Saddam's capture could hurt Dean

Where is the honor in Dean's style of politics? The only hope that he had was the the defeat of his own nation, which had given him himself great privilege and high office.

Indianapolis Congressman Julia Carson (D) today said that the capture does not justify Bush's forcing the USA into the war in Iraq. So I suppose the socialistic liberals will never change. Julia, a member of the Black Caucus, despises the President.

Dean must be busy trying to figure out how to do a flip-flop.

 

In this case, she is correct. We were sold the idea of invading Iraq based on the supposed existence of WMDs. No WMDs have been found and I doubt they will be.

President Bush was wrong to invade Iraq. Period. And if he is re-elected next year and WMDs are not found in by the middle of 2005, he should be impeached. Period.

 

It's worth that price.

I would not like another four years of Bush, though.

 

It's clear enough that Saddam was no danger to us. He was very obviously intimidated by the prospect of a war with us, and did everything he could to avoid giving Bush a pretext for war.

Once the WMD stories proved false, we had no reason to fight him, other than the obvious usefulness of taking out a vicious sociopath for the sake of the Iraqi people.

 

Galatian, I spent a long night in a bunker in Viet Nam with two guys from Northern California. I never understood a word they said.

Do you have some kin in Northern California?

If Saddam had done everything he could to avoid a war he would be in exile with his two horrible sons, living the life of the Rich and Famous.

 

Indianapolis African-American Congresswoman Julia Carson is a laughing-stock.

Even Senator Evan Bayh said that he was very happy that Saddam was captured and Bayh critized the left wing of the Democrat Party.

It really is bad news for Dr. Dean, the abortionist, as well as the leftists on this thread that the war in Iraq might be going the way of the coalition against terror.

In the famous World War II movies called "Why We Fight", it is noted that when the Italians invaded Ethiopia and the Japanese invaded Manchuria, Americans and Europeans were not interested in fighting on behalf of people who live in mud huts. Has anything changed? It is a bitter pill to have to fight to free Arabs, who are mostly ungrateful, but Saddam is a world-class monster and guilty of horrible crimes against humanity.

It looks as if the liberals, the Constitutionalists, the independents, and the Libertarians are not even going to give the United States of America a Christmas truce.

 

No, Iraqis don't live in mud huts. People in Democratic Republic of Congo do. Are we stopping the massacre there? No, they haven't got oil (although the invading Rwandans & Ugandans think that the minerals there are worth having).

Eh? We're not fighting the US - we are, some of us, the United States.

Perhaps you could take a Christmas break and not bash liberals, etc. until the new year! Now that works for me.

 

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - A top Vatican (news - web sites) official said Tuesday he felt pity and compassion for Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) and criticized the U.S. military for showing video footage of him being treated "like a cow."

Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Vatican's Justice and Peace department and a former papal envoy to the United Nations (news - web sites), told a news conference it would be "illusory" to think the arrest of the former Iraqi president would heal all the damage caused by a war which the Holy See opposed.


"I felt pity to see this man destroyed, (the military) looking at his teeth as if he were a cow. They could have spared us these pictures," he said.


"Seeing him like this, a man in his tragedy, despite all the heavy blame he bears, I had a sense of compassion for him," he said in answer to questions about Saddam's arrest.


Martino was referring to the videotape released by the U.S. military which showed a grubby, bearded and disheveled Saddam receiving a medical examination by a military doctor after his capture in an underground hole Saturday.


Martino was one of the Vatican officials most strongly opposed to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq

 

Why would you expect that they would be any different than the rest of the world?

Nope. I'm using words with more than one syllable, again, huh? Sorry.

Doubtful. Bush was apparently pressuring other nations not to accept him. Remember when people were saying that Dubya, like Daddy, had his war too early, and the popularity was going to fade? Dubya had a solution; fight another easy war.

He's no Rhodes Scholar, but he's not a complete fool, either.

 

WMD's WMD's WMD's

That was *not* the only reason for going into Iraq.

The desert is a big place.

If they buried aircraft in the sand to use against us later, why not WMD's?

And, we *still* don't have all the high level ring-leaders yet.

In fact they recovered $750K with Saddam. As well as a taxi cab. Hmmm.

While they can't prove he was orchestrating the continuing attacks against his own people and ours... It sure looks suspicious.

And, there *are* proven terrorist ties to Saddam.

So, give me a break. You, and Dean, won't be happy until 'Special Bulletin' happens for real!

 

I've asked and have never been given an answer... what would dean and assoc. (TBT, Galatian, Daisy, etc) have wanted to have done.

IF the President has information which is not known to the public (imagine that!) and Hussein and Bin Laden are both proven as tied to the 9/11 attack on our country...in hindsight, will they all say that appropriate action would have been to give them more money to attack us with better weaponry as Clinton did? To use U.S. funds to provide free scholarships to our universities so that they might grow to like us? What do you all think should have been done?

The only response I have seen was when someone, Daisy I think, said that we should have treated the attack as a crime and not as an act of war. I think that the people who are behind these crimes are too cowardly to call it a war. It's easier to hide behind suicide bombers.

 

If Saddam had done everything he could to avoid a war he would be in exile with his two horrible sons, living the life of the Rich and Famous. </font>[/QUOTE]Agreed. He could have prevented this at any point during the last 11 years, simply by complying with the terms of the cease fire agreement he signed after the first Gulf War. He did not.

What's more, he might have still been in power if he had done these things, rather than being flushed out of a hole like the rat he is.

 

That goes back to the question:

"Did Saddam really destroy those weapons of mass destruction?" (and thereby comply with the UN resolutions under which Bush based his argument for the legality of the war)

If no, then Saddam brought this on himself. If yes, then this was about Dubya's revenge for Daddy, for military contracts, and (of course) for a more timely war to boost his popularity.

How will we know? When we occupy Iraq and see if there were any WMD left.

I think I know what the answer is going to be...

 

Thanks for the information about The Vatican. They are masters of the cheap political remark.

Some say that the doctor was taking saliva for DNA for identification purposes. Other say that the doctor was looking for poison.

No matter what the United States does The Vatican is going to find a complaint. If there was no doctor, there should have been one; if there was a doctor, there should not have been.

Pope John Paul II said that the war was an unjust war. That says more about The Vatican than it does about anyone else. The Vatican sided with a monster. The spirit of Pope Leo X lives on at The Vatican.

 

But destroying the weapons, assuming he did, was not what was required to fulfil the terms of the resolution. It was to account for them and to turn them over to the UN to be destroyed. He did not do this.

First of all, while we're all sure that you're impressed with your third grade cleverness, to use such a condescending and ignorant phrase does nothing but show your own lack of character and demonstrate in vivid terms why your party's symbol is a jackass.

Second, the attempted assassination of a sitting U.S. president is grounds for war. The only surprise here is that we have never acted more forcefully on it.

 

Barbarian observes:
If no, then Saddam brought this on himself. If yes, then this was about Dubya's revenge for Daddy, for military contracts, and (of course) for a more timely war to boost his popularity.

How will we know? When we occupy Iraq and see if there were any WMD left.

I think I know what the answer is going to be...

Hmm... seems like we touched a tender spot.

Appearances are often deceiving. But your performance leaves no doubt whatever.

True. But sometimes, it's better not to go to war at every provokation. Was stomping Hussain worth it? Daddy Bush seems not to have thought so. He very properly put the security and needs of the United States above his personal desires.

His son is, as has been pointed out before, not the man his father is. Bush the elder pointed out that we would lose more than we would gain by destroying Saddam. He was right. The Atlantic Alliance is shaken, and countries formerly friendly to us are no longer among our friends. We have even shaken our alliance with Turkey, which matters a great deal more than Iraq and Saddam ever did.

And, of course we have the irony of Bush insisting that taxpayers have to provide free healthcare to Iraquis while cutting back on medical benefits for veterans and military dependents.

But what have they done for him lately?

 

Ok, I'm not sure what you're saying here...You seem to be saying "if Hussein & bin Laden are proven in the future to have been tied to the attack, we would give them more money to buy better weapons to launch another attack against us"?

1. Bin Laden has been proven to be tied to the attack. That was ascertained a couple years ago.

2. It was Reagan and Bush I who funded the Taliban. Did Clinton continue the funding? I really don't know, perhaps.

3. Bin Laden is a very rich man who was not funded by the US. He himself has funded Islamic causes, radical and humane.

4.Hussein got some funding from Reagan (enemy of my enemy is my friend) as well as a big cut of the oil revenues. The US until 1991 sold Iraq much of its weapon technology and equipment. Clinton & Bush II had no part of that.

5. The "weapons" the hijackers bought were box-cutters. That didn't take a whole lot of funding.

6. Why are you saying that Clinton gave "them" more money to buy better weapons? If the "them" are bin Laden and Hussein, I believe you're wrong - could you back that up (with a mainstream source)? If the "them" are others, could you be more specific?

Finally, no, it would not be appropriate to provide the attackers with more money to buy better weapons (which Clinton did not do). Do you honestly think any of us would say otherwise? If you really believe that, then you're an extremely bad reader of character; if you don't, then you're being - how to put it nicely - silly.

Who do you mean by "they"? The hi-jackers are dead and I doubt bin Laden or Hussein would come around by that method. By "U.S. funds", do you mean tax dollars or private resources? As vague as this question is, I'm pretty sure that the answer is no, particularly the "might grow to like us" part. Again, what is the point of this question?

That is an awfully broad question; I don't know that it's answerable as it stands, but I'll give it a whack:

We should have gone after those responsible for the attack. We did bomb Afganistan, no wimps we, and root out the Taliban and we went after bin Laden.

We should develop alternate sources of energy as well as cutting our consumption of oil so that we're not as dependent on the Saudis. The Saudis are the ones funding the anti-American, anti-Jewish madrassas throughout the Moslem world. Many people suspect they are funding much of the terrorism as well, but we can't afford to take a hard line with them.

Finally, we should not have squandered the almost universal sympathy and good-will we got after the attack by trying to strong-arm other nations into an attack on Iraq which was not proven justified, then or now.

I'm pretty sure it wasn't I who said that, but now that you mention it, perhaps that's true.

The problem is that it was not a sovereign nation that attacked us; it was an independent, multi-national group. Which is all the more reason seek international co-operation for an international problem.

Suicide bombers? Do you mean the hi-jackers? Again, it is not war in the traditional military sense, but I guess it is in the jihad sense.

Do you feel answered now?

 

Poor liberals. They were all behind Howard Dean, who now seems like such an abortionist. And even The Vatican seems as petty in politics as Howard Dean. Maybe Pope John Paul II will become so angry with the capture of Saddam that he will break off diplomatic relations with the USA. That would be a nice Christmas gift to the USA if he would do that.