"We Got Him!"
by JohnHuang2
Okay, did something happen while I was away? What's this stuff about Saddam being nabbed? Has this been confirmed? That ugly guy with the scraggly beard impersonating Santa in that Pentagon video (the one having his teeth checked for cavities and his beard for 9 dwarves) -- you call that "proof"? Give me a break. How do we know this isn't some Hollywood con-job? (We know how much Hollywood adores this President!). Anyway, if true, did Saddam receive a phone call from Gore beforehand to soften the blow?
Lemme get this straight: President Miserable Failure, leading a Fraudulent Coalition, Without a Clear Plan for Postwar Iraq bagged the heroic, unbeatable, indomitable, unyielding, invincible leader of the powerful Iraqi resistance -- Saddam -- icon to millions of Democrats for standing up to Bush? And all this without French support? Yeah, right. Next, you'll tell me how the Dow crossed 10000 and claim there is no Soviet Union (see Howard Dean).
Seriously though, already legal experts say the case against Saddam will be weak without strong physical evidence to get around questions of Bush's credibility. (There are reports that hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis buried in mass graves were relieved to learn they weren't really dead after all). Prosecutors say they're confident the case is strong. Saddam will be convicted, they say -- barring a trial in Los Angeles. But there are questions -- Series, Growing Questions! -- of whether the arrest was heavy-handed. While details of the arrest were not entirely clear at press time, there are rumors, based on rumors, the raid on Saddam's Neverland ranch was a fishing expedition. Saddam denies any wrong-doing. (Santa Barbara police won't comment). Proper or not, Kofi Annan expressed concern Monday that Saddam be treated humanely and insisted the trial must be fair. (Impressively, Saddam's legal system was so humane and fair, every Iraqi got due process before being tortured or raped or shredded).
(Democrats, stung by Saddam's capture, charge that Saddam was framed by Bush and posed no threat to the International Community. Therefore, because Saddam was no threat to anyone outside his borders, we need a trial conducted by everyone outside his borders -- an International Tribunal! Democrats also insist on a quicker handover of power, noting that Iraqis are perfectly capable of handling Iraqi affairs.)
Regardless, members of Iraq's Governing Council say they'll seek the death penalty (it'll be probation and community service if Mark Geragos takes the case. The same Satanic cults that killed Laci Peterson did all the cruel dictating in Iraq, Geragos will show).
Experts wondered why Saddam did not resist. (After all, despite getting killed, Uday and Qusay's resistance proved remarkably successful!) Saddam wouldn't even fire his fully-loaded, deadly new audiotape.
Some speculated that images of Saddam surrendering meekly to U.S. forces would have a profound impact, a signal to Ba'ath Party loyalists that the gig is up, reducing the number of attacks. Will Saddam supporters give up now that Saddam's been captured? In a word: No.
Lt. Gen. Richardo Sanchez, Coalition forces commander in Iraq, told the AP Sunday that "We do not expect at this point in time that we will have a complete elimination of those attacks."
"I think they'll loose some of their legitimacy, but I don't think (the attacks will) stop altogether," Capt. Joe Munger, 4th Infantry Division officer, told the AP.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Yuri Fedotov said that, while he hopes the capture of Saddam reduces attacks, he doubts "the arrest will help stabilize the situation," according to Itar-Tass news agency.
National security expert Max Boot told MSNBC's Scarborough Country Monday that "just because we have Saddam Hussein doesn't mean" the attacks will stop.
Indeed, the President, in a nationwide address Sunday, warned of an upsurge in attacks with Saddam in custody.
And, sure enough, Monday marked a dramatic upsurge in attacks, beginning with Howard Dean, defiant as ever, blasting away in a speech in California, as the Democrat attack machine showed no sign of letting up. Dean then rocked the political world with this shocking revelation:
HE OPPOSES THE WAR IN IRAQ! (Write that down).
Drawing on rich foreign policy experience gleaned from skiing thousands of miles from home on Ajax Mountain 3 decades ago, Dean told the Pacific Council in Los Angeles that "The capture of Saddam has not made America safer." Despite the dangers of a world without Saddam in power, the former Vermont governor and '04 front-runner said he's "delighted that (Saddam's) gone." His speech was billed as his first major foreign policy address, which hit on topics ranging from Iraq to Iraq. Dean also outlined his views on Iraq. He blasted Bush for not working closer with our allies (Chirac to Bush: Please, we're begging you -- let us put troops in Iraq!).
Sen. John F. Kerry, who served in Vietnam, also was on the attack, blasting the White House for not working closer with our allies -- the same rhetorical underground hide-out on Iraq Democrats have used since March (move over, Saddam!). Kerry said Sunday it wouldn't have taken so (expletive) long to (expletive) nabbed Saddam had Bush enlisted NATO help. (Brilliant point. In Afghanistan, completely under NATO command, recall how bin Laden and Mullah Omar surrendered immediately to the French?). Kerry also noted he served in Vietnam.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, on Hardball Monday night, also was on the attack, blasting the White House for not working closer with our allies. Because of Bush's arrogance, said Lieberman, America is less safe (so much less safe that, any day now, expect this headline: Wave of hijackings by group of 19 Frenchmen demanding greater role for NATO in Iraq. /Sarcasm).
Carol Moseley Braun also was on the attack, blasting the White House for not working closer with our allies. (America can't go-it-alone with just 60 countries -- it needs at least 62 countries). Saddam's capture "doesn't change the fact that our troops remain in harm's way; and we are no closer to bringing them home," she graciously said in a statement Sunday.
Rep. Dick Gephardt also was on the attack, blasting the White House for not working closer with our allies. Urging voters to reject Bush next November, Gephardt said "we need a president who has the credibility to unite the American people and our allies in an effort to make our nation and our world safe."
All '04 Democrat candidates say they will work tirelessly, if elected president, to get the French on board. Democrats call the war in Iraq a sideshow, with soldiers dying -- not for America -- but for Dick Cheney's former company Halliburton. And for Skull and Bones. Democrats believe this uplifting message is a brilliant way to win the votes of military families.
To be fair, no faxes, no phones nor other communications gear was found at Saddam's former hideout, so while rhetorical attack lines sound eerily similar, Saddam does not appear to have been orchestrating the Democrat attacks on Bush over Iraq. (On the other hand, published reports say intelligence gathered from friends and family of Saddam led to his capture, though if I had to wager, I'd say it was family not friends who spilled the beans. Democrats would never rat on Saddam). ;-)
Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Tikrit, thinks the timing of Saddam's capture stinks, telling a hometown radio station this week that the U.S. military could've bagged Saddam "a long time ago if they wanted."
"There's too much by happenstance for it to be just a coincidental thing," he said darkly. (This capture was staged to overshadow Halliburton's over-charging, which was staged to overshadow Reconstruction Project Contractgate, which was staged to overshadow the Michael Jackson Neverland raid, which was staged to overshadow Bush's trip to London, etc.). But all of this can't overshadow the Next Major Scandal: Fake Beardgate! Bush forced Saddam to wear a fake beard to make it look like he nabbed Osama!
Meanwhile, "Joy at the capture of Saddam Hussein gave way to resentment towards Washington on Monday as Iraqis confronted afresh the bloodshed, shortages and soaring prices of life under U.S. occupation," Reuters reports.
"The morning after Iraq's U.S. governor revealed the ousted strongman was a disheveled prisoner," Reuters adds, "Iraqis flooded the streets to snatch up newspapers emblazoned with photos of the man who ruled them by fear, now humbled and captive."
"Many were ecstatic to see Saddam in the dock," says Reuters, but that was yesterday. Today, one whole day later, the joy has given way to overwhelming resentment on the part of an overwhelming 3 people in Baghdad -- a stationary store owner, a dentist and a building contractor, all interviewed in this blockbuster report.
How about a warm round of applause for Reuters, eh? Imagine the long and arduous search, braving the happy faces throughout Iraq, as Reuters, pledged as they are to excellence in journalism, at long last finds three people resentful of the evil Halliburton occupation of Iraq. Bravo! Bravo, Reuters!
Anyway, that's...
My two cents..
"JohnHuang2"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
