Comments on: Saddam To Hang For War Crimes

Clashes, Celebrations As Former Iraqi President Is Sentenced To Death

Add a Comment See all 165 Comments
by thgdriver November 6, 2006 12:14 AM EST
send your daughter or wife in to be his mistress (or you, if you are female) you will humbly say, yes sir, thank you, it is your inherited right.

That statement by "far" fits Bill("I never had *** with that women")Clinton.
Reply to this comment
by mh4cbs1 November 6, 2006 12:01 AM EST
Talk about convenient election-timed news! But the obvious timing will backfire on the NeoCons who have hijacked the GOP.

People see the so-called "Christian" Bush cheering at the death penalty for Saddam - good photo op. Maybe for his right-wing so-called "Christian" death penalty advocates, this is just fine and dandy.

But for us Christians who actually take the words of Jesus to heart, this cheeing of the Saddam death sentence is just one more link in the endless NeoCon cycle of death, hate, revenge, (take some profits), death, hate, revenge, (take some profits), death....

We are sick and disgusted by Bush and his tough-guy cowboy act. His violence just leads to more violence and less security. And the American people are realizing the sham and are going to put a stop to it on Tuesday.

Reply to this comment
by mh4cbs1 November 5, 2006 11:50 PM EST
So... One tyrant meets his fate.

When do Bush and Cheney go on trial for their War Crimes? Lying us into an Invasion of a Country that was NOT a threat, with 2,800 dead US troops, many more thousands mained for life. A few (at least) hundred thousand Iraqis killed.

What will the jury say about Bush and Cheney's needless horrific death and destruction? Shouldn't they at least get a couple years in Jail for negligent homicide?
Reply to this comment
by onesoldier1 November 5, 2006 11:31 PM EST
HMMM...
LET'S SEE HOW OUR LIVES HAVE CHANGED PERSONALLY NOW THAT SADDAM IS BEING PUT TO DEATH?

1) DISEASES AROUND THE WORLD THAT KILL MILLIONS WILL EVAPORATE!

2) TERRORISTS ACTS WILL CEASE!

3) YOUR JOB WILL NO LONGER BE THREATENED BY OUTSOURCING AND COMPANIES MOVING OVERSEAS!

4) HEALTH INSURANCE FOR EVERYBODY!

5) GLOBAL WARMING AND THE ENCROACHING OCEANS ON YOUR CITIES OBLITERATED!

6) NO MORE CITY CRIME! YEAAA!

7) POLITICAL CORRUPTION --- GONE!!

8) SPIRITUAL PEACE AND PEACE OF MIND FOR EVERYBODY! YEAAA!!!

****THE SAD THING ABOUT THIS IS THAT THERE ARE AMERICANS WHO WILL PUT THE REPUBLICANS BACK INTO OFFICE BECAUSE OF THIS NEWS. GOOD GOD.
Reply to this comment
by gopman3 November 5, 2006 11:15 PM EST
I love how we have to fight a PC war because of the Liberial Media. We are in a time of war and death is going to happened. I am happy to live in a country where we have freedom to have a forum like this and its due to the more than million soldiers in our history to sacrifice their lives.
Reply to this comment
by adian1-2009 November 5, 2006 11:07 PM EST
Pamela Falk, you are dead wrong if you think that Hussein's conviction, sentence and hanging will bring closure to anything in Irak. Far from that, it will bring more divisiveness, if it is that there could be more than the one pre-exising there and quite worsened by the invasion of that country.
Reply to this comment
by adian1-2009 November 5, 2006 10:53 PM EST
Death penalty is vengeance. Punishment should be enough. But... I ask myself some childish innocent few questions, to wit: is the killing of so many Iraqi innocent children, elders, women and citizens of all sorts a crime or not? If so, who are responsible for those killings? Is it not a crime against humanity forcing our boys and girls to sacrifice their lives in the invasion of another country under false pretenses? After giving childish thought to those questions, I come out with some childish conclusions. For example, Hussein was and is either immoral or amoral. And this other one: those responsible for the things mentioned above are birds of the same flock and should be held accountable for their wrongdoings against humanity. But... you see, what are you going to expect from a childish way of looking at things?
Reply to this comment
by radiob-2009 November 5, 2006 10:24 PM EST
The term Relative can refer to:

Kinship, the principle binding the most basic social units in society. If two people are connected by circumstances of birth, they are said to be relatives.
A relative term, for example, lover of __, or giver of __ to __.
Relativity as a concept in physics (for example Albert Einstein's theory of relativity).
Relativity as a philosophical concept, opposed to Absolute
for ressigmann
Reply to this comment
by ressigmann November 5, 2006 10:02 PM EST
radiob the comment about my family ect was to the person who told me to get a life, to prove I had one (just so you know I really don't care what you personally think of me). As for doublespeak it takes one to know one as they say. I spend plenty of time with my family and do this for interest. A degree in accounting. and working as a com specialist does not make you a specialist in english language. You have said I was wrong but provided nothing beyond that. Have a good day yall
Reply to this comment
by radiob-2009 November 5, 2006 9:52 PM EST
ressigmann you obviously do not know how to distinguish the usage of a word or the interpertation.And if I was you with a wife and three kids I would be spending time with them,instead of doublespeaking here.Save that for arguments with your wife and whoever you report to with your B.S. degree.I have a degree also in accounting big deal.I also served in the military during Vietnam as a communication specialist working with an elite group of men.
Reply to this comment
by radiob-2009 November 5, 2006 9:45 PM EST
ressigmann Go read the book it has more information than you have at your disposal.
Reply to this comment
by ressigmann November 5, 2006 9:44 PM EST
radiob went to wikipedia did'nt see anything to change what I said. Clinton was offered custody of Bin Laden by Sudan and claimed that he could not find enough evidence to hold him. Mr. Atta the leader of the World Trade Center was being held by Isreal, until Clinton arranged for his release along with other Palestinians.
Reply to this comment
by radiob-2009 November 5, 2006 9:37 PM EST
ressigmann you definitely need to read AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, you do not have a clue as to when and how the FBI and CIA determined it was one organization.Where have you been?Clarke testified in the public 9/11 hearings.He served Reagan,Bush Sr.,Clinton and Bush jr.No one has ever rebuked him.
Reply to this comment
by radiob-2009 November 5, 2006 9:32 PM EST
ressigmann go to wikipedia for a defintiion.
Reply to this comment
by radiob-2009 November 5, 2006 9:31 PM EST
doctorgraz read AGAINST ALL ENEMIES and you will see for yourself where Clinton was.I could tell you but it is better if you read the book and learn all of the facts.Clinton did try to go after Bin laden that much I will tell you,let the bok which was written by republican Richard Clarke who was the terrorist czar under Clinton and after 9/11 with Bush until he resigned.No one has ever rebuked his book and the damming facts that are put forth.Another good book that deals strictly with Bush and again written by a republican and never rebuked is THE PRICE OF LOYALTY by Paul O'Neil former Bush treasury secretary.It will provide some insight as to how we came to be in Iraq but not the motive.The motive is still not clear.
Reply to this comment
by doctorgraz November 5, 2006 9:25 PM EST
is fooling around a better verb oh CBS ? You know what I mean.
Reply to this comment
by ressigmann November 5, 2006 9:24 PM EST
definition of relative
"not absolute or complete; "a relative stranger"
from: http://www.wordreference.com/definition/relative

If people mean relative truth is important truth then they are misusing the word. America suffered 8 acts of terrorism under the Clinton administration. So far 9/11 is the only one on the Bush administration. If he goes to war and keeps the terrorists elsewhere, how is that misleading? Also there were Democrats on the 9/11 commission, if there had been anyway to pin a string of lies on President Bush they would have. As for my use of the word relative, it is the adjective form supported by the definition above. All who use the word in other ways should be careful as it goes against the definition.
Reply to this comment
by doctorgraz November 5, 2006 9:23 PM EST
in attacking Iraq. We have lost so many young men who didn't deserve to die. Where was the Clinton administration when Osama Bin Laden was on the loose? He could have been terminated. Bill was too busy *** around with you know who in the Oval Office. I don't blame him at all being married to Hillary but he let our country down. What do you think ???
Reply to this comment
by doctorgraz November 5, 2006 9:19 PM EST
radiob
I agree with you. I was just wondering where was Clinton in the pre days of Osama Bin Laden. I believe Bush made a terrible mistake in attacking Ira
Reply to this comment
by doctorgraz November 5, 2006 9:17 PM EST
Let's try again.!!!!!!!!
Unfortunately, I'm back. Thank you oh powers at CBS for this forum. God Bless America and send those who wish her harm to hell !!!!!!!!!! Does that meet with your approval oh censors of liberty ?????????
Reply to this comment
See all 165 Comments

Exclusive Webshow

Mike Huckabee on GOP "rock stars," 2012, health care reform and more. Watch Now

  • MOST POPULAR
Discussed
  1. Lambert: Offering No Apologies

    (457 recent comments)

Latest News
News in Pictures
Scroll Left Scroll Right
Connect with CBS News

Stay connected with the CBS News using your favorite social networks and online news applications: