Saddam has been hanged

I am really not sure how to feel about this. Not that I care about Saddam. He had it coming.

Bush lied us into this war, thousands dead and wounded for this lie. Burned, shot and blown up they were and all over, as most the people in the free world now understand, power. I am trying to understand the difference between Saddam and George W. Bush.

Comments (10)

#1 written by Gordon
December 29, 2006 - 10:02 pm

I don’t know for some reason a Leonard Cohen’s song comes to mind, “Anthem”:

I can’t run no more
with that lawless crowd
while the killers in high places
say their prayers out loud.
But they’ve summoned, they’ve summoned up a thundercloud
and they’re going to hear from me.

Ring the bells that still can ring …
#2 written by ManofTruth
December 29, 2006 - 10:07 pm

The difference is that one is a frat boy & the other a cast off CIA asset.
#3 written by Helen
December 30, 2006 - 3:57 am

Good post Jim
#4 written by Darci
January 2, 2007 - 7:35 pm

I’m against the death penalty, but I hear what you’re saying, Jimmy. I think Bush is not as damned as Saddam, but it’s sad to have to give time and energy to making that judgment. Here’s to the future, when we hopefully will have a president who doesn’t merit such comparisons.
#5 written by Hindu
January 2, 2007 - 8:29 pm

What lie? The same one Clinton, Chirac, and every other world leader believed in? That Saddam had WMD’s?
#6 written by Darci
January 3, 2007 - 8:04 am

Don’t be dense, Hindu. You seem much too smart to try to hide behind that fig leaf. If the WMD lie/mistake were the ONLY fiasco that could be laid at Bush’s feet, the world would be a rosy place, indeed.
#7 written by Hindu
January 3, 2007 - 6:33 pm

Darci, my dear, you are dodging the question! Are you saying Clinton/Chirac/Kerry/you name it/etc didn’t think Saddam had WMD’s? Or that they were right to just not care?
#8 written by Jimmy
January 3, 2007 - 7:31 pm

I won’t dodge it (and I don’t think Darci really did). Bush lied. Bald faced lied. And he continued to make the lie bigger. Kind of like Pinnochio or some biblical fable. The so-called WM evidence was manufactured specifically for this ideological assualt to somehow secure our future with oil in the name of national interest… because under the current policies we have toward energy, it IS in our national interest. But that doesn’t make it right and is throwing us further into the abyss of more resentment and violence. And now the lie is out in the open with the truth that there is no good way out of this mess. Not many Democrats will argue with that. So you righties argue about “look at those dems who supported the war” shit is useless. The big baby shit his pants and we in the real world have to change the diapers.

PUEWWWWW
#9 written by Darci
January 4, 2007 - 7:40 am

LMAO- a sadly apt characterization, Jimmy.

Hindu- You claim that Clinton, Chirac, and every other world leader believed Saddam had WMDs; so what? None of them are president of the US, none of them instigated or pushed the invasion of Iraq (except Tony Blair, the rotter), and none of them continues to lie or stand by the falsehoods that were used to start this war. Saddam having WMDs was only one of a succession of fakey claims made to justify the Bush administration’s predetermined plan to attack Iraq. Iraq was not the only beligerent country with possible or verified WMDs; it certainly wasn’t the most dangerous. So how in any way does the “everybody believed he had WMDs” excuse do anything to justify the aggression and lies of the Bush admin?

Bush is the leader of this country and has staked his reputation and political power on his “war on Terror”, which he continually (and falsely) ties to his war in Iraq. There is nobody more responsible for the current state of things in Iraq than Bush. He is a selfish, insecure, narrow-minded zealot who doesn’t understand anything that doesn’t fit his vision of the world or his place in it. This mental midget has been a disaster for our country, period. I am hopeful that we can recover from him, but there is no erasing the damage he has done to literally millions of people.

I’m sorry; I could go on forever about his appalling shortcomings, but I shouldn’t. I just wanted to answer Hindu.
#10 written by Dave Gibney
January 4, 2007 - 9:18 pm

I’ve said before, maybe even here
9/11 delayed the invasion of Iraq by 9 to 12 months. BUt it was always going to happen from the moment Cheney and the neo-cons took power and set GW up to show up his daddy.