I’m glad he’s been caught. I hope it leads to a slowing in the rate of our soldiers and Iraqi civilians being killed.
PAD
85 comments on “PETER’S REAL WORLD BLOG ENTRY ON SADDAM”
Unfortunately I don`t think Saddam`s arrest will have the effect you are hoping for, PAD. I think it will get worse.
I already had a bad feeling when I saw the broadcast of the first pictures of Saddam: A man with a very unkempt appearance, not unlike a homeless person. Someone who looked broken and who allowed it without any resistance that Americans search his hair for lice and a US doctor looks down his throat.
Showing these pictures was not only about proving that “We got him” but in order to humiliate Saddam. From the point of view especially of people who are Saddam sympathizers, this must look like an affront, showing again the arrogance of the Americans.
I am glad that Saddam is caught but even me, I felt uncomfortable watching this video clip. It would have been much better to allow Saddam to be cleaned up and put in a presentable state before showing him.
Imagine these pictures would not show Saddam but an American prisoner of war paraded like this on TV. I don`t think Americans in general would be very happy. On top of that, Bush of course who is well known to be very much for the death penalty, couldn`t stop himself and already made public what the verdict should be.
No, I don`t think the USA handled the aftermath of Saddam`s arrest well at all. If it continues like this, tensions will only get worse, not better.
Blue Spider Wrote:
Actually, the word is “imminent” and no American President has ever said verbatim that Iraq poses an imminent threat.
Perhaps not but his Press Secretary did:
Q Well, we went to war, didn’t we, to find these — because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn’t that true?
MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely.
Lifted from the May 7 press gaggle.
I don’t care what you thoink of my comparisons’s, Fuhrer Luigi.
Even if I do agree with the rest of your post.
Bush has made of point of foisting this pathetic war of his in religious terms for a long time now, or have you forgotten all the “God is on our side” crap he spewed?
Hitler used religious and patriotic rhetoric to get his people to accept laws and crusades that were evil, and with support for the Patriot Act and it’s ilk, and the total disregard for the international communiuty, Bush is doing the same thing here.
Slowly the constitution is being eated away at “in the name of “national security””. It’s just as great an evil as HItler started, and I don’t picture the results being very much different under Herr Bush.
Sorry if you don’t like it, but history is trying to repeat itself, with the repeaters trying to learn from Hitler’s mistakes…and soing a dámņ good job of it.
I agree that compairing President Bush to Hitler is bad form, but I think it isn’t quite the stretch to compair Hussain to Adolf… as I’m about to do, so forgive me, please, if it is bad form…
…had Hitler been taken alive, we would not have cleaned him up and presented him all nice and pretty. Admittedly, Saddam did not embark on world domination, but he was a torturer and murdering scum. I could be wrong, but I think one of the reasons he was put through all that was to point out that we do not consider dictators worthy of respect and if you are one, time to rethink.
This is a dangerous, dangerous game (forgive the word) being played in the Middle East. The potential for vast harm is enormous. The psychological and tactical agenda being played out is so far beyond my field of understanding that I admit to being uncomfortable with what we’re doing over there. But I also believe doing nothing is equally dangerous.
I am a conservative. I support these actions with trepidations. I also respect those who don’t and who voice their principles… though I prefer they do it with respect. Nonetheless, talk on. It’s your blessed right.
Okay, for anyone who thinks the war in Iraq was for any of the reasons that were stated before the war or today, IMHO it comes down to 2 things: a) Donald Rumsfeld and Ðìçk Cheney trying to put right the fact that they were the machiavellian dolts who put the tyrannical madman in power in the first place. And b), most importantly, the reason that Dubya stated out loud only once (and was probably brought to the woodshe for saying so by Cheney et al): “Plus, he tried to kill my Dad.”
That’s the whole thing.
“He tried to kill my Dad.”
Read the fantastically distubing but brilliantly researched best seller “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy”, written by exiled journalist Greg Palist. You’ll find out what REALLY happened on 9-12-01.
Heck, just go to Google and do a search for “Project for a New American Century”, and dig up the letter they sent to Bill Clinton in 1998. See the names of those signees? They were ready to go to war with Iraq even then. Then do a search for “The Cheney Report,” and read the sections about America’s need to secure foreign oil sources to reduce national vulnerability in the next 25-50 years.
Just because the conservatives like to dismiss “no blood for oil” as a simplistic slogan doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a basis in fact.
Bladestar: I don’t care what you thoink of my comparisons’s, Fuhrer Luigi.
Luigi Novi: Always an extra swastika in your pocket to pin on someone you don’t agree with, eh Bladestar?
Bladestar: It’s just as great an evil as HItler started, and I don’t picture the results being very much different under Herr Bush. Sorry if you don’t like it, but history is trying to repeat itself…
Luigi Novi: So systematically murdering 10-12 million people, mostly civilians, including children, the elderly, and handicapped, and simply for reasons of ethnic hatred, is comparable to what Bush is doing?
Sorry, but that’s just anti-Bush relativism, and it’s a crock of šhìŧ. It’s just as stupid and offensive as when people called Clinton a “murderer” for going to Kosovo. Using the words “Hitler” and “Nazi” to describe any politician who doesn’t have the exact same respect for civil liberties is just a cheap ploy used by bigots who lack any sense of scale or proportion, and who are too lazy to form more reasoned arguments.
Rob: I am a conservative. I support these actions with trepidations. I also respect those who don’t and who voice their principles… though I prefer they do it with respect. Nonetheless, talk on. It’s your blessed right.
Luigi Novi: Well said, Rob. 🙂
Saddam was a threat to his neighbors, his own people, and to the US. He is not anymore.
Stop trying to read into the motivations, and second-guess events that have not yet happened, and accept that his capture is a good thing.
Don’t try to guess what Bush will do next. Worry more about what you will do next, and stop trying to be the president (unless you want to run for the office).
If you really hate Bush so much, vote to get rid of him, or wait until his second term is up. The American political system has a way of making almost anyone happy with their elected officials sooner or later.
Unless you simply want to be miserable. In which case I can offer you this:
Your tail is over on that rock by Pooh’s house.
Jeff: Tell that to the Kurds or Iranians that died because of the nonexistant WMD’s.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, he used gas on them that we gave him. I thought WMD’s referring to biological and nuclear weapons.
You thought wrong. WMD’s are the catch-all phrase to describe ALL weapons that can kill scores of people at one time without being standard explosives. Regardless on where or how Saddam got the weapons, the fact he used them was one of the points of the UN’s resolutions.
skrinq: Oh, and by the way, the 18 acres the U.N. covers is not legally a part of NYC, nor a part of the U.S. – it is a legally emancipated international area belonging to no country – with its own postal service and other independently-administered services, and with some other services contracted to or provided by the host nation, which has the option in some circumstances to bill for services rendered.
The UN building is on Manhattan Island, which is part of NYC, and the US. If the countries of the UN hate the US so much, they should move their headquarters building complex to someplace more in their liking. Say Libya. I’m sure Libya would be glad to honor all the diplomatic immunity laws that we in the US have had to deal with. Plus, there’s such great shopping and dining there.
Let us not ignore, please, UNESCO, WHO, UNICEF, many successful peace-keeping operations, uncountable health services, aid to refugees, and on and on.
I’ll agree with the health services and aid to refugees, but those blue helmets seem to be more of a target than an actual peacekeeping “force”. The UN should stick to what it’s good at, and enforcing it’s own resoulutions isn’t one of their strong points.
By the way….
//Charles Krauthammer: Clinton made humility his vocation, apologizing variously for African slavery, for internment of Japanese Americans,//
This is gratuitous Clinton bashing (something a lot of folks say is a myth). The first apology for the japanese american internment came under Gerald Ford, and reparations for Japanese American internment was signed into law by Ronald Reagan. I don’t think it’s quite fair to bash Clinton with this.
Speaking of handing the reigns over to the Iraqi people, how are there own army and police forces coming along?
Dean Demands Saddam’s Release, Recapture By U.N. By Scott Ott
Democrat presidential candidate Howard Dean today said the capture of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein “lacks legitimacy because it was a unilateral effort by American forces.”
“It’s great that Saddam Hussein was caught, but we did it all wrong and he should be released immediately,” said Mr. Dean, “This will allow him to be recaptured later by a true multilateral coalition led by the United Nations.”
The former Vermont governor noted that U.S. forces acted pre-emptively to surround the area where Mr. Hussein had hidden, and declined the former Iraqi leader’s offer to negotiate.
“It’s just another example of cowboy diplomacy,” he said. “The Bush administration’s ignorance in foreign policy and military matters is stunning. Did they read Mr. Hussein his Miranda rights? Did he get his phone call? Was there even a search warrant? We in the global community demand the justice that only the United Nations can legitimately deliver.”
**Bladestar: It’s just as great an evil as HItler started, and I don’t picture the results being very much different under Herr Bush. Sorry if you don’t like it, but history is trying to repeat itself…
Luigi Novi: So systematically murdering 10-12 million people, mostly civilians, including children, the elderly, and handicapped, and simply for reasons of ethnic hatred, is comparable to what Bush is doing? **
Hitler didn’t start killing people when he was elected either, he started small, demonizing “enemies” of the state, convincing his countrymen that rights needed to be given up for “security”.
As far as murder, give him time, given view on people who aren’t rich contributors, give him time… he know’s you’ll understand and accept that the “enemies of our democracy” must be executed….
It’s plain to all but those who choose to wear the blinders. Take off your blinders and you’ll see that Luigi, Mario already did….
Hope W. gets re-elected. Just to shutup the whinies on PAD’s Blog.
GOOOO Bush! Cleanup the mess Slick Willie left behind.
AnthonyX: Dean Demands Saddam’s Release, Recapture By U.N. By Scott Ott
Please tell me this came from the Onion, or some other fake news source; I’d hate for Dean to turn out to be this ignorant. It wouldn’t exactly come as a surprise, but it’s still disappointing.
Bladestar: It’s plain to all but those who choose to wear the blinders. Take off your blinders and you’ll see that Luigi, Mario already did…
Dude, back off. Comparing Luigi to Hitler just because he disagrees with your Bush-Hitler analogy (which, by the way, does nothing but prove his point that you’re wantonly painting people as a Nazi) is both facetious and inane. Making fun of his name is even more so. Act your age; trolling with inflamatory rhetoric and half-assed name calling is a waste of everybody’s time and PAD’s bandwith.
Fûçk bush, fûçk Dean, PAD for president
Brak: Blah blah blah
Considering you’ve named yourself off a Space Ghost character I can understand you wanting to defend nicknames, but I don’t really care if you don’t like it. Learn to deal, you’re opponents are rarely going to agree to face you in the manner YOU desire, so learn to defend yourself on the terms of the actual battlefield, not on an idealized one….
On the Dean story, I agree, not that I planned on voting for him, but my god that is incredibly stupid if it is real.
Learn to deal, you’re opponents are rarely going to agree to face you in the manner YOU desire, so learn to defend yourself on the terms of the actual battlefield, not on an idealized one….
BrakYeller argues with logic and reason. You use name calling so over the top that you are turning off those who might have sympathies for your fundamental positions. The ones who don’t aren’t even paying attention.
Unless you are a right winger doing this to make the other side look bad I don’t see your approach as terribly successful. Since I fall into the conservative camp on this stuff all I can say is carry on soldier, carry on.
Bladestar: It’s just as great an evil as HItler started, and I don’t picture the results being very much different under Herr Bush. Sorry if you don’t like it, but history is trying to repeat itself…
Luigi Novi: So systematically murdering 10-12 million people, mostly civilians, including children, the elderly, and handicapped, and simply for reasons of ethnic hatred, is comparable to what Bush is doing?
Bladestar: Hitler didn’t start killing people when he was elected either, he started small, demonizing “enemies” of the state, convincing his countrymen that rights needed to be given up for “security”.
Luigi Novi: But you haven’t explained how you know Bush intends to do this. No, Hitler didn’t start killing people initially, but he always intended to either imprison or deport them, and later decided upon extermination as a result of the war’s contingencies. Bush has shown no such intent.
Bladestar: As far as murder, give him time, given view on people who aren’t rich contributors, give him time… he know’s you’ll understand and accept that the “enemies of our democracy” must be executed….
Luigi Novi: Let me see if I got this straight. You’re saying that between now and when he leaves office in either Jan. 2005 or Jan. 2009, he’s going to start systematically liquidating groups of people who didn’t contribute to his administration numbering in the millions, and that the American people will allow this to happen?
Hitler developed a hatred from Jews that is evident from Mein Kampf, which he wrote in prison a full decade before ascending to power. By contrast, George W. Bush has shown no indication that he harbors any racial animus toward any particular ethnic group, or for people who do not contribute to his election campaign, much less any intent to systematically exterminate them. Think about the magnitude of Hitler’s crimes. Are you so blinded by partisan bigotry toward Bush that you would accuse him of having the intent to repeat such a crime without providing any argument to illustrate it?
The stupidity of this comment is so transparent that one can only wonder at the mental hernia required for someone to make it.
Bladestar: It’s plain to all but those who choose to wear the blinders. Take off your blinders and you’ll see that Luigi…
Luigi Novi: Really? Can you name someone else to whom this is “plain”? Prove the point with something resembling evidence and/or a reasoned argument, and not just an arbitrary comparison between two people whose ideologies and intents bear no resemblance, and I’ll let you know if it’s “plain.” For now, the only thing that’s plain is that you’re a poor debater with shoddy reasoning skills whose repertoire consists of childish name-calling, argumentative histrionics and epithets used more to provoke shock value than to demonstrate reasoned analysis.
Bladestar: Mario already did….
Luigi Novi: Ooh, clever.
Brak Yeller: Making fun of his name is even more so. Act your age; trolling with inflamatory rhetoric and half-assed name calling is a waste of everybody’s time and PAD’s bandwith.
Bladestar: Considering you’ve named yourself off a Space Ghost character I can understand you wanting to defend nicknames…
Luigi Novi: You continue to have difficulty telling the difference between disparate things. Bark didn’t defend anyone’s “nickname.” He criticized your use of name-calling.
Hate to post off-topic, but in case those of you who didn’t like the the size or quality of the Spider-Man 2 trailer that Glenn linked to don’t go back to that board, there is a larger version that you can actually download at:
Yes that was a spoof. I should have pointed that out.
Unless, I was instructed to post it that way by my neo-con Zionist masters.
hmmm,,,,,
GOOOO Bush! Cleanup the mess Slick Willie left behind.
Wow…if a budget surplus, a booming economy, and the fall of a war criminal is a “mess”, I’d hate to see what happens when the country is clean…
Bladestar: Considering you’ve named yourself off a Space Ghost character I can understand you wanting to defend nicknames, but I don’t really care if you don’t like it.
Ditto what Luigi said about the differences between nicknames and name-calling, but kudos for catching the ‘Space Ghost’ ref.
…you’re opponents are rarely going to agree to face you in the manner YOU desire, so learn to defend yourself on the terms of the actual battlefield, not on an idealized one….
Truthfully, I was more concerned about how you were hurting your arguments by acting like a gradeschooler than the manner in which you agree or disagree with me. You’re not going to convince me or anyone else to come over to your side by being obnoxious, and if you’re not trying to convince me I’m wrong or offer otherwise insightful commentary relevent to the discussion at hand, then why are you here?
AnthonyX: Yes that was a spoof.
Whew… you really scared me for a bit there. Not that I was planning on voting for him, but it always saddens me when people in the public eye turn out to be utter whack-jobs.
tOjb
I admit it: I was wrong.
I thought that the widespread lack of reading comprehension skills was going to be the most entertaining thing to track in the other thread. Turns out it’s getting a far better display in this one.
You know, this place is turning into one of those neighborhood bars you just learn to avoid on certain nights….. 🙂
There’s a documentary called Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War, the trailer for which you can view at: http://www.truthuncovered.com/. You can order the video there too. It includes interviews with 25 CIA analysts, operatives, station chiefs, diplomats, and other experts who assert that the WMD argument and 9/11 connection used to justify the war in Iraq was fraudulent.
If the Taliban increases its strength by a hundredfold it will not equal what they had before–control of a country and the ability to channel its resources toward the propagation of international terrorism.
Last I checked, Osama wasn’t “in control” of a country and he has proven to be one of the worst threats this country has ever faced. So why, then, would the Taliban have to actually control a country to threaten us? Another way to look at it is that now they don’t have the administration of a country to worry about; they don’t need to defend themselves from constant attacks by other warlords in the country. Instead they can devote themselves full time to staging terrorist attacks against the US and its allies. Perhaps we just created a second Al Queada?
Oh geez… When will the Lefties of this country stop using this excuse that their patriotism is always being questioned?
Perhaps you hear this so often from the “lefties” because we hear it so often from the “righties”. The most outspoken hate-peddlers from the right (Rush, Coulter, et al) are constantly spouting that exact rhetoric. In fact, Coulter’s book, which is a number one best seller last I checked, labels all liberals as traitors! Politicians are labeling criticism of the President, in any form, “Political Hate Speech”. And the leaders on the right have constantly, openly questioned the patriotism of anyone who would speak against the Commander in Chief during a time of war (despite the fact that the party as a whole never relented in its attacks on Clinton even during the Kosovo conflict). In the face of the constant barrage of attacks from the right, how can you say that the left is crying wolf???
And have you ever peeked over that safty blanket and noticed that the “world” often stands by way too often and ignores way too many things (or simply they’re looking out for their own self interests)? The end result of the removal of Saddam is a just cause and one that should be celebrated.
Thank God more people don’t feel the same way that you do. Yes, the “world” often does not follow rules or guidelines. That is the primary difference between the societies that are civilized, and the societies made up of barbarians. The mentality that “the ends justify the means” is the path to evil. There are reasons for obtaining UN backing, and the Geneva Convention outlining the rules of conflict. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t wage an unjust war and claim the higher road. You just can’t. You can’t use the tactics of your enemy; things that the US has never before resorted to like a pre-emptive conflict, and at the same time claim to be above the countries you are attacking for doing the same sorts of things. You can’t label Saddam as a brutal dictator who doesn’t respect basic human rights, and then establish a camp for prisoners off US shores that is designed to deprive them of their basic human rights. You can’t circumvent the US justice system in favor of shadowy military tribunals, and then wrap the flag around you while waving the band of patriotism.
In fact, that’s the biggest problem with the current Administration. They want it both ways. Bush wants to seem like he has the intersts of the everyman at heart while he simultaneously screws us all to favor his already incredibly rich supporters. He wants to claim the moral high ground, supporting laws against abortion as “murder” while he offers excuses for dropping bombs on children in Iraq. He wants to seem like “just another soldier” while all he’s really doing is playing dress-up and posing for one photo op after another (question: who was the bigger turkey on Thanksgiving? The bird on the table or the goon in the “Old Ironsides” jacket?).
No, I changed my mind. The biggest problem with the current Administration isn’t that they commit evil acts while pretending to care about the average Joe. The biggest problem is that about 50% of the average Joes are falling for it.
Phinn
Well said Phinn
I say– If the Taliban increases its strength by a hundredfold it will not equal what they had before–control of a country and the ability to channel its resources toward the propagation of international terrorism.
Phin replies- Last I checked, Osama wasn’t “in control” of a country and he has proven to be one of the worst threats this country has ever faced. So why, then, would the Taliban have to actually control a country to threaten us? Another way to look at it is that now they don’t have the administration of a country to worry about; they don’t need to defend themselves from constant attacks by other warlords in the country. Instead they can devote themselves full time to staging terrorist attacks against the US and its allies. Perhaps we just created a second Al Queada?
It think it’s a real reach to claim that the Taliban are more dangerous now than they were before, unless one simply can’t stomach the thought of admitting that the world is in any way shape or form better off than it was before Bush became president.
I mean, what exactly have they accomplished since we, to paraphrase your word, relieved them of the aggravation inherent in ruling a country?
The danger the taliban posed was that they gave Al Queada a nice safe home to train terrorists, launder money, etc etc. They can still do it, of course, but we’ve made it more difficult.
The Taliban and Al Queada are two different things, which is why defanging the Taliban was much easier. And they may well pull off the occasional successful assasination or car bombing–anyone with a few bucks and the will to do so can accomplish the same. Call me naive if you wish but I seriously don’t expect them to be major players on the world scene. There’s a world of difference between being the leaders of a country and just another cult. If the taliban had the talant for terrorism beyond turturing women and girls they wouldn’t have needed Osama’s boys to do their dirty work for them.
It think it’s a real reach to claim that the Taliban are more dangerous now than they were before, unless one simply can’t stomach the thought of admitting that the world is in any way shape or form better off than it was before Bush became president.
And how dangerous were they, exactly? As far as I know, the only thing they did wrong, was refuse to hand over Osama just because we demanded it. At the time there wasn’t a lot of concrete proof, and by the time there was we’d already pìššëd them off beyond reason.
I don’t mean to suggest that the Taliban is a force for good; they are as ridiculous as every other regime headed by an insane religious fanatic. But still, what did they ever do to the US?
If you want to get right down to it, the Taliban is yet another group that we helped into power when we trained and equipped them to fight the soviet union. Oh yeah, we trained and equipped Osama at the same time!
Phinn
It amazes me that so many people have opinions and theories based on what they read in a news paper or such, or see on the TV or on a web site. Everyone has the answer to right the wrongs of the world, whether it’s sit back and do nothing or go in with all guns blazing. Then these same people draw a line and state that everyone else is wrong because of this news source that was quoted.
The actual truth is somewhere else. It’s not a news website or a TV news caster sitting in a cushioned chair in an environmentally controlled office. The answer has to be found be each and everyone, individually, and reached by getting involved.
I work in the intelligence community, have for years, and even I don’t know what really is going on in all parts of the world, be it Iraq, Afgahn, N. Korea, or wherever. There are different types of intel, human, signal, electronic, and more. The people that work with one type don’t usually work with other types, so even they don’t see the whole picture. This is done on purpose (I’ll let you figure out why) except for the higher ups who are trained and/or elected by you to do so. Mistakes are going to be made, and the fact is that mistakes have always been made. The news media waves the “freedom of the press” banner and shows everything they want, whether it should be shown or not, and gets the public all worked up. The media shows one side most of the time, and that gets the public divided, and thus arguing on web logs. You can see where this is going.
I’ve not read a single entry from someone that has talked to an Iraqi citizen, or an Afgahn citizen. You’ve read the reports, as many of you have stomped your foot about, but that’s all. I’m not saying everyone needs to get on a plane and fly there to get the real truth. What I am saying is ‘How can you be so decidely passionate and confident in your choice of right or wrong when you don’t know the whole truth?”
I’ve been to Korea, and I’ve been to the Middle East. I’ve talked with people there, from there, and other Intel people that have done the same. I still don’t know what’s really correct or not in any specific circumstance when it comes to world politics.
I’m sure some arm chair politician or general is going to criticize some of my statements and tell me how I am intellectually inferior and try to quote a Time or Newsweek article at me. Or someone will point out a spelling mistake. Fine, that’s your privelege on here. But do one thing for me, as you criticize me and subsequently others for the way they feel about something, don’t put yourself in their shoes, put yourself in the shoes of an Iraqi citizen that had to cower in fear of Sadam’s loyalists troops that searched for someone to kill and stopped at nothing to find them. Or put yourself in the boots of an American soldier that joined the military after 9/11 hoping to help prevent a similar occurrence in his/her own small way, and found hirself (Yes that’s a reference to Burgy) trying to figure out how to stay alive in Iraq when people are blowing vehicles up. Or how about the groom at a wedding whose bride was just raped by Saddam’s son, because he wanted to. Or how about the Iraqi soldier that joined his countries military, not because he believed that Saddam’s policies were just and right, but because he knew it was one of the best ways to protect his family and put food on the table.
I could go on and on with this, but I think you get the picture.
Domo
As far as I know, the only thing they did wrong, was refuse to hand over Osama just because we demanded it. At the time there wasn’t a lot of concrete proof, and by the time there was we’d already pìššëd them off beyond reason.
You’re joking, surely. So let me get this straight–it’s OUR fault. We jumped to the (correct) conclusion that Al Queada was involved while the gentle Taliban advocated a more patient approach and by the time they knew that they were harboring terrorists they had to continue to do so or risk losing face.
Good grief. It didn’t take long to realize who was responsible (except for those paranoid Jew haters who STILL think the Israelis did it)and the Taliban knew full well what osama and his boys were like. They had TERRORIST CAMPS operating openly in the country. Some of these terrorists have killed many Americans and other innocent people. It’s not exactly connect the dots time here, this was not a tough call.
Luigi Novi: What a bunch of utter horseshit. “Clinton admitted some of the mistakes that the U.S. had committed, so that means that’s why bin Laden chose to attack.” What a mentally retarded non sequitur.
It’s not horse šhìŧ. The writer was pointing out that going out of our way to please other countries didn’t prevent animosity from growing. He’s pointing out the non-relation.
CJA
This is gratuitous Clinton bashing (something a lot of folks say is a myth). The first apology for the japanese american internment came under Gerald Ford, and reparations for Japanese American internment was signed into law by Ronald Reagan. I don’t think it’s quite fair to bash Clinton with this
• 
Unfortunately I don`t think Saddam`s arrest will have the effect you are hoping for, PAD. I think it will get worse.
I already had a bad feeling when I saw the broadcast of the first pictures of Saddam: A man with a very unkempt appearance, not unlike a homeless person. Someone who looked broken and who allowed it without any resistance that Americans search his hair for lice and a US doctor looks down his throat.
Showing these pictures was not only about proving that “We got him” but in order to humiliate Saddam. From the point of view especially of people who are Saddam sympathizers, this must look like an affront, showing again the arrogance of the Americans.
I am glad that Saddam is caught but even me, I felt uncomfortable watching this video clip. It would have been much better to allow Saddam to be cleaned up and put in a presentable state before showing him.
Imagine these pictures would not show Saddam but an American prisoner of war paraded like this on TV. I don`t think Americans in general would be very happy. On top of that, Bush of course who is well known to be very much for the death penalty, couldn`t stop himself and already made public what the verdict should be.
No, I don`t think the USA handled the aftermath of Saddam`s arrest well at all. If it continues like this, tensions will only get worse, not better.
Blue Spider Wrote:
Actually, the word is “imminent” and no American President has ever said verbatim that Iraq poses an imminent threat.
Perhaps not but his Press Secretary did:
Q Well, we went to war, didn’t we, to find these — because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn’t that true?
MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely.
Lifted from the May 7 press gaggle.
I don’t care what you thoink of my comparisons’s, Fuhrer Luigi.
Even if I do agree with the rest of your post.
Bush has made of point of foisting this pathetic war of his in religious terms for a long time now, or have you forgotten all the “God is on our side” crap he spewed?
Hitler used religious and patriotic rhetoric to get his people to accept laws and crusades that were evil, and with support for the Patriot Act and it’s ilk, and the total disregard for the international communiuty, Bush is doing the same thing here.
Slowly the constitution is being eated away at “in the name of “national security””. It’s just as great an evil as HItler started, and I don’t picture the results being very much different under Herr Bush.
Sorry if you don’t like it, but history is trying to repeat itself, with the repeaters trying to learn from Hitler’s mistakes…and soing a dámņ good job of it.
I agree that compairing President Bush to Hitler is bad form, but I think it isn’t quite the stretch to compair Hussain to Adolf… as I’m about to do, so forgive me, please, if it is bad form…
…had Hitler been taken alive, we would not have cleaned him up and presented him all nice and pretty. Admittedly, Saddam did not embark on world domination, but he was a torturer and murdering scum. I could be wrong, but I think one of the reasons he was put through all that was to point out that we do not consider dictators worthy of respect and if you are one, time to rethink.
This is a dangerous, dangerous game (forgive the word) being played in the Middle East. The potential for vast harm is enormous. The psychological and tactical agenda being played out is so far beyond my field of understanding that I admit to being uncomfortable with what we’re doing over there. But I also believe doing nothing is equally dangerous.
I am a conservative. I support these actions with trepidations. I also respect those who don’t and who voice their principles… though I prefer they do it with respect. Nonetheless, talk on. It’s your blessed right.
Okay, for anyone who thinks the war in Iraq was for any of the reasons that were stated before the war or today, IMHO it comes down to 2 things: a) Donald Rumsfeld and Ðìçk Cheney trying to put right the fact that they were the machiavellian dolts who put the tyrannical madman in power in the first place. And b), most importantly, the reason that Dubya stated out loud only once (and was probably brought to the woodshe for saying so by Cheney et al): “Plus, he tried to kill my Dad.”
That’s the whole thing.
“He tried to kill my Dad.”
Read the fantastically distubing but brilliantly researched best seller “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy”, written by exiled journalist Greg Palist. You’ll find out what REALLY happened on 9-12-01.
Heck, just go to Google and do a search for “Project for a New American Century”, and dig up the letter they sent to Bill Clinton in 1998. See the names of those signees? They were ready to go to war with Iraq even then. Then do a search for “The Cheney Report,” and read the sections about America’s need to secure foreign oil sources to reduce national vulnerability in the next 25-50 years.
Just because the conservatives like to dismiss “no blood for oil” as a simplistic slogan doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a basis in fact.
Bladestar: I don’t care what you thoink of my comparisons’s, Fuhrer Luigi.
Luigi Novi: Always an extra swastika in your pocket to pin on someone you don’t agree with, eh Bladestar?
Bladestar: It’s just as great an evil as HItler started, and I don’t picture the results being very much different under Herr Bush. Sorry if you don’t like it, but history is trying to repeat itself…
Luigi Novi: So systematically murdering 10-12 million people, mostly civilians, including children, the elderly, and handicapped, and simply for reasons of ethnic hatred, is comparable to what Bush is doing?
Sorry, but that’s just anti-Bush relativism, and it’s a crock of šhìŧ. It’s just as stupid and offensive as when people called Clinton a “murderer” for going to Kosovo. Using the words “Hitler” and “Nazi” to describe any politician who doesn’t have the exact same respect for civil liberties is just a cheap ploy used by bigots who lack any sense of scale or proportion, and who are too lazy to form more reasoned arguments.
Rob: I am a conservative. I support these actions with trepidations. I also respect those who don’t and who voice their principles… though I prefer they do it with respect. Nonetheless, talk on. It’s your blessed right.
Luigi Novi: Well said, Rob. 🙂
Saddam was a threat to his neighbors, his own people, and to the US. He is not anymore.
Stop trying to read into the motivations, and second-guess events that have not yet happened, and accept that his capture is a good thing.
Don’t try to guess what Bush will do next. Worry more about what you will do next, and stop trying to be the president (unless you want to run for the office).
If you really hate Bush so much, vote to get rid of him, or wait until his second term is up. The American political system has a way of making almost anyone happy with their elected officials sooner or later.
Unless you simply want to be miserable. In which case I can offer you this:
Your tail is over on that rock by Pooh’s house.
Jeff: Tell that to the Kurds or Iranians that died because of the nonexistant WMD’s.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, he used gas on them that we gave him. I thought WMD’s referring to biological and nuclear weapons.
You thought wrong. WMD’s are the catch-all phrase to describe ALL weapons that can kill scores of people at one time without being standard explosives. Regardless on where or how Saddam got the weapons, the fact he used them was one of the points of the UN’s resolutions.
skrinq: Oh, and by the way, the 18 acres the U.N. covers is not legally a part of NYC, nor a part of the U.S. – it is a legally emancipated international area belonging to no country – with its own postal service and other independently-administered services, and with some other services contracted to or provided by the host nation, which has the option in some circumstances to bill for services rendered.
The UN building is on Manhattan Island, which is part of NYC, and the US. If the countries of the UN hate the US so much, they should move their headquarters building complex to someplace more in their liking. Say Libya. I’m sure Libya would be glad to honor all the diplomatic immunity laws that we in the US have had to deal with. Plus, there’s such great shopping and dining there.
Let us not ignore, please, UNESCO, WHO, UNICEF, many successful peace-keeping operations, uncountable health services, aid to refugees, and on and on.
I’ll agree with the health services and aid to refugees, but those blue helmets seem to be more of a target than an actual peacekeeping “force”. The UN should stick to what it’s good at, and enforcing it’s own resoulutions isn’t one of their strong points.
By the way….
//Charles Krauthammer: Clinton made humility his vocation, apologizing variously for African slavery, for internment of Japanese Americans,//
This is gratuitous Clinton bashing (something a lot of folks say is a myth). The first apology for the japanese american internment came under Gerald Ford, and reparations for Japanese American internment was signed into law by Ronald Reagan. I don’t think it’s quite fair to bash Clinton with this.
Speaking of handing the reigns over to the Iraqi people, how are there own army and police forces coming along?
Dean Demands Saddam’s Release, Recapture By U.N. By Scott Ott
Democrat presidential candidate Howard Dean today said the capture of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein “lacks legitimacy because it was a unilateral effort by American forces.”
“It’s great that Saddam Hussein was caught, but we did it all wrong and he should be released immediately,” said Mr. Dean, “This will allow him to be recaptured later by a true multilateral coalition led by the United Nations.”
The former Vermont governor noted that U.S. forces acted pre-emptively to surround the area where Mr. Hussein had hidden, and declined the former Iraqi leader’s offer to negotiate.
“It’s just another example of cowboy diplomacy,” he said. “The Bush administration’s ignorance in foreign policy and military matters is stunning. Did they read Mr. Hussein his Miranda rights? Did he get his phone call? Was there even a search warrant? We in the global community demand the justice that only the United Nations can legitimately deliver.”
**Bladestar: It’s just as great an evil as HItler started, and I don’t picture the results being very much different under Herr Bush. Sorry if you don’t like it, but history is trying to repeat itself…
Luigi Novi: So systematically murdering 10-12 million people, mostly civilians, including children, the elderly, and handicapped, and simply for reasons of ethnic hatred, is comparable to what Bush is doing? **
Hitler didn’t start killing people when he was elected either, he started small, demonizing “enemies” of the state, convincing his countrymen that rights needed to be given up for “security”.
As far as murder, give him time, given view on people who aren’t rich contributors, give him time… he know’s you’ll understand and accept that the “enemies of our democracy” must be executed….
It’s plain to all but those who choose to wear the blinders. Take off your blinders and you’ll see that Luigi, Mario already did….
“NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, HEY, HEY, GOODBYE UNCLE SADDAM.”
Hope W. gets re-elected. Just to shutup the whinies on PAD’s Blog.
GOOOO Bush! Cleanup the mess Slick Willie left behind.
AnthonyX: Dean Demands Saddam’s Release, Recapture By U.N. By Scott Ott
Please tell me this came from the Onion, or some other fake news source; I’d hate for Dean to turn out to be this ignorant. It wouldn’t exactly come as a surprise, but it’s still disappointing.
Bladestar: It’s plain to all but those who choose to wear the blinders. Take off your blinders and you’ll see that Luigi, Mario already did…
Dude, back off. Comparing Luigi to Hitler just because he disagrees with your Bush-Hitler analogy (which, by the way, does nothing but prove his point that you’re wantonly painting people as a Nazi) is both facetious and inane. Making fun of his name is even more so. Act your age; trolling with inflamatory rhetoric and half-assed name calling is a waste of everybody’s time and PAD’s bandwith.
Fûçk bush, fûçk Dean, PAD for president
Brak: Blah blah blah
Considering you’ve named yourself off a Space Ghost character I can understand you wanting to defend nicknames, but I don’t really care if you don’t like it. Learn to deal, you’re opponents are rarely going to agree to face you in the manner YOU desire, so learn to defend yourself on the terms of the actual battlefield, not on an idealized one….
On the Dean story, I agree, not that I planned on voting for him, but my god that is incredibly stupid if it is real.
Learn to deal, you’re opponents are rarely going to agree to face you in the manner YOU desire, so learn to defend yourself on the terms of the actual battlefield, not on an idealized one….
BrakYeller argues with logic and reason. You use name calling so over the top that you are turning off those who might have sympathies for your fundamental positions. The ones who don’t aren’t even paying attention.
Unless you are a right winger doing this to make the other side look bad I don’t see your approach as terribly successful. Since I fall into the conservative camp on this stuff all I can say is carry on soldier, carry on.
Bladestar: It’s just as great an evil as HItler started, and I don’t picture the results being very much different under Herr Bush. Sorry if you don’t like it, but history is trying to repeat itself…
Luigi Novi: So systematically murdering 10-12 million people, mostly civilians, including children, the elderly, and handicapped, and simply for reasons of ethnic hatred, is comparable to what Bush is doing?
Bladestar: Hitler didn’t start killing people when he was elected either, he started small, demonizing “enemies” of the state, convincing his countrymen that rights needed to be given up for “security”.
Luigi Novi: But you haven’t explained how you know Bush intends to do this. No, Hitler didn’t start killing people initially, but he always intended to either imprison or deport them, and later decided upon extermination as a result of the war’s contingencies. Bush has shown no such intent.
Bladestar: As far as murder, give him time, given view on people who aren’t rich contributors, give him time… he know’s you’ll understand and accept that the “enemies of our democracy” must be executed….
Luigi Novi: Let me see if I got this straight. You’re saying that between now and when he leaves office in either Jan. 2005 or Jan. 2009, he’s going to start systematically liquidating groups of people who didn’t contribute to his administration numbering in the millions, and that the American people will allow this to happen?
Hitler developed a hatred from Jews that is evident from Mein Kampf, which he wrote in prison a full decade before ascending to power. By contrast, George W. Bush has shown no indication that he harbors any racial animus toward any particular ethnic group, or for people who do not contribute to his election campaign, much less any intent to systematically exterminate them. Think about the magnitude of Hitler’s crimes. Are you so blinded by partisan bigotry toward Bush that you would accuse him of having the intent to repeat such a crime without providing any argument to illustrate it?
The stupidity of this comment is so transparent that one can only wonder at the mental hernia required for someone to make it.
Bladestar: It’s plain to all but those who choose to wear the blinders. Take off your blinders and you’ll see that Luigi…
Luigi Novi: Really? Can you name someone else to whom this is “plain”? Prove the point with something resembling evidence and/or a reasoned argument, and not just an arbitrary comparison between two people whose ideologies and intents bear no resemblance, and I’ll let you know if it’s “plain.” For now, the only thing that’s plain is that you’re a poor debater with shoddy reasoning skills whose repertoire consists of childish name-calling, argumentative histrionics and epithets used more to provoke shock value than to demonstrate reasoned analysis.
Bladestar: Mario already did….
Luigi Novi: Ooh, clever.
Brak Yeller: Making fun of his name is even more so. Act your age; trolling with inflamatory rhetoric and half-assed name calling is a waste of everybody’s time and PAD’s bandwith.
Bladestar: Considering you’ve named yourself off a Space Ghost character I can understand you wanting to defend nicknames…
Luigi Novi: You continue to have difficulty telling the difference between disparate things. Bark didn’t defend anyone’s “nickname.” He criticized your use of name-calling.
Hate to post off-topic, but in case those of you who didn’t like the the size or quality of the Spider-Man 2 trailer that Glenn linked to don’t go back to that board, there is a larger version that you can actually download at:
http://movies.yahoo.com/movies/feature/spiderman2qt.html
Hope it helps. 🙂
Brakyeller,
Yes that was a spoof. I should have pointed that out.
Unless, I was instructed to post it that way by my neo-con Zionist masters.
hmmm,,,,,
GOOOO Bush! Cleanup the mess Slick Willie left behind.
Wow…if a budget surplus, a booming economy, and the fall of a war criminal is a “mess”, I’d hate to see what happens when the country is clean…
Bladestar: Considering you’ve named yourself off a Space Ghost character I can understand you wanting to defend nicknames, but I don’t really care if you don’t like it.
Ditto what Luigi said about the differences between nicknames and name-calling, but kudos for catching the ‘Space Ghost’ ref.
…you’re opponents are rarely going to agree to face you in the manner YOU desire, so learn to defend yourself on the terms of the actual battlefield, not on an idealized one….
Truthfully, I was more concerned about how you were hurting your arguments by acting like a gradeschooler than the manner in which you agree or disagree with me. You’re not going to convince me or anyone else to come over to your side by being obnoxious, and if you’re not trying to convince me I’m wrong or offer otherwise insightful commentary relevent to the discussion at hand, then why are you here?
AnthonyX: Yes that was a spoof.
Whew… you really scared me for a bit there. Not that I was planning on voting for him, but it always saddens me when people in the public eye turn out to be utter whack-jobs.
tOjb
I admit it: I was wrong.
I thought that the widespread lack of reading comprehension skills was going to be the most entertaining thing to track in the other thread. Turns out it’s getting a far better display in this one.
You know, this place is turning into one of those neighborhood bars you just learn to avoid on certain nights….. 🙂
There’s a documentary called Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War, the trailer for which you can view at: http://www.truthuncovered.com/. You can order the video there too. It includes interviews with 25 CIA analysts, operatives, station chiefs, diplomats, and other experts who assert that the WMD argument and 9/11 connection used to justify the war in Iraq was fraudulent.
If the Taliban increases its strength by a hundredfold it will not equal what they had before–control of a country and the ability to channel its resources toward the propagation of international terrorism.
Last I checked, Osama wasn’t “in control” of a country and he has proven to be one of the worst threats this country has ever faced. So why, then, would the Taliban have to actually control a country to threaten us? Another way to look at it is that now they don’t have the administration of a country to worry about; they don’t need to defend themselves from constant attacks by other warlords in the country. Instead they can devote themselves full time to staging terrorist attacks against the US and its allies. Perhaps we just created a second Al Queada?
Oh geez… When will the Lefties of this country stop using this excuse that their patriotism is always being questioned?
Perhaps you hear this so often from the “lefties” because we hear it so often from the “righties”. The most outspoken hate-peddlers from the right (Rush, Coulter, et al) are constantly spouting that exact rhetoric. In fact, Coulter’s book, which is a number one best seller last I checked, labels all liberals as traitors! Politicians are labeling criticism of the President, in any form, “Political Hate Speech”. And the leaders on the right have constantly, openly questioned the patriotism of anyone who would speak against the Commander in Chief during a time of war (despite the fact that the party as a whole never relented in its attacks on Clinton even during the Kosovo conflict). In the face of the constant barrage of attacks from the right, how can you say that the left is crying wolf???
And have you ever peeked over that safty blanket and noticed that the “world” often stands by way too often and ignores way too many things (or simply they’re looking out for their own self interests)? The end result of the removal of Saddam is a just cause and one that should be celebrated.
Thank God more people don’t feel the same way that you do. Yes, the “world” often does not follow rules or guidelines. That is the primary difference between the societies that are civilized, and the societies made up of barbarians. The mentality that “the ends justify the means” is the path to evil. There are reasons for obtaining UN backing, and the Geneva Convention outlining the rules of conflict. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t wage an unjust war and claim the higher road. You just can’t. You can’t use the tactics of your enemy; things that the US has never before resorted to like a pre-emptive conflict, and at the same time claim to be above the countries you are attacking for doing the same sorts of things. You can’t label Saddam as a brutal dictator who doesn’t respect basic human rights, and then establish a camp for prisoners off US shores that is designed to deprive them of their basic human rights. You can’t circumvent the US justice system in favor of shadowy military tribunals, and then wrap the flag around you while waving the band of patriotism.
In fact, that’s the biggest problem with the current Administration. They want it both ways. Bush wants to seem like he has the intersts of the everyman at heart while he simultaneously screws us all to favor his already incredibly rich supporters. He wants to claim the moral high ground, supporting laws against abortion as “murder” while he offers excuses for dropping bombs on children in Iraq. He wants to seem like “just another soldier” while all he’s really doing is playing dress-up and posing for one photo op after another (question: who was the bigger turkey on Thanksgiving? The bird on the table or the goon in the “Old Ironsides” jacket?).
No, I changed my mind. The biggest problem with the current Administration isn’t that they commit evil acts while pretending to care about the average Joe. The biggest problem is that about 50% of the average Joes are falling for it.
Phinn
Well said Phinn
I say– If the Taliban increases its strength by a hundredfold it will not equal what they had before–control of a country and the ability to channel its resources toward the propagation of international terrorism.
Phin replies- Last I checked, Osama wasn’t “in control” of a country and he has proven to be one of the worst threats this country has ever faced. So why, then, would the Taliban have to actually control a country to threaten us? Another way to look at it is that now they don’t have the administration of a country to worry about; they don’t need to defend themselves from constant attacks by other warlords in the country. Instead they can devote themselves full time to staging terrorist attacks against the US and its allies. Perhaps we just created a second Al Queada?
It think it’s a real reach to claim that the Taliban are more dangerous now than they were before, unless one simply can’t stomach the thought of admitting that the world is in any way shape or form better off than it was before Bush became president.
I mean, what exactly have they accomplished since we, to paraphrase your word, relieved them of the aggravation inherent in ruling a country?
The danger the taliban posed was that they gave Al Queada a nice safe home to train terrorists, launder money, etc etc. They can still do it, of course, but we’ve made it more difficult.
The Taliban and Al Queada are two different things, which is why defanging the Taliban was much easier. And they may well pull off the occasional successful assasination or car bombing–anyone with a few bucks and the will to do so can accomplish the same. Call me naive if you wish but I seriously don’t expect them to be major players on the world scene. There’s a world of difference between being the leaders of a country and just another cult. If the taliban had the talant for terrorism beyond turturing women and girls they wouldn’t have needed Osama’s boys to do their dirty work for them.
It think it’s a real reach to claim that the Taliban are more dangerous now than they were before, unless one simply can’t stomach the thought of admitting that the world is in any way shape or form better off than it was before Bush became president.
And how dangerous were they, exactly? As far as I know, the only thing they did wrong, was refuse to hand over Osama just because we demanded it. At the time there wasn’t a lot of concrete proof, and by the time there was we’d already pìššëd them off beyond reason.
I don’t mean to suggest that the Taliban is a force for good; they are as ridiculous as every other regime headed by an insane religious fanatic. But still, what did they ever do to the US?
If you want to get right down to it, the Taliban is yet another group that we helped into power when we trained and equipped them to fight the soviet union. Oh yeah, we trained and equipped Osama at the same time!
Phinn
It amazes me that so many people have opinions and theories based on what they read in a news paper or such, or see on the TV or on a web site. Everyone has the answer to right the wrongs of the world, whether it’s sit back and do nothing or go in with all guns blazing. Then these same people draw a line and state that everyone else is wrong because of this news source that was quoted.
The actual truth is somewhere else. It’s not a news website or a TV news caster sitting in a cushioned chair in an environmentally controlled office. The answer has to be found be each and everyone, individually, and reached by getting involved.
I work in the intelligence community, have for years, and even I don’t know what really is going on in all parts of the world, be it Iraq, Afgahn, N. Korea, or wherever. There are different types of intel, human, signal, electronic, and more. The people that work with one type don’t usually work with other types, so even they don’t see the whole picture. This is done on purpose (I’ll let you figure out why) except for the higher ups who are trained and/or elected by you to do so. Mistakes are going to be made, and the fact is that mistakes have always been made. The news media waves the “freedom of the press” banner and shows everything they want, whether it should be shown or not, and gets the public all worked up. The media shows one side most of the time, and that gets the public divided, and thus arguing on web logs. You can see where this is going.
I’ve not read a single entry from someone that has talked to an Iraqi citizen, or an Afgahn citizen. You’ve read the reports, as many of you have stomped your foot about, but that’s all. I’m not saying everyone needs to get on a plane and fly there to get the real truth. What I am saying is ‘How can you be so decidely passionate and confident in your choice of right or wrong when you don’t know the whole truth?”
I’ve been to Korea, and I’ve been to the Middle East. I’ve talked with people there, from there, and other Intel people that have done the same. I still don’t know what’s really correct or not in any specific circumstance when it comes to world politics.
I’m sure some arm chair politician or general is going to criticize some of my statements and tell me how I am intellectually inferior and try to quote a Time or Newsweek article at me. Or someone will point out a spelling mistake. Fine, that’s your privelege on here. But do one thing for me, as you criticize me and subsequently others for the way they feel about something, don’t put yourself in their shoes, put yourself in the shoes of an Iraqi citizen that had to cower in fear of Sadam’s loyalists troops that searched for someone to kill and stopped at nothing to find them. Or put yourself in the boots of an American soldier that joined the military after 9/11 hoping to help prevent a similar occurrence in his/her own small way, and found hirself (Yes that’s a reference to Burgy) trying to figure out how to stay alive in Iraq when people are blowing vehicles up. Or how about the groom at a wedding whose bride was just raped by Saddam’s son, because he wanted to. Or how about the Iraqi soldier that joined his countries military, not because he believed that Saddam’s policies were just and right, but because he knew it was one of the best ways to protect his family and put food on the table.
I could go on and on with this, but I think you get the picture.
Domo
As far as I know, the only thing they did wrong, was refuse to hand over Osama just because we demanded it. At the time there wasn’t a lot of concrete proof, and by the time there was we’d already pìššëd them off beyond reason.
You’re joking, surely. So let me get this straight–it’s OUR fault. We jumped to the (correct) conclusion that Al Queada was involved while the gentle Taliban advocated a more patient approach and by the time they knew that they were harboring terrorists they had to continue to do so or risk losing face.
Good grief. It didn’t take long to realize who was responsible (except for those paranoid Jew haters who STILL think the Israelis did it)and the Taliban knew full well what osama and his boys were like. They had TERRORIST CAMPS operating openly in the country. Some of these terrorists have killed many Americans and other innocent people. It’s not exactly connect the dots time here, this was not a tough call.
Luigi Novi: What a bunch of utter horseshit. “Clinton admitted some of the mistakes that the U.S. had committed, so that means that’s why bin Laden chose to attack.” What a mentally retarded non sequitur.
It’s not horse šhìŧ. The writer was pointing out that going out of our way to please other countries didn’t prevent animosity from growing. He’s pointing out the non-relation.
CJA
This is gratuitous Clinton bashing (something a lot of folks say is a myth). The first apology for the japanese american internment came under Gerald Ford, and reparations for Japanese American internment was signed into law by Ronald Reagan. I don’t think it’s quite fair to bash Clinton with this
It isn’t.
It’s merely a matter of historical record.
CJA
fbgfdhgfhxg