Mr Bush said Saddam's execution was "the kind of justice he denied the victims of his brutal regime".
Saddam's victims were denied show-trials followed by speedy executions?
Mr Bush said Saddam's execution was "the kind of justice he denied the victims of his brutal regime".
Raed Juhi, a spokesman for the High Tribunal court that convicted Saddam, said the Iraqi judicial system would ensure that Saddam is executed even if Talabani and the two vice presidents do not ratify the decision.
“We’ll implement the verdict by the power of the law,” Juhi said without elaborating.
The essence of all this disorder was that the Arab nation-states lost control. Subnational groups Â like Hezbollah and the Mahdi Army Â and supranational groups Â like loosely connected terror networks, the new Sunni and Shiite Leagues and the satellite television networks Â went from strength to strength while central national governments toppled and fell. The collapse of national governments led to a power vacuum that the more authentic and deeply rooted social groups sought to fill.
This war had several stages. The first was the disintegration of Iraq. No national institutions could survive the onslaught: There was no impartial justice, no effective law enforcement, no political organization that put loyalty to nation above loyalty to sect or tribe. Absent a government of laws, government by death squads emerged. Militias Â with their own hospitals, schools and indoctrination systems Â sought to impose order through assassination and revenge.
But these days, there's a newfound love for precisely this sort of realpolitik. Consider Jonathan Chait, who recently floated a Swiftian proposal that we put Saddam Hussein back in power in Iraq because, given his track record of maintaining stability and recognizing how terrible things could get in Iraq, Hussein might actually represent the least-bad option. Even discounting his sarcasm, this was morally myopic. But it seems to me, if you can contemplate reinstalling a Hussein, you'd count yourself lucky to have a Pinochet.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In an emotional speech on the Senate floor Thursday night, Sen Gordon Smith, a moderate Republican from Oregon who has been a supporter of the war in Iraq, said the U.S. military's "tactics have failed" and he "cannot support that anymore."
Smith said he is at, "the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up the same bombs, day after day."
That is absurd," he said. "It may even be criminal."
“We, quite frankly, have learned a lesson from last year” and all of the threats of protest and bad publicity that arose from shunning “Merry Christmas” in the stores, Wal-Mart spokeswoman Linda Blakley told USA Today. “We’re not afraid to use the term ‘Merry Christmas.’ We’ll use it early, and we’ll use it often,” she said.
Sandy received its first claim from Lila C. Leathers, who says her downtown property is hurt by a ban on gas stations and drive-through restaurants.
From the authors of "Help! Mom! There are liberals under my bed" comes another children's book which can serve as the equivalent of a literary lobotomy on any wee ones on your hate list.
If you want to ensure a certain child doesn't develop the cognitive skills to complete college, much less kindergarden, get them this book.
So the Iraq Study Group, also known as the Iraq CBA ("Cover Bush's Ass") Group comes to the stunning conclusion that the best option for Iraq is withdrawal of U.S. forces, but refuses to put a timeline on such a withdrawal. We should pull out of Iraq? Thanks for the hard work figuring that out, Captain Obvious.
The longer this drags on the more dangerous the inevitable withdrawal will be. Delaying the withdrawal simply because President Chuckles and the chattering classes don't want to admit they were wrong on the war is a morally wretched position that puts their reputation before our troops' lives.
I don't give a flying figg if George W. Bush goes down in history as the architect of the worst U.S. policy debacle in history. What I want is our covenant with the troops to be honored. Their service is based on trust in the wise stewardship of their leaders. Neither Bush nor the Iraq Study Group are providing that.
Scenes like that pictured below involving REAL marines have got to stop.
Jose Chung and DavidByron both seem to believe (and I'm sure they'll correct me if I'm wrong!) that the chickenhawk issue really is about whether only those with military service are qualified to opine on the subject of war. But that's not quite right. Of course, military service, or the lack of, has no genuine importance to the worth of an argument pro or con the Bush/Iraq war.* The real issue is the total cluelessness of a particular group of war advocates whose drooling enthusiasm for war isn't grounded in reality.
I tried to make it clear in my post - but it wasn't clear enough, apparently - that the hostile question, "well, if you support the war so much, why doncha serve?" is no query at all, but an angry, exasperated, assertion amounting to saying, "You don't know a damn thing about what you're talking about, or you wouldn't talk about Bush/Iraq in such a foolish, callous way." So yes, as DavidByron says, the question is a nasty, sarcastic, ad hominem attack. What makes it appropriate is that the reasoning of the chickenhawks was beyond serious discussion. Thomas Friedman's insistence that even if Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 or had WMD's, "we" still oughta whack him because "we" can. George Packer's utterly naive kumbaya-save-the-world attitude. John Podhoretz' floating the suggestion that maybe US forces should have killed more young Iraqi males at the beginning of the invasion. And, of course, the 101st Keyboarders who talk as if Mr. Kurtz's "Exterminate all of the brutes" doesn't go far enough by half.
Why is it that misogyny is the only hatred still defended by men of the left? Seinfeld soothed the "maidenly vapors" people had around Kinison? My recollection was that Kinison was a disgusting, hateful, hate-filled boor and those "maidenly vapors" he raised were genuine feminist objections to him, by women who were, for example, trying to create a situation so that girls like myself were not, in the 1980s, subjected to his rants (and those of the equally gross Andrew Dice Clay) by our older brothers and their friends.
Pentagon review sees 3 options in Iraq
The Pentagon's closely guarded review of how to improve the situation in Iraq has outlined three basic options: Send in more troops, shrink the force but stay longer, or pull out, according to senior defense officials.
Insiders have dubbed the options "Go Big," "Go Long" and "Go Home." The group conducting the review is likely to recommend a combination of a small, short-term increase in U.S. troops and a long-term commitment to stepped-up training and advising of Iraqi forces, the officials said.
Here's a thought: when you are occupying a country that has an unemployment rate with estimates ranging from 28% all the way up 70% then the level of troops you send in to help administer order might be wholly meaningless. That's a heck of a lot of dissatisfied people who have nothing to do but sit around, get angry and look for somebody to blame. The leap towards violence isn't so great when you take that into consideration.
Which is why our economic policies and aid to Iraq following the war was at least as important, if not moreso, as our military strategy. Those of you who have some sense of U.S. policy in the twentieth century and recognize the genius that was the Marshall Plan are probably breathing a sigh of relief. Don't. You'd be forgetting that this is the Bush administration formulating our policy here. They don't learn from history they MAKE history. Or some other such nonsense.
Conservatives have waited decades for an opportunity like that presented in Iraq- a chance to demonstrate to all that conservative economic principles work. They looked at Iraq like Dr. Frankenstein staring at a slab of recently exumed body parts. "Finally a chance to show the world I'm not crazy!"
(Insert evil crazy laugh here)
The dust from the defeat of the Iraqi had hardly cleared before the conservative mad scientists snapped on their surgical gloves, got out their scalpels and got to work. They implemented a flat tax of 15% (exempting foreign companies doing contract work in Iraq,) made sure organized labor was deterred by making all of Iraq a "right to work" state, employed the cheapest labor possible (read: non-Iraqis) and pretty much sent blood and body parts flying as they worked deep into the night.
Is it any wonder they wound up creating a monster? Now their creation is advancing on the town, leaving the bodies of villagers and constables in it's wake and they want to quibble about how many torch-wielding townspeople we're going to send out to meet it?
Pelosi may have another problem. As the crop of freshly elected Democrats — including many younger ones who campaigned to the right of the party line — came to Capitol Hill for orientation Monday, they encountered a leadership dominated by mostly liberal, old-school Democrats.
Speaking in Hartford last Wednesday, Lieberman remained unwavering in his opposition to Democrats' calls for withdrawing troops from Iraq. "What we are doing now there is not working, but that doesn't mean in any sense that it is time for us to retreat," he said. "This is a test in a very difficult and dangerous hour in our history."
But his victory also was something of an aberration, and whatever the fate of Lieberman's proposed bipartisan group, which he pledges to introduce in January, his continued support of Bush's stay-the-course approach places him well outside the Democratic mainstream.
"The voters spoke on Tuesday that they're unhappy with the status quo," Lieberman said. However, he added, "I don't believe they want us to pick up and leave."
We're not going to leave before the job is done. And obviously, we've got a lot of work to do with some members of Congress. I don't know how many members of Congress said, get out right now - I mean, the candidates running for Congress in the Senate. I haven't seen that chart.
"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. "The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."
"I recognize that many Americans voted last night to register their displeasure with the lack of progress being made" in Iraq, the president said. "Yet I also believe most Americans - and leaders here in Washington from both political parties - understand we cannot accept defeat."
Eighty-five million years ago Rex Anne was out there feeling very important, looking for something to eat, and so I just wanted to remind my members, "Let's not get too full of ourselves here. This is a long democracy. We'll have our innings, but there'll be other people who will get their innings, too."
I also realize it's quite a bit of stuff to watch but most of it you've probably seen before. The stuff from "V" are a couple of the best bits from the film, IMHO. Hendrix playing a song that tears me up in pretty much ANY form (except Jessica Simpson's version - ick) Eminem's "Mosh" which got me so stoked that the youth of America would save us. They tried. They were just overwhelmed by the "afraid of their own shadow" security voters.
Most of all it's a combination of both glum assesment of the current state of affairs and call to arms. Here's a silly, fun video to bring hope which I stole directly from Jane Hamsher at firedoglake.