn and Iraqis will welcome the brave new Saddam-free world with the customary IEDs and car bombs.
***Update***
Hanging. Shocker.
Eural
Contrary to the perceived value of holding the verdict right before Tuesday I think this may be yet another glaring example of the Republican collapse. By all means lets have his verdict out in the open – it just reinforces the news cycle from Iraq (the single biggest election factor) and it does so in a rather abysmal fashion. While violence rages throughout the country, while US casulties continue to climb, while we spend ourselves into an ever greater fiscal nightmare – this is what we did it all for? Let the Republicans crow. The very insignificance of the victory compared to the unbelievable (and ongoing) costs are practically a self-made ad for the Dems on Tuesday.
p.lukasiak
If Saddam is convicted (and I say “if” because political corruption and death threats are so rampant that its well within the realm of possibility that he won’t be) the propaganda value will be minimal. There will be countrywide curfews and in Baghdad people will not even be allowed on the streets on Sunday — so there won’t be any “celebrating in the streets” coverage…
…unless, of course, Bushco organizes it for the press…
BlogReeder
Good thing that was just an aura. You, me and that mentally challenged magpie know we killed more Iraqi’s than Capt’n Underpants.
Jon H
I doubt it’ll have much impact. The verdict is a forgone conclusion, so any potential boost for the GOP was obtained back when he was captured.
That said, there’s a small chance there could be a backfire, of sorts, if a lot of attention is paid to Saddam being convicted of the deaths of only 150 or so people. People who don’t pay much attention to the news might well react badly, thinking we went to war to get a guy who only killed a relative handful of his people (McVeigh-scale death toll).
Zifnab
I’m still waiting for the daring Sunni raid on the Bagdad prisons. Nothing would say “Iraqi security isn’t worth a damn” like a few dozen former Bathists successfully storming the bastille so to speak.
Baby Jane
It about time that the guy – who forced us to divert so much of our people, resources and principles after making us assume he had a hand in the horror of 9/11 only to find out later that he watched us make an ass out of u and me – got his neocon-fixated-on head chopped off.
And, just before an election, too. Woo Hoo! Too bad I can’t dip my thumb in his bloody stump of a neck after I place my vote.
[Holy cow! The low blood-sugar grouch just arrived. I guess it’s time to fix some dinner.]
Kimmitt
The inevitable frenzy will, in fact, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt how institutionally stupid our traditional media are.
Tsulagi
This might prove to be just a little too clever. Of course they scheduled it just a few days before the election. Time enough for everyone voting to hear and see it on TV, but hoping not too early in case more things go boom in Iraq while turning corner #xxxx.
However, they had thought national security was going to be their strong hand. Do they really want to have Iraq in everyone’s faces for two days before the vote?
Everyone will see the manipulation in the timing. Even the retarded base. But that won’t stop them from clapping. Their Decider has told them it’s been a continuing Mission Accomplished so must it be. Stay the course.
Zifnab
Oh yeah. This was all totally Saddam’s fault. In other news, Vietnam was provoked entirely by Ho Chi Mein and had nothing to do with the foolishness and ineptitude of our War-Profiteer-In-Chiefs.
Elvis Elvisberg
I agree with Eural. Everyone knows how bad the situation is in Iraq, and public opinion is pretty settled. Saddam was caught long ago, and at the time it was a boost for the GOP. His conviction, in the face of continuing violence, will demonstrate that he’s just a sideshow to the security situation now.
We’ve seen too many “turning points” turn out to mean nothing. One could hold an honest, though misguided, belief that Saddam’s capture would be a turning point; no one believes that his verdict will magically make Iraq less of a hellhole now.
The Asshole Formerly Known as GOP4Me
Don’t you get it, moonbat? People are trying to kill us! Yes, right now, Osama is outside your bedroom window with a knife in one hand and a Kalashnikov in the other. I’m only speaking metaphorically- or am I? O shit! Go check!
Remember the Gulf of Tonkin Incident!
Baby Jane
My hunger-induced sarcasm must be kinda obtuse. Either that or something else.
The Asshole Formerly Known as GOP4Me
Doesn’t Borat supposedly cheer on Bush’s efforts to drink the blood of every Iraqi man, woman, and child? That’s what I’d heard, anyway, I haven’t seen the movie yet.
You’d think Bush would have to share those precious bodily fluids with his vampire constituents, like me.
Randy
This is why we were right to go into Iraq. Saddam once terrorized not just his own country but the Kurds and Kuwaitis. Now he awaits his just desserts.
If I had known how badly the war would go, I would not have supported it. But when we see Saddam finally meet his maker, as he should, hanging from a tree, you can see the morality behind why we did what we did. We can only hope that the Iraqi people see this the same way and that this helps the country change course from what would be a bloody civil war.
ThymeZone
For real comedy …. see the “Obsession” film on radical Islam playing this weekend on FoxNews.
I just endured it in its entirely, and I have to say, it’s probably the biggest crock of shit I have ever seen in my adult life.
Summary: Terrorists are under your bed and want to kill you.
Sagredoh!
I’m fairly certain Saddam’s date with destiny was planned at a time when the neocons who dared Bush to punch Saddam in the nose hadn’t yet run away from the bloody spectacle. It was obviously planned in the brief interlude between the ‘flower and candy showers’ opener and the ‘last throes of the insurgency’ middle act. I further posit that no one in the Bush administration has thought through the negatives that arrive when “film at eleven” is initially mistaken by the masses for a late night rerun of ‘Saving Private Ryan…’
No, Karl already has too many balls in the air to take note of the implications, but I’m fairly certain that the Sunni tribesmen have the date marked in red…
ThymeZone
.
No, not even in the ballpark. For ridding the world of this very ordinary despot, thief and thug, we’ve fucked our own country beyond words, and will leave Iraq in worse shape than we found it.
Nothing moral in that, at all. Especially when the outcome was entirely predictable.
p.lukasiak
But when we see Saddam finally meet his maker, as he should, hanging from a tree, you can see the morality behind why we did what we did.
If we’d done it in 1991, when Saddam was slaughtering the Kurds and Shia after the first US-Iraq War, the “morality” would have been there…
But the REALITY is that by 2002 Iraq’s human rights record was no worse than dozens and dozens of other nations. And given the risks that were involved in the invasion (and the number of Iraqi soldiers we would be slaughtering for political reasons in the war) anyone who claims that there was any moral justification for the war is an idiot.
rachel
How many Americans will say, “Screw him. Why are we still in Goddamn Iraq?” and vote Democrat anyway?
Randy
Nothing moral in that, at all. Especially when the outcome was entirely predictable.
Have you ever read To Kill a Mockingbird? Do you remember what the narrator said about the Civil War and how her uncle and grandfather who fought in it said it didn’t matter what the outcome was, fighting it was still the right thing to do? You could say the same thing about Iraq. I’m not even saying that I think we should have gone in at this point. But can’t you see the morality of it? Pragmatically, it didn’t work in many ways, though it is still too early to judge that with finality. But morally different rules apply.
ThymeZone
Well I don’t know that number, Rachel, but I am in a prediction mood this weekend, and I am going to say that Dems pick up 25+ seats in the House. Senate, don’t know.
In any case, Wednesday morning, the Potemkin Government is history.
ThymeZone
No, of course not. America would not, and should not, have gone into this war to save Iraq from Saddam Hussein.
So to get Americans to back the war, the Potemkin Government made up reasons for the war that turned out to be false.
There is no morality in that, no matter how you try to spin it.
SeesThroughIt
Wow, you actually managed to watch that? Kudos to you for that. I only watched a couple of minutes, laughed a bunch at how stupid it was, remembered that there are people watching who consider it a serious, hard-hitting piece of journalism, and changed the channel.
chopper
the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Eural
To follow up on Chopper’s point:
“We live in dark times when we must all face the choice between what is the right thing to do and what is the easy thing to do.”
(And yes, I just finished watching HP and The Goblet of Fire with my kids for the bazillionth time)
Bob In Pacifica
But didn’t John Kerry just say that Saddam was innocent?
SPIIDERWEB™
No the MSN won’t be outraged about their being manipulated. They’ve gotten used to that.
I have to disagree about Hussein, however. Let him go free to reconstitute his Sunni army and he would be right back in charge. Malicious tyrants have a way of rebounding. Ignore the horrible pix of him. If he has the ability to kill anyone he wants, he’ll have all the power he needs.
My hope is the American public will take the announced verdict and sentencing for what they are, the elimination of one tyrant at the expense of nearly 3,000 American lives. That’s hardly a good trade off.
Perry Como
According to Randy, 3000 American troops is well worth one dead Middle Eastern dictator. Moral, even.
sid the squid
I think Saddam’s wad was completely blown after that get yer freak on sadosexual “visit to the dentist” medical whites and latex gloves man probed around in Saddam’s stretched open yap the prols at home leaning in towards their tvs bathed in the lurid flickering after glow of victory.”ladies and gentlemen..we got him!”that odd tickle in their stomachs and loins flushed with perverse pride and lusty patriotic fever.
tongue lolling panting patriotic idiotic fever.
Perry Como
Check out this moonbat talking about how President Bush’s stay the course strategy in Iraq could be the worst strategic blunder in US history. Who does this liberal, leftist, defeatocrat think he is? A former Army general that ran the NSA under Reagan or something?
Randy
But didn’t John Kerry just say that Saddam was innocent?
Ha ha ha. He may as well have with what he said the other day. To him, Iraq is a joke. Okay, a botched joke. Tell that to the people who lived under Saddam for twenty years. Don’t think you’ll get much of a laugh.
tBone
Oh, come on. We already know you’re a spoof. Just come right out and say “the next six months are crucial” instead of going for the more subtle “it’s too early to judge” stuff.
CaseyL
Randy, I have a funny feeling that most Iraqis would rather Saddam was still in power, when they still had things like electricity, running water, and were still able to go about their daily lives without knowing they ran a 3-1 risk of being shot, blown up, kidnapped, or tortured to death every time they left the house.
Randy
And what, exactly, would the party of Bill Clinton know about morality?
Okay, tBone, I’ll admit the “we’ll know in six months” stuff is getting old. But, seriously, don’t you think we need to wait and see what impact this all has on the democratic process in places like Syria, Jordan, Iran, and Libya before we can be sure what the overall effect is? Doesn’t that seem reaonable?
Baby Jane
Tell what? Tell what, exactly, to the people of Iraq? What won’t get them to laugh?
Some noise inside your head about John Kerry? I can’t imagine why the noise in your head would make anybody laugh, let alone some people on the other side of the world. People who spend their days ducking death because their country has been turned into a shooting gallery by the incompetent, short-sighted, and pathetically self-important visions of men who, not one, has the name John Kerry.
Tell us jokeboy. Tell us. Why won’t the Iraqi people laugh?
AnonE.Mouse
Randy,you’re a fool if you belief that Saddam was removed for altruistic reasons.He was an obstacle to the implementation of a neoliberal economic agenda in a middle eastern country that is unfortunate enough to be sitting on top of large reserves of our oil.It made the entire misadventure easier to sell to well meaning simpletons like yourself if it could be advertised as a liberation of the Iraqi people,650,000 of whom have been liberated from their earthly bodies since the launch of the illegal invasion.The con was made easier by the fact that Saddam Hussein was in fact a world-class murderous piece of shit(which people like me were trying to point out to people like you in the 1980s),unlike Hugo Chavez,who the American government is currently working overtime to villainize for similar reasons.Of course,the phony bullshit about ridding Iraq of Saddam is in addition to the phony bullshit of ridding Iraq of the non-existent WMDs and non-existent terrorists.
craigie
Uh, is there a time limit on this version of history? Or if the glaciers come and go a few more times, and some much smarter species of people eventually end up in the place formerly known as “Syria,” do we have to give Chimpy the credit for their success?
craigie
Besides, it looks like it’s it’s already had an effect on democracy.
johnnyr
“Think they will take offense at getting manipulated in such a brazen fashion?”
Bwahahaahahahahahahahaha! Well, no, the media are all suckers for Bush propoganda.
searp
Randy: The American people were told that
(1) Iraq under Saddam supported Al Qaeda and may have supported 9/11
(2) Iraq had an active WMD program and could give WMD to terrorists
The result was enabling legislation called the Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107
The creation of democracy, cited as a goal of the Iraq Liberation Act, isn’t cited until the SEVENTEENTH paragraph of this resolution.
Congress was misled, the public was misled, and you are faulty in your understanding of the motivation for the war.
Now to the present: I do not think we have to wait any longer.
We know we aren’t going to get a beacon of hope in Iraq, or at least we know we aren’t going to get a beacon of hope for Sunnis, Shias and Kurds simultaneously. We know our country is reviled throughout the Muslim world. We know there weren’t any WMD. We know Saddam hated the Islamicists. We know the administration “sold” the war, suggesting a cakewalk. We know we have spent 400+ billion dollars on this disaster. We know that nearly 3000 of our brave soldiers have died, and tens of thousands have been maimed. We know that tens, and maybe hundreds, of thousands of Iraqis have died. We know more than half of the Christian population of Iraq has left the country. We know that the single most powerful political figure in Iraq is Moqtada Al Sadr, and that his power comes from a large militia and Shia fanaticism supported by Iran.
OK, now tell me again why we have to wait and see?
TenguPhule
Somewhere in Iraq is an IED with Randy’s name on it.
He really needs to enlist so he can go and greet it properly.
Pooh
Godwin’sClenis’ Law:As an election nears the probability of a wingnut saying it’s all Clinton’s fault and/or “he did it too” approaches 1.
The Asshole Formerly Known as GOP4Me
Okay, Saddam’s been convicted.
NOW can we torture him? He might be able to give up some valuable information on Sunni insurgency, and if we don’t torture him we might not find out if they’re planning to rescue him until it’s too late. Think of the hundreds of Americans Saddam could kill if allowed to escape! Surely, any moral qualm about torturing him is more than counterbalanced by this massive hypothetical number of American lives.
Anyone who disagrees should also be tortured. Tortured into silence. To do otherwise could endanger the lives of hundreds of Americans, and I hardly think torturing a few hundred liberals is as bad as allowing terrorists to kill hundreds of Americans (many of whom may well be Republicans).
This is the stark moral choice we face, America. Choose wisely. Torture Saddam, and then torture Michael Moore until he agrees to shut up. If not, the terrorist who lives down the street will probably blow your house up and kill you. I may be wrong, but can you really afford to ignore the strong possibility that I’m right?
Richard 23
Yeah, didn’t Kerry also say that Iraq was just a comma? What an idiot!
Zifnab
Nothing says “morality” like a good old fashioned post-kangaroo court lynching.
Randy
Randy: The American people were told that
(1) Iraq under Saddam supported Al Qaeda and may have supported 9/11
(2) Iraq had an active WMD program and could give WMD to terrorists
That turned out not to be true, I know. I watch the news too, believe it or not. But our best intelligence, at the time, suggested that it was true. Blame George Tenet, blame Hanx Blix. But you can’t blame the White House on this score.
Clearly, the war has not been conducted with the efficacy that it might have. Maybe it is time for Rumsfeld to go. But let’s don’t pretend that people knew things that they didn’t. Let’s be honest about what was believed in 2002 and what wasn’t.
chopper
i think they’re too busy burning george bush in effigy to care about what randy thinks a junior senator from mass. may or may not feel about them.
that, or maybe they’re still laughing at bush’s ‘hide the WMDs under the couch’ gag a while back. those iraqis do love the jokes.
KCinDC
And how will he kill anyone he wants? With his amazing mental powers? His power depended on having a network of loyal followers. He’s been out of commission for a long time now, and new thugs have taken over — thugs who wouldn’t have much incentive to give up their power to the old guy.
The problem with ruling as a strongman is that once you cease to be strong your supporters, who never really liked you in the first place, disappear pretty quickly. Bush may be experiencing something similar.
AnonE.Mouse
No,Randy,it wasn’t our “best intelligence” that suggested it was true-it was the best stovepiped intelligence that suggested it was true and a compliant media that saturated the airwaves with that message virtually uncontested.Believe it or not,what dupes like you were led to believe in 2002 is not what all of us believed in 2002.And it’s not exactly an automatic step from “best intelligence” to war-who’s responsible for pulling that trigger?
grumpy realist
And it looks like Bush is brushing off the editorials in the military journals about needing to get rid of Rumsfeld.
On one hand, we’re tied to this bozo as he drags the US over the cliff in Iraq. On the other hand, the blow-up that is occuring should discourage Americans from saber-rattling interventions for quite a few years. I also predict the reaction by the average American to anything else the neocons try to shove out there will be a big fat raspberry.
ThymeZone
Actually, I can. There’s a reason why they call the guy the “President.”
As opposed to, say, the “Apprentice.”
He’s the fucking president. It’s his job to get big things right.
Let me put it to you this way, Randy: I’m just some guy in Arizona who takes a long time to pick out lawn fertilizer, and fixes his own toilets. And I figured it out, all by myself, in 2002.
Maybe you should have elected me president? Sure, you’d have to put up with my weird sense of humor …. but I wouldn’t have gotten your country into this fucked up war.
So what exactly are we paying this fuckhead for?
The Other Steve
Can the wingnuts explain something to me, because this has me puzzled.
Hussein was a horrible dictator who supposedly killed hundreds of thousands of people in mass executions, and there is supposedly mass graves to prove this. Now I don’t dispute the horrible dictator, and it does seem quite clear that he did have people thrown in prison, harassed, beaten, etc. for their political beliefs.
But if there were these Hitler like mass graves of hundreds of thousands of people.
Why would this trial have hinged on a single incident which occured in 1982?
Why not bring out all that other evidence?
Or are they planning to have additional trials?
The Other Steve
Why won’t you be honest?
Just admit that you were wrong, and we can move on here.
Walker
Aren’t the Republicans supposed to be the “personal responsibility” party? Seeing these quotes, and people like Michael Ledeen lie about their past advocacy demonstrates how laughable this is.
It is like watching little children say “He did it! No, he did it!”
p.lukasiak
That turned out not to be true, I know. I watch the news too, believe it or not. But our best intelligence, at the time, suggested that it was true. Blame George Tenet, blame Hanx Blix. But you can’t blame the White House on this score.
Um, Blix was saying that no evidence of WMDs or WMD programs had been found in Iraq before the war started.
More crucially, Bush never bothered to demand a National Intelligence Estimate concerning Iraq before making the decision to go to war. The only reason an NIE was actually created was because Congress demanded one before it would vote to authorize action pursuant to Iraq, and Bush ordered one up to be done as soon as possible — the normal safeguards against procedures that were part of the creation of an NIE were ignored in order to suit Bush’s timeline.
But the single most important reason that the White House was to blame is that it KNEW well before the war began that the “intelligence” indicating that Iraq had WMDs was so deeply flawed that a comprehensive review of the existing intelligence (i.e. a new NIE) should have been ordered by the White House prior to going to war “because Iraq has WMDs”. Virtually every claim that the US had made that could be checked out was checked out, and determined to be false. Bush knew this, and went to war anyway….
KCinDC
Jim Henley has the answer:
searp
Randy: of course, OF COURSE, I blame the White House.
George Tenet didn’t make the decision to start a war, George Bush made that decision.
You know, the argument that the intel was bad, regardless of whether that was the case or not, is a really worthless red herring.
There is no deterministic relationship between intel and policy; policymakers make policy. In this case, George W. Bush made a catastrophically bad call.
Tenet didn’t make that call, the French didn’t make that call, the Germans didn’t make that call, the Russians didn’t make that call.
You say they all had access to the same intel.
The deciding factor is that we had a lousy policy maker, a catastrophically dumb policy maker, George W. Bush, making policy.
I really, really do not understand how this conclusion can be avoided.
searp
One other thing, as long as I am at it.
How the hell does Hans Blix get any blame at all? Was that just some sort of thoughtless slip, or do you really think that Hans Blix did something that caused George W. Bush to take our country to war?
Please explain.
Zifnab
Certainly what KCinDC said. That particular incident was a Saddam-only affair, so it left him less wiggle room to talk his way out of it.
However, as a matter of course, it is more difficult to try someone for war crimes spanning decades than for a single incident that encapsulates his crimes and would give him the same sentence. They can only execute him once. So they try him on a single incident in 1982 rather than every incident committed between 1982 and 2003 because it is significantly faster in court and easier to present evidence against. If he’d been aquitted, they could always bring up the other charges later.
Of course, my respect for a legal system that considers timing a verdict for US elections to be a higher priority than, say, keeping the defense team from being assassinated is less than lofty. There was never really any doubt that Saddam would be convicted, and the court-room antics just added to an air of kangroo-court style disregard for rule of law. I don’t think too many legal scholars (who aren’t shilling for the right at the moment) will point to the Saddam trial as a model for international judical integrity.
Zifnab
Hans Blix and Bill Clinton conspired to conceal WMDs in Iraq as part of a terrorist plot to attack the World Trade Center. By not finding WMDs in Iraq, Blix helped conceal the weapons Hussien was planning on manufactoring back in 1991 in 2002. Bill Clinton was instrumental in having sex with his intern so as to make America look like a soft, weak target ripe for Saddam’s Al Queda terrorist-pirate-ninja-assassins to kill 3000 people in the World Trade Center on 9/11 never forget! Why can’t you moonbats stop hating America long enough to understand that they want to kill us?
searp
Zifnab: thanks for setting me straight. Was Jimmy Carter providing cover for these activities while working for Habitat for Humanity?
Randy
Blix said he thought there were WMD. That’s a fact. He didn’t find them but if he thought they weren’t there, then why was he looking in the first place?
What does it matter, though? Today is a great day for Iraq. A brutal dicator is being put to death. I can think of no greater milestone towards freedom than that. Regardless of what we did or didn’t know.
AnonE.Mouse
Randy,you are a hopeless fucking idiot.
Richard 23
What a fool.
ThymeZone
I am quite sure that you can’t.
With that, you really should retire your spoofy lameness for another day, another thread. You don’t want to blow your cover.
searp
Randy:
Saddam isn’t being put to death, he is being sentenced. You will see the difference in the months between his sentencing and his execution.
Saddam was convicted of murdering 143 people in Dujail. Justice is done, I think.
Now how about the 50-100 murders a DAY in Iraq? How do those folks obtain justice? Appeal to Al-Maliki, or take justice into their own hands? Seems like this, too, is being answered.
TenguPhule
Rand has moved beyond farce and straight into bald faced lying.
The Asshole Formerly Known as GOP4Me
Nice spoofing.
If only we could torture Saddam to death. That would strike an even greater blow for liberty, freedom, and human rights.
jcricket
The guys at Donklephant (might need to lose the “le-phant” part pretty soon. Sounds french anyway) have a good point in this post about Saddam:
Again, if a trial is a “good thing” when it comes to someone Republicans believe is one of the worst dictators in history (guilty of murdering 500,000 of his own people), then why not the same for a bunch of ragtag “terrorists” (in quotes because we keep releasing these people without trials, so many of them are innocent).
Wouldn’t open trials for all the suspected terrorists in Gitmo and special prisons be good? Seeing as how it would expose their murderous ways for the whole world to see and result in hundreds or thousands of guilty verdicts that would show the world that we respect the rights of even “the worst of the worst” (again in quotes because we’ve released 70-80% of these “worstest” folks from Gitmo, so far, and can’t be bothered to charge people like Padilla with the crimes we say they’re guilty of)
If our “case” against terrorists and terrorism can’t withstand the scrutiny of the legal system and requires abrogation of the Geneva Convention, Habeas Corpus, FISA and the American system of law, then it’s a pretty weak case.
chopper
really?
wait, i though he thought they were there. which is it?
because it was his job. i know you republican’ts seem to think that your job is whatever you personally believe it is (‘we had to shred the constitution to uphold the constitution’), but some people, when given a task, actually try to perform it as ordered.
when bush got a hair up his butt to invade, blix was saying that not only was iraq complying, but they needed more time to finish the inspections. he was doing his job.
The Other Steve
Wow, talk about some desperate for good news.
Today was insiginifigant. Hussein should have been strung up on a lamp pole back in 2003.
Bob In Pacifica
Randy, look up the Downing Street Memo. Or maybe go back and read up on the cause of the whole Valerie Plame thing. You can do this.
Best intellignece? Best stupidity.
BlogReeder
Go Randy go. These guys can’t debate. They’re really good at name calling though.
John D.
Wow, great substantive rebuttal, BR. Truly impressive.
BlogReeder
Thanks, John D. but I was just cheering. No substance needed.
AnonE.Mouse
BlogReeder,you’re like the guy yelling ‘jump’ to some poor fucker up on a roof.Don’t be fooled,Randy-we’re the guys with the net.
BIRDZILLA
How long will it be before they carry out the exicution will RAMSEY CLARK file all those stupid appeals?