November 05, 2006
On Day of Saddam's Sentencing, Liberals Attack Republicans
You would think that on the day a brutal murderous dictator like Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death for crimes against humanity, that everyone but Baathist dead-enders would draw at least some satisfaction from the fact that at long last, the Butcher of Baghdad would pay for his decades of brutality, depravity, and bloodlust.
You don't know liberals very well, do you?
Blondesense's reaction was "ho-hum," after which she went on a multi-paragraph tirade blaming the United States in general and Republicans in specific. As always, we are responsible for Saddam's crimes.
Steve Clemon's at the Washington Note takes the same tack:
The Bush administration gets credit for taking down Hussein, real and in statue, but they too deserve every bit of the credit for unleashing the virulent currents of sectarian killing and convulsion in Iraq, all of the responsibility for removing the chief constraint on Iran's actions in the region, and all of the kudos for giving radical Islamism reward after reward in the region.Saddam Hussein's head will be a prize that Shia extremists thank America for while they continue to do their best to eradicate Sunnis from Iraq.
Bush deserves all of the credit for the Hussein trial and conviction -- and all of the horrors unleashed around it.
Nice. Apparently they'd rather have Saddam still in power, because they've convinced themselves that would have saved Iraqi lives.
Uh, no (via Gateway Pundit).
Mahablog questions the timing and blames Karl Rove. It's knee-jerk, but instinctive for them at this point.
Georgia10 at Daily Kos asks, "Do the ends justify the means?" seems quite concerned that Saddam may not have gotten a fair trial, and cries yet again for us to abandon the people of Iraq, which she apparently considers a "blood-soaked path to nowhere."
It's never to late to blame America. It's never to late too run.
A "good morning to you" from the American liberal left.
I know he's guilty. You know he's guilty. The day when Saddam gets a fair trial and hopefully is convicted and punished for his crimes will be a great one for all involved. But that hasn't happened yet. What has happened is positively un-American. But I know that doesn't mean much to the ends by any means crowd on the Right...
Posted by: Fred at November 5, 2006 10:57 AM"What has happened is positively un-American."
Uh yeah.
It was, however, positively Iraqi. And isn't that the point.
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at November 5, 2006 11:21 AMThe only sad thing about this decision is that death sentences in Irag are automatically appealed before a nine-judge panel. This means another months iof waiting at least. I wish they'd get this over with in a very public forum.
Posted by: david at November 5, 2006 11:37 AMI don't know who fred is but he is a confused soul. Saddam is in Iraq and the only Americian citizen there, at his trial, was defending him.
However a sorry hack his defense attorney from the U.S. is.
The left can ho-hum all they wish. Its a great day for the victims os Saddam.
O.K., let me rephrase; What has happened is positively undemocratic and spits in the face of the rule of law.
Posted by: Fred at November 5, 2006 12:57 PMCheney thought Iraq invasion would be "classic quagmire" '91:
What do you think boys? Is it great that he can sleep at night or what?
I'd rather get OBL myself, as he was, you know, behind 9/11. Go ahead and tell me how it doesn't matter that we missed him, I love that. Saddam was a bastard, but he wasn't killing Americans.
Time to wake up from the dream, boys. The jig's up.
Posted by: Earl at November 5, 2006 01:53 PMLost my Cheney url:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-_oHxbZl9E&NR
Enjoy, fellas. I'll be looking forward to your convincing explanations about how that mattered in '91 but not 2003.
Posted by: Earl at November 5, 2006 01:54 PMEarl:
The Democrats had years to get Osama and to deal with Saddam and they did not do either one so how about bitching at them for awhile.
Posted by: Terrye at November 5, 2006 02:17 PMMaybe they'll hang him in front of one of those freshly painted schools!
Posted by: blogenfreude at November 5, 2006 02:30 PMI think it's great. A leader responsible for war crimes and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, arrested by Americans, turned over to teh Iraqi authorities and condemned to death. Brilliant.
Such a useful precedent...
Posted by: Phlebas at November 5, 2006 04:14 PMWhat has happened is positively undemocratic and spits in the face of the rule of law.
What precisely is this notion of "the rule of law"?
I've been told, perhaps erroneously, it has nothing to do with American law.
Q: Is France under "the rule of law"? Yes or no.
Think very carefully before answering. I'll warn you upfront this is a loaded question with a subsequent trap built in should you say France is.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 5, 2006 04:35 PMEarl, I believe the NYT's just verified a lot of information that the 'conservatives' already knew because we aren't all listening to idiots like Hanoi John Kerry. One of the fact verified by your loving paper of record was the cozy relationship between Saddam and Usama. One of the captured documents that the NYT avoided is an order from 'Saddam' in 2001 to attack American interest everywhere. Do you think it's possible he just ordered the 9-11 attacks? Usama had some money but not enough for the years of training and travel for the terrorists, that money was provided, well actually by you, through the U.N. and sucked off by Saddam in the oil for food swindle. Get you some real information through contact with an American Soldier in Iraq. Oh, that's right the democrats don't even know what an American Soldier looks like (they think a canadian uniformed soldier is an American) so there's no way you could know a real soldier. Maybe you can round up one of the phonies that have suckered the dim's again and again, they will tell you what you want to hear, and like the dim congressional candidiates you'll suck it up to.
Posted by: Scrapiron at November 5, 2006 04:54 PMSaddam is lucky he wasn't summarily shot like many SS guards were when the extermination camps were liberated in WWII. Cries about fair trial are absurd here, he got the best one humanly possible. Now hang him.
As for Osama, soon...
Posted by: John at November 5, 2006 08:31 PMCome on Fed, what's wrong?
*chirp*
*chirp* *chirp*
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 5, 2006 08:55 PMI applaud the Iraqis for staying on the ball and keeping this trial as concise as possible. I had feared from the beginning that this would turn into a farce of a trial similar to the circus that went on for Slobodan Milošević. They even managed to overcome the constant specter of assassination and violence surround all those involved.
Posted by: Josh Reiter at November 6, 2006 12:35 AMSo, back to the Kerry "joke" for the big finish?
Posted by: monkyboy at November 6, 2006 12:38 AMFred says he knows "Saddam is guilty," ...still Fred huffs with righteous indignation. Why? Because the Iraqi court reached the same conclusion and sentenced the mass murdering butcher to death by hanging. Fred has a narcist notion that the trial won't be "fair" until Fred says it is.
I'll bet that Fred's concern for "fairness" is strictly reserved for malignant narcissistic dictators. I'll lay odds that Fred couldn't care less about false accusations & slanderous lies spewed incessantly about President Bush, his administration and our brave troops in time of war, whether by Islamic fanatics or liberal Democrats and their partners in the press.
I'm sure that Fred is fine with anything that undermines our troops and their mission in Iraq, and encourages the terrorists to hang in there and bide their time, while the American Left colludes with them against the USA and her allies. You see Fred is a liberal loonie-tune, poor soul.
Fred, I am offering to buy you a one-way ticket to Iraq. I strongly feel that you and the Baathists have a destiny to fulfill. You'll get to expound on the evils of The Patriot Act, and our NSA Wiretap program, and tell them how immoral we are to keep prisoners at GITMO. You can explain how sincerely you believe in their rights. You can even join them in their chants of "DEATH TO AMERICA," right up until the moment they saw off your silly head.
What part of "DEATH TO AMERICA" don't Democrats understand?
Posted by: Capers at November 6, 2006 01:37 AMThe part that is understood, Capers, is ability, not intent. Yes, Jihadi's may shout "death to America", they may do it till they are blue in the face, but that will not make it true. The callous part of me wants to tell you that one hundredth of one percent of Americans were killed on 9/11. Not popular to look at the nuber proportionatly, but there it is.
This does not mean that we should abandon all efforts to defeat the terrorists, only the ones that fundimentally undercut the traditional American notions of libery. I'm sure the Franklin quote about the trade between liberty and security is one you've heard before'; pause to think on it now.
The suspension of habius corpus under the MCA, the supression of free speech and travel, the abuse of the notion of law - to the point that the law may as well not exist - all lose the war much more effectively than countless IED's in Iraq would be able to...
They cannot win. But we sure as hell can lose. All we have to do is cede more liberty in the name of security.
Posted by: Cato at November 6, 2006 02:31 AMIt's never to late to blame America. It's never to late too run.
It's never too late "too" mis-spell.
But more seriously, I'd like someone to explain why the conviction and sentencing of Saddam Hussein is supposed to tell us much of anything about the "rule of law" in Iraq; or the "accomplishments" of the Bush administration in this grotesquely conceived cluster-fungle of a war; or much of anything, really.
I'd also invite the host of this blog to explain the complex statistical methodology behind the "Body Count" graph he links to in this post. I'm keen to hear his explanation as to how the war has so dramatically reduced the death rates in Baghdad, for example.
Americans don't know much about the rest of the world, ESPECIALLY 'progressive' Americans.
Fred and co - what a laugh! Next he'll say Saddam should demand his First Amendment rights (or something, sorry I don't know much about the US either).
As for American 'Conservatives', they are better informed and more modest, and God bless them for that. Go GOP!
Saddam was guilty, a trial in his country of his countrymen found him guilty. And he certainly had more of a "rule of law" tribunal and chance to confront his victims testimony...than he gave...
But leftists and subversives have to find the "blame America" spin wherever they can...("yeah, but the sale of wood chippers is way down")
Saddam was a black-hearted bastard, his sons were perverted, sadistic morons...and they held not A SINGLE, SOLITARY, POPULIST NOTION...so, the crowd that stands FOR nothing...has only the ability to be AGAINST their own country, their own government, their own troops and their own countrymen...finds yet another excuse to puke up their bile on the US...because...don'tcha know...it's oh, so chic...to be an 'anti'.
Arrogance without principle, hypocrisy without shame, positions without facts, criticism without reason. What fun it must be to live the life of a subversive leftist.
Posted by: cf bleachers at November 6, 2006 02:53 PM
Fred? Fred? Earth to Fred...
*chirp*
*chirp* *chirp*
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 7, 2006 05:11 AM
