Jonathan Chait wants to bring back Saddam Hussein.
I can’t even bring myself to comment on that. What can you do but throw up your hands in disgust?
P.S. I wonder what our soldiers think when they read something like this. Look at the number that have died to get Saddam out of power and keep him out — and now some yahoo proposes to put him back in. Incredible.
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |||
Powered by WordPress.
Yes, but Jonathon Chait has to live there for a year.
An assortment of better ideas, although bad ones:
1) Artillery. Lots of artillery. Don’t pacify towns, obliterate them.
2) Assassinations of people like Muqtada al-Sadr, or the Sunni “Association of Muslim Scholars.” Preferably all at one time.
3) Every time a bomb goes off, destroy a mosque on the other side.
4) Bomber Harris.
Probably all bad ideas, although #2 has some merit. And all better than putting Saddam back in charge.
Chait seems motivated by Bushenfreude, rather than by any pro-American motive. People like him have been the problem all along. These people would have the sun go nova if they could blame it on Bush.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 11/27/2006 @ 12:26 amUh, I think the Iraqis are already doing #3. And it’s not working out so great for them.
Polybius (7cd3c5) — 11/27/2006 @ 3:00 amChait has become a Realist. Don’t think tne Realists wouldn’t put him back if they thought they could get away with it.
davod (5fdaa2) — 11/27/2006 @ 3:14 amIt would be interesting to see our liberal friends accept Mr Chait’s idea — and then still want to try President Bush for war crimes.
Dana (3e4784) — 11/27/2006 @ 4:37 amI’m not going to defend Chait’s idea, however, at the same time, at the same time I think a question like this does tend to clear away the intellectual detritus:
I know why restoring a brutal tyrant to power is a bad idea. Somebody explain to me why it’s worse than all the others.
Horace (cbe5f9) — 11/27/2006 @ 4:58 amSeems to me like “A modest proposal” and some are half-getting that.
actus (10527e) — 11/27/2006 @ 5:18 amSeems to me like “A modest proposal” and some are half-getting that.
Kevin’s ideas, or Chait’s?
If you mean Chait’s:
Did you actually read the piece, actus?
It reads quite seriously to me.
Patterico (de0616) — 11/27/2006 @ 5:58 amHorace quotes the question:
Because you know what a brutal tyrant is going to do; you don’t know that the result of a brutal civil war will not be better than restoring Saddam Hussein.
Dana (3e4784) — 11/27/2006 @ 6:08 amI don’t. Anyone who can’t tell the difference between the inevitable deaths that result from a near civil war and the deaths that result from a tyrant during “peace” time is not playing with a full deck. For one thing, today’s violence is diffuse, and therefore cannot have the same impact on every citizen’s freedom that it did when 99% of all murders were committed toward the same political ends. For another, Saddam’s brutality was not going to end on its own. Wars do eventually end, once someone wins and someone loses. The end result may not be a great one, but it will probably be a better scenario than existed under Saddam, and it’s scarcely possible that it could be worse.
Xrlq (f52b4f) — 11/27/2006 @ 6:11 amLooks like a serious idea to me, and it’s horrible. The analysis, including the idea that Hussein would somehow be more pliable after being reinstated, or that his reinstatement is even possible, is woeful.
One wonders which world the man inhabits.
B (08fd8d) — 11/27/2006 @ 6:16 amDana,
Well, with that approach it becomes an issue of risk assessment, correct?
Caveat: I’ll be the first to tell you; I have no “solution” for the situation in Iraq. Indeed, it may be the case that there is no “solution” which is better than any other “solution.” In other words, each “solution” may simply be awful in their own unique way. I think we kid ourselves if we think that societies are like simple machine where one can replace a few parts and pull a few levers.
Horace (cbe5f9) — 11/27/2006 @ 6:16 amAnyway, here’s another question:
How does the Iraq differ from the “Great Society” programs of the Johnson administration? How do they differ philosophically in other words?
Horace (cbe5f9) — 11/27/2006 @ 6:19 amThe piece was obviously ghostwritten by Joel Stein.
Bradley J. Fikes (19f52f) — 11/27/2006 @ 7:04 ammr. chait is not the first to offer this proposal, i’ve seen it in various quarters for about a year. i don’t know if he’s serious or not, but the piece also works to focus our reflection on the gravity of our error.
assistant devil's advocate (1b787a) — 11/27/2006 @ 8:26 amin any event, chill out. saddam isn’t coming back. that toothpaste won’t go back in the tube. our puppet is controlled by well-armed shiites with an iranian supply line. you think they’re all going peacefully back to their hovels at our command?
around the first time i saw this proposal, it was accompanied by one of the classic little league jokes which also describes our involvement in iraq:
little billy has just made four consecutive fielding errors in center field, permitting runs to score. coach beckons him over to the dugout, replaces him with little johnny. on the very next pitch, line drive to center, johnny makes an error, permitting more runs to score. coach beckons johnny over to the dugout. johnny approaches, tells the coach…..
“i’m awfully sorry about that coach, but billy fucked up center field so bad nobody can play it any more.”
This weekend during a visit to the site of one of the recent sectarian killings, the Iraqi prime minister’s car was pelted with rocks. His own people, the Shi’ite, were blaming him for the violence and calling him a failure.
At first this looks bad, but looking closer, the very fact that Iraqis are protesting, and blaming their politicians now, for at least some of the unrest is a good sign. It shows they actually expect their leaders to serve THEM now, and not the other way around.
In addition, can you imagine what would have happened to anyone who tried to pelt Saddam’s car with rocks? It’s true they’re fighting a civil war now.
We fought our own bloody civil war here in the U.S. 150 years ago. That war far exceeded the Iraqi civil war so far in casualties. I’d venture to say that those wishing for Saddam today would not argue that we in the U.S. would have been better off to go back to slavery once the civil war hit a body count equal to the current casualty rate in Iraq.
Phil (88ab5b) — 11/27/2006 @ 8:32 amI’d love to write dialog for the encounter between the US representative and Saddam in which the Evil One is invited back to the levers of power.
dchamil (623580) — 11/27/2006 @ 8:42 am“Sorry about your sons, big guy, but these things happen in wartime, you know? All is forgiven, you can have a few palaces back, just try to keep a lid on things without using the people-shredders, okay?”
Chait’s idea is a stupid one. How would it look to the rest of the world if we released a man whom we had accused of war crimes, a man sentenced to death by his own country (nominally), to do our dirty work? It would look like we were (still) cooperating with terrorist dictators, wouldn’t it?
Leviticus (43095b) — 11/27/2006 @ 9:12 amPerhaps his idea was that talking about bringing back Sadam would inspire the Iraqis to greater “we can do this ourselves” effort.
Or he was on a whipping cream high.
htom (412a17) — 11/27/2006 @ 9:15 amWhich was like, what, half-way through Bull Run?
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 11/27/2006 @ 9:16 amA rhetorical indulgence on his part, no doubt.
Saddam did a hell of alot better job running Iraq than Bush / Rummy / Bremer / Abazaid / Malaki have done.
Saddam should hang – but I’ll bet the farm that in 5 years another douchebag strongman is in charge there.
The Liberal Avenger (c93dac) — 11/27/2006 @ 9:59 amIt’s not his idea – it’s been floating out there for a couple of years now.
And it is an alternative – albeit a bad one.
greg (de62b5) — 11/27/2006 @ 10:24 amSaddam did a hell of alot better job running Iraq than Bush / Rummy / Bremer / Abazaid / Malaki have done.
Yeah, well it helps that he didn’t have Liberal Avenger and his ilk nipping at his heels over the inevitable mistakes and gaps in his plans that arise with any complex initiative. No, I don’t think “King Hindsight, Second-Guesser of the Administration” was the highly popular self-appointed post that it is today.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that mass murder and torture aren’t useful tools for getting the populace in line, after all, because they clearly are. If you think the means are justified by the end, by all means bring back Saddam.
Hogarth (a721ef) — 11/27/2006 @ 10:29 amI’m no Saddam fan, but the FACT is that the majority of Iraqis have declared that they would choose some semblance of stability under Saddam over the anarchy that reigns today. 100,000 Iraqis per month have been voting with their feet.
The Liberal Avenger (c93dac) — 11/27/2006 @ 10:36 amIf Chait wants to resort to ruthless brutality to restore stability to Iraq and he doesn’t have the stomach to watch the U.S. military do it, why outsource the project to Saddam. Why not chose a strong man who would be friendly to the west and unleash him?
Robert Brown (cc3bf7) — 11/27/2006 @ 10:36 am“Why not chose a strong man who would be friendly to the west and unleash him?”
-Robert Brown
You must mean “[another] strong man who would be friendly to the west…”
In case you forgot, Saddam was *very* friendly with the U.S. for a long time.
The problem isn’t resorting to ruthless brutality to get what we want-we’ve done that many times in the past. The problem is using someone we’ve *admitted* is ruthless and brutal to get the job done, while continuing to declare our moral superiority to the world at large. That comes off as a liiiitle hypocritical.
Leviticus (43095b) — 11/27/2006 @ 10:47 am“I’d venture to say that those wishing for Saddam today would not argue that we in the U.S. would have been better off to go back to slavery once the civil war hit a body count equal to the current casualty rate in Iraq.”
Don’t be so sure. There was a lot of pressure on Lincoln to reach a negotiated settlement with the Confederacy when the cost of the war became high. I suspect the Liberal Avenger would have been among them.
Robert Brown (cc3bf7) — 11/27/2006 @ 10:56 amOh, do tell! But please, bring something more to the table than a picture of Saddam shaking hands with Rumsfeld, won’t you?
What were the particulars of his being *very* friendly with the U.S., and why was all of his military equipment Soviet and Chinese?
Pablo (cb50c5) — 11/27/2006 @ 11:02 am“I’d venture to say that those wishing for Saddam today would not argue that we in the U.S. would have been better off to go back to slavery once the civil war hit a body count equal to the current casualty rate in Iraq.”
Don’t be so sure. There was a lot of pressure on Lincoln to reach a negotiated settlement with the Confederacy when the cost of the war became high. I suspect the Liberal Avenger would have been among them.
“You must mean “[another] strong man who would be friendly to the west”
Yes, of course. Chait is advocating the return to realist foreign policy that has been in place for decades whereby the U.S. tolerates/supports brutal strongmen who will maintain stability, rather than engage it the risky long term strategy of democratic reform
Robert Brown (cc3bf7) — 11/27/2006 @ 11:02 amPatterico wrote on 11/27/2006 @ 5:58 am:
I’ve read both Chait’s piece and Swift’s, the latter many times over the years. Seems to me Chait’s humor is the same dry mock-serious sendup as Swift’s, though not brought off as well.
From Chait’s piece:
That some people won’t “get” a joke can be a bug or a feature.
Occasional Reader (3b67fe) — 11/27/2006 @ 11:13 amOccasional reader,
Here’s a link to the last 2 months of Chait’s columns. I could be comedy-challenged but they don’t seem that funny. He reads more like a serious GOP-obsessed columnist. Still, maybe you’re right and Chait has decided to lighten his image with a humorous piece on bringing Saddam back to power. What a riot, that guy.
DRJ (0df497) — 11/27/2006 @ 11:38 ami want to thank you, oprah, for letting me on your show today to discuss the wrongs i inflicted against innocent people during my first reign as dictator of iraq. yes, i acknowledge i did terrible, absolutely unforgivable things, but i want your viewers to understand that that wasn’t the real saddam hussein, it was insane, i had come under the influence of externally imposed expectations on what the role of a leader of iraq should be, plus for a long time i was dependent on chivas regal and xanax, but during my captivity i cleaned up and did a 12-step program with the help of my guards and realized that in order to heal, i need to reach out, atone and build bridges with the shiites and kurds. today is just part of a long process of assuming 100% responsibility for my past and future actions, no longer blaming the imam who molested me when i was a child. your great country is all about rehabilitation and redemption, do you remember your president nixon, down and out in 1962? i am grateful for the opportunity to demonstrate the merit and validity of these concepts, to be a standard bearer for my fellow sufferers and a role model for them to attain sobriety and mental health too, and to lead my troubled country into a new era of peace and goodwill with its neighbors and the world.
saddam hussein (1b787a) — 11/27/2006 @ 11:45 amMy friend LA wrote:
And one could argue that Benito Mussolini got the trains to run on time, and had a much more efficient government than the new one every ten months following the war, or that Adolf Hitler’s government was much, much better than that of the Weimar Republic. Heck, it’s even reasonable to say that Josef Stalin’s and Leonid Brezhnev’s governments were better than that of Tsar Nicholai II or Vladimir Putin.
Surely we’d agree that Fidel Castro’s government has been more efficient than that of Fulgencio Batista — and all of those Cubans who have fled the workers’ paradise on unseaworthy rafts are a figment of wingnut imagination.
Dana (3e4784) — 11/27/2006 @ 11:52 amIn the 1990s a large cross-section of the Afghan population apparently were alright with the rise of the Taliban. Put people in a situation that is bad for a long enough time and they will often opt for tyrants over violent anarchy.
Horace (cbe5f9) — 11/27/2006 @ 11:59 am“Oh, do tell! But please, bring something more to the table than a picture of Saddam shaking hands with Rumsfeld, won’t you?”
-Pablo
Okay…The fact that the U.S. sold weapons to Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War isn’t a big secret, Pablo. I just watched a documentary where a former intelligence operative mentioned a joke along the lines of “We know Saddam Hussein has WMD: We have the receipts.”
“In 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the U.S. made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, supplying it with intelligence, economic aid, normalizing relations with the government…and also supplying weapons.”
Is that not obvious enough for you?
Leviticus (35fbde) — 11/27/2006 @ 1:05 pmI know where he got the idea.
http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m28513
Howie (550351) — 11/27/2006 @ 1:12 pmWhich is bigger, Saddam’s cell or the Green Zone?
Saddam may already control roughly the same amount of Iraq as the U.S. military does.
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 11/27/2006 @ 3:50 pmSure we backed Iraq over Iran in the 1980-1988 war, even though Saddam Hussein started it. Please tell me that I don’t have to remind people that Iran still held 52 Americans as hostages in 1980, hostages who were not released until January 20, 1981!
Iraq wasn’t a nice place, and saddam Hussein wasn’t a nice guy, but at the time we considered Iran to be a major external threat, something we didn’t consider Iraq to be. Saddam Hussein didn’t threaten our interests.
According to our liberal friends, that should certainly have been good enough to have peaceful relations with Iraq, certainly not to threaten it!
Dana (e7aa47) — 11/27/2006 @ 4:23 pmDana: I don’t remember liberals being upset at our close relations with Iraq at the time, and certainly I don’t see a problem with it. The criticism I’ve seen is that it’s inconsistent to have been close then and to then suddenly decide that Saddam is public enemy #1 (and yes, i’m engaging in rhetorical exaggeration here); that inconsistency calls into question the legitimacy of the *latter* position, not the former.
That said, the idea of restoring to power the very dictator we ousted is absurd, and I’m disappointed to see it being voiced.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 11/27/2006 @ 4:25 pmI think he’s seriously saying that iraq is so fucked up that bringing saddam back might make it better.
actus (10527e) — 11/27/2006 @ 4:29 pmActus, to quote my daughters, “That was then; this is now.”
We’ve gone through a few different permutations of our foreign policy, based on the fact we’ve had a few different presidents and a rather significant number of elections since 1980.
In 1980, Saddam Hussein was, in effect, doing us a favor; who knows if the hostages would have been released in January of 1981 if Iran hadn’t been at war with Iraq, and had more pressing matters on its mind than keeping the hostages.
The change in policy toward Iraq since 1980 demonstrates the truth of the statement that in foreign policy, we have no permanent allies, only permanent interests.
Dana (9f37aa) — 11/27/2006 @ 4:37 pmJonathan Chait’s oh-so-helpful suggestion…
In Brilliant Idea of the Decade, Patterico highlights Jonathan Chait’s wonderful suggestion:
Common Sense Political Thought (819604) — 11/27/2006 @ 4:40 pmBring back Saddam Hussein
Restoring the dictator to power may give Iraqis the jolt of authority they need. Have a better solution?
November 26, 2006
T…
Sorry: comment number 40 should have been addressed to Aphrael, not Actus.
But to address Actus’ point:
I think he’s seriously saying that iraq is so fucked up that bringing saddam back might make it better.
I really hope he isn’t. Saddam Hussein used genocide and individual murder and torture and prisons to oppress a nation of 25 million people. I’m having a somewhat difficult time considering the notion that Mr Hussein and the Ba’ath Party’s more orderly pattern of killing is somehow preferable.
Dana (9f37aa) — 11/27/2006 @ 4:47 pmDana: i’m somewhat horrified to have been confused with Actus. *wince*
I think many people on both sides of the aisle are uncomfortable with the notion that we have no permanent allies, only permanent interests; that doesn’t make it untrue, just politically unpalatable.
The point of failure in this instance, though, is that many of the people who were making decisions in 2002-2003 were officials of various stripes in the Reagan administration, and so there was a perception on the left that these particular individuals had changed their stripes without explanation. This was to some degree unreasonable — but underlying it was a general sense on the left that the entire wilsonian democracy-promotion rhetoric was a fiction.
Many on the “left” never believed that the Bush administration’s rhetoric about democracy promotion and human rights was in earnest; it believed that it was an attempt to clothe imperialist policies in wilsonian rhetoric. (Much, I must say, as many on the “right” never believed that Clinton honestly supported welfare reform or free trade, and thought that it was an attempt to clothe socialist policies in conservative rhetoric). In that vein, official US support for Saddam in the 1980s, executed by people who had official positions in the Bush administration, was taken not as a sign that the individuals in question had either (a) changed their minds or (b) were responsonding to direction from the President, but as a reinforcement of the proposition that democracy-promotion was a facade.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 11/27/2006 @ 4:57 pmYes. Just like we really hope Swift wasn’t saying that the Irish should eat their babies.
actus (10527e) — 11/27/2006 @ 5:08 pmI didn’t read the other comments, but it was clear to me at the time that what we were allowing to happen at the time of “liberation” was extraordinarily idiotic. Iraqis were used to a strongman, then suddenly he was removed and anarchy reined. Together with disbanding the Iraqi Army, that lead to the current insurgency.
And, at the time, Rumsfeld – as well as far lesser idiots like Instapundit – welcomed that anarchy and made excuses for things like their main museum being looted.
What we should have done is locked down the entire country, Saddam style. Then, gradually relaxed our Saddam-style policies, replacing them with a more amenable government. And, bear in mind that’s not hindsight, that’s something I realized at the time.
TLB (05c6a0) — 11/27/2006 @ 5:12 pmPatterico said:
“P.S. I wonder what our soldiers think when they read something like this. Look at the number that have died to get Saddam out of power and keep him out — and now some yahoo proposes to put him back in. Incredible.”
Well, since it is obvious that the war was a mistake, our soldiers should already know that their lives were thrown away for nothing. So I don’t see why articles like this would make them feel any worse.
That said restoring Saddam to power would not undo the mistake and restore the status quo ante. So it is in fact a moronic article (if Chait is serious).
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 11/27/2006 @ 5:18 pmWould Saddam be worse or better than Muqtada al-Sadr?
Neville Chamberlain (80a4fa) — 11/27/2006 @ 5:21 pmJames – I think the thing is that, even if the broader goals of the war on Iraq, of spreading democracy throughout the middle east, appear to have failed, the soldiers can always fall back on this: at least their sacrifice got rid of a really bad man. Something was accomplished.
If he’s put back into power for some reason, then that is gone, and nothing was accomplished. Most soldiers will blame it on the politicians; but we really don’t need the military to be spreading a Dolchstosslegende.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 11/27/2006 @ 5:25 pmHorace writes:
“In the 1990s a large cross-section of the Afghan population apparently were alright with the rise of the Taliban. Put people in a situation that is bad for a long enough time and they will often opt for tyrants over violent anarchy.”
I’m sure you’re all shocked that actus’s mini-me has got his facts wrong, but he has. In the 1990s a large cross-section of the Afghan population was living in refugee status in Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikstan, and Kyrgyzstan (to say nothing of a wider diaspora). About one half of all Afghans were refugees from his beloved tyrants.
Of the populations that remained, some supported the TB, some opposed the TB, and some, notably the Hazaras, were put to flight or to the sword by the TB.
Unlike Patterico’s plague of pseudonymous trolls with faux-latin names, I’ve actually been to Afghanistan, and have read a bit about it before and since, and been profitably employed as a subject matter expert (yes, it’s redundant, but it’s a DOD term of art) on the country.
In other words, people pay me for my knowledge of Afghanistan. And my knowledge differs utterly from “Horace’s.” To get a sense of how wonderful Afghanistan was under the Taliban, you might want to begin with Human Rights Watch’s report on the lovely situation in Kabul in the early nineties, that bucolic era of tyranny so beloved of our friend the anonymous troll:
http://hrw.org/reports/2005/afghanistan0605/
(I know, I know. Human Rights Watch. Notorious BushCo Cheneyburton tools, them folks).
Kevin R.C. 'Hognose' O'Brien (88bf29) — 11/27/2006 @ 5:32 pmJames B.,
Maybe some of our troops are fortunate enough to be red-state hicks like me who believe the war in Iraq was not a mistake for several reasons, including that we deposed Saddam and gave Iraqis a chance at freedom. I hope with our help they make democracy work. I think they can.
Imagine what things might be like in America if terrorist groups were operating from bases in Iraq as well as the bases they undoubtedly have in Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and Indonesia, to name just a few. The US military presence in Iraq seems to have focused terrorists’ resources in the Middle East and to a lesser extent in Europe, at least for the last 5 years, and I for one am glad they aren’t overtly active here … yet.
DRJ (0df497) — 11/27/2006 @ 5:38 pmKevin O’Brien,
Great link. Thanks for posting.
DRJ (0df497) — 11/27/2006 @ 5:40 pmIf you want someone ruthless to get the job done, I suggest sending Hillary over there with 300,000 troops and carte blanche. Of course, we might regret that….
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 11/27/2006 @ 5:44 pmoops. forget it. I just found out Chait’s not being swiftian at all.
actus (10527e) — 11/27/2006 @ 6:34 pmWhat Digby has to say about Chait should interest you.
David Ehrenstein (074d0c) — 11/27/2006 @ 6:46 pmFormer British Prime Minister, the late Neville Chamberlain, wrote:
Well, it’s hard to see how Mr al-Sadr could be worse than Mr Hussein.
The Shi’ites have been in power in Iran for 27 years now, and if Tehran isn’t exactly Paris, it ain’t Baghdad if 2002, either. The Iranian mullahs have allowed some democracy, and they haven’t been slaughtering people wholesale to retain power. Yeah, there have been some bad cases in Iran, but they really are much more the exception than the rule.
Dana (3e4784) — 11/28/2006 @ 5:32 am“…who knows if the hostages would have been released in January of 1981 if Iran hadn’t been at war with Iraq…”
-Dana
I’ve heard it said that Reagan was negotiating with Iran to hold onto the hostages until after the election, to get elected (which would explain why the hostages were released so early into his term). In return, he agreed to sell them weapons to fight Iraq, and used the funds from those sales to fund the Nicaraguan Contras.
Leviticus (7494e0) — 11/28/2006 @ 6:36 ambut the FACT is that the majority of Iraqis have declared that they would choose some semblance of stability under Saddam
It’s also a FACT that the majority of Iraqis were brutally repressed under Saddam.
The “voting with their feet” that you think you see is more probably the formerly repressed getting the hell out of dodge in light of our pending ignominious retreat, which it is my BELIEF will be the result of the endless negativity and drumbeat of defeat emanating from you and the liberal appeasement-at-any-price press.
Hogarth (a721ef) — 11/28/2006 @ 11:49 amI’ve heard it said that space aliens are using microwaves to destroy our precious bodily fluids. Maybe that’s true, too. I mean, I’ve heard it said…
Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 11/28/2006 @ 12:51 pm“I’ve heard it said that space aliens are using microwaves to destroy our precious bodily fluids”
-Kevin Murphy
Whatever you say, General Ripper.
I was thinking about adding a disclaimer to the end of the statement you refer to, but figured that “I’ve heard it said” as an opening was disclaimer enough. I guess it wasn’t, so here you go:
“The preceding statement is speculation and nothing more. It cannot be proved now, and likely will not be proved ever (or at least until 2009), due to the Bush Administration’s lock on Reagan’s (and Daddy’s) files.”
That said, the dates line up pretty nicely.
Leviticus (3c2c59) — 11/28/2006 @ 1:13 pmLets face it..Sadam was a tyrant and a killer but if you could remove yourself to a neutral corner, which you cant, you can see Bush is just as much of a killer and the fact the he speaks english, prays to Jesus and talks all about “values” doesnt make him any better.
In the end, having found no WMDs, no connection to Al Quida and unable to form a democratic government in a country that was deliberately divided up into hostile groups by the British so they could rule more effectively, the US will opt for a dictator of some sort rather than pay the $2,000,000,000 a week and suffer the continuing casualties of Bush arrogance. Some “crazy” people might ask what the reason for the war was? But for most they will simply not think about that.
The entire region will then join in a fight and Iran and Syria will be the real beneficiaries and the entire region will become a staging ground for terrorists recruited from all over the world. Nice thing to have in the middle of the worlds oil reserve, Do I detect the seeds of another great war? Great stroke of genius, this man Bush is? Osama is so lucky to have him as a recruiter and we are so much better of spending 1,000,000,000,000 making enemies all over the world than spending that on finding a cheap substitute for oil even if it did mean Cheney and Bush’s portfolio did go down a bit…
This war was a disasterous mistake made by an arrogant little man intent of one upping his father and in awe of Dick Cheney who thought that it would all be over in a few weeks and he would be a war time President hero.Yippie!! The only wars he precides over is the one he created in Iraq and the one he and his swiftboaters created on the sensible people here in the USA who dared stand up to this nonsense.
I see something like 38% of the people still think the country is going in the right direction!!! Bottom line is that is you honestly dont get what a disaster this administration has been for the US and how this has increased the dangers to us and threatened world stablity and run up enormus debts while neglecting urgent problems at home, well its because you DONT WANT TO SEE THE OBVIOUS. Even long time Conservatives, something Bush never was, are seeing the man for what he is..
charlie (55cd2b) — 11/29/2006 @ 8:24 am