Comments on: Saddam Hussein Executed

Former Iraqi Dictator Hanged; U.S. Forces On High Alert For Surge In Violence

[heetseeker]

"Another Blue Riband Event"

Yet again the commentators are predicting that the execution of Saddam will be a significant turing point. The Iraqi's themselves are hoping that his execution will remove a barrier to Baathist engagement in the political process. Somehow that seems more like desperation than expectation. Saddam has long been largely irrelevant to the violence in Iraq. The key drivers for the violence are Sunni fears of Shia subjugation, the presence of US troops, arab nationalism and Islamic extremism.

The US administration is apparently more circumspect about Saddam's death. The President suggests it is a significant "milestone" but won't stop the violence. How ironic that the President has the audacity to talk about the very milestones that he will not set for continued US support for the Iraqi government.

The fact is this: for a few days there will be blanket coverage in the media of Saddam's life, his reign and his death. However, the idea that Saddam's death will curb the violence is a very high risk strategy indeed. In fact it may even have the exact opposite effect. Perhaps Saddam's "matyrdom" (because that is how it will be seen by his supporters), may become a rallying cry for a level of violence never seen before.

Saddam is gone. But in Iraq, my friends, nothing is ever quite as it seems.

[emtak1]

President Bush today:

"We are reminded today of how far the Iraqi people have come since the end of Saddam Hussein's rule ( ME: THEY'VE EVOLVED INTO A SPLENDID LITTEL ANARCHY--***?) and that the progress they have made would not have been possible without the continued service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform.

Many difficult choices and further sacrifices lie ahead. Yet the safety and security of the American people require that we not relent in ensuring that Iraq's young democracy continues to progress" The end of the first sentence OF THIS GRAPH NEFGATES TEH BEGGINING. THE CHOICE HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE BY PRESIDENT BUSH: MORE SACRIFICE)

"Rumsfeld and Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq. They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction," Ford told Woodward. "And now, I've never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do."

NIGHT

[emtak1]

feelfree1,defirststate

I'm impressed with your reasoning. I do hope the American public can reason to convince those Republican representatives.

It is a tradgedy that the ink for that argument will be the blood of our fellow citizens.

I do hope that I am the fool here, and Bush is is succesful in his plan of further intensified war.

But I'm glad that there are some Americans who may also realize the gravity of our situation

And I hope ya'll don't give up hope.

I'm a Republican. But an American first.

I'm leaving the next post as my last. It might serve for some dark comedy...


Goodnight!: )

[feelfree1]

"BAGHDAD, Dec. 29 (UPI) -- About 90 percent of Iraqis feel the situation in the country was better before the U.S.-led invasion than it is today, according to a new ICRSS poll."

"Only five percent of those questioned said Iraq is better today than in 2003."

[feelfree1]

If we don't demand disciplined adherence to our Constitution, what difference does it make what it contains?

[tigger2005-2009]

OIL, OIL, OIL It has been the evil that has driven all wars because someone wants power to control and not to share. Bush family has been ivolved in world wars 1, II and other problems in the world. they were friends of Hitler, Saddam, Bin Laden family, other dispose world leaders that were put into power and removed when not needed to do dirty work anymore.
Amercain people and the world have been hurt very sever by Bush and his friends and they should be remove from power.

[feelfree1]

defirststate,

Re: "The current junta would take advantage of the distraction an impeachment would cause to Congress's return to oversight and try even more sneak attacks on the Constitution."

What's left to attack?

Impeachment or war crimes tribunals, one way or another, these heinous actors must be brought to account, if we ever hope to recover our collective dignity. Open hearings about the deeds of our mis-leaders' would be an excellent and priceless start to the process.

[defirststate]

As much as it pisses me off, an impeachment without removal would be a rerun of the Repub. farce with Clinton. In this case it would only further embolden the power-hungry cabal at 1600.The House can pass bills of impeachment by majority vote, but conviction in the Senate requires a 2/3 vote. With 51 members voting in the Democratic caucus, besides getting every one of those votes you would have to get 16 Republicans to vote to convict.

Only if public outrage rises to the level where at least 16 Republican Senators would feel compelled to convict, would impeachment make any sense, no matter how richly the arrogant, ******** deserves impeachment, removal and personally experiencing some of the techniques he has approved for interrogations. Also some democratic caucus members might give in to intense pressures. The current junta would take advantage of the distraction an impeachment would cause to Congress's return to oversight and try even more sneak attacks on the Constitution.

[feelfree1]

"When the people fear the government you have tyranny...when the government fears the people you have liberty." --Thomas Jefferson

[feelfree1]

emtak1,

Re: "The main dagger in our goverment that we are feeling now is that of the War Powers Act."

The "War Powers Act" has not been invoked for use against Iraq, and is not relevant. Neither has there been a formal declaration of war against Iraq, as is required by Congress.

Re: "If war on Iraq had to have been declared, it most likely never would have happened. Same goes for Vietnam."

Wouldn't that have been a shame? Again, the "War Powers Act" was not relevent in the Viet Nam conflict, as it did not exist until the conclusion of the Viet Nam invasion by the U.S.

The 2 most applicable legal standards which apply here, by my estimation, are the "U.N. Charter", and the "Nuremberg Charter". The "U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996" seems to apply to several aspects relating to the conduct of the Bush regime's war on freedom.

[emtak1]

feelfree1

I think the spirit of our country at least, was, that the down deep truth is that those who govern do so at the tolerance of those who are governed.

The main dagger in our goverment that we are feeling now is that of the War Powers Act. If war on Iraq had to have been declared, it most likely never would have happened. Same goes for Vietnam.

If my memory is correct, Lincoln reflected that the Declaration of Independence was more of a common American sentiment than what was reflected in the Constitution, which is why he suspended some constitutional rights to win the war against the Confederacy(Habeus Corpus).

But Lincoln, nobody railsplitter that he was, turned out to be a wise man. Bush has turned out to be a fool withthe same power.

[feelfree1]

mcdazz,

Re: "If the Dems don't stand up to him when they take control of Congress and the House, then they deserve our contempt."

I'll second that!!!

[feelfree1]

emtak1,

Re: "Are we bound by the constitution if we dont give a *** enough to make sure it is adhered to by our representatives anymore?"

Good question. But if we are not bound to our Constitution, what exactly is the basis of our government?

[feelfree1]

defirststate,

Re: "Saddam's execution was justice."

The mock-trial of Saddam conducted by the U.S. constructed kangaroo-court, hardly represents anything resembling "justice". Bush has managed to transform Hussein from a petty tyrant into a martyr.

Saddam should have been tried by a legitimate international court, right along with the Bush regime, and the other Butchers of Baghdad.

I thought that the rest of your comment was right on though.

bildooreilly wrote:

"Bush has broken plenty of laws emtak, it's just the republicans AND the democrats refused to hold him accountable for his actions. They've turned our system into a farce more than bush himself has by pandering to this psycho... fact is all these traitors are on the same team... and they sure as hell aren't working for the american people.. that's for *** sure..."

When I read that the Dems won't be pushing for an impeachment of Bush, I was disgusted in them. I'm still hoping that someone stands up against them all and pushes for an impeachment.

Bush shouldn't be in charge of a book club, let alone a nation.

If the Dems don't stand up to him when they take control of Congress and the House, then they deserve our contempt.

[emtak1]

feelfree1:

Are we bound by the constitution if we dont give a *** enough to make sure it is adhered to by our representatives anymore?

[emtak1]

bildooreilly :


I didn't know about the propoganda law. Could it be grounds for impeachment?

As to the wiretapping. I'm pretty sure that is legal, as crazy as it sounds. I studied Com Law, the Patriot Act etc, in school for the last year.

But not only does the executive have the power to conduct wiretapping now, but they can do "sneak and peak" entrances into the home of the common citizen, and are not required to tell anyone.

This seems a clear violation of the Constitution's Search and Seizure Ammendment. And yet Amercans haven't even filed a lawsuit against it.

By condoning this, the common citizen has consented to it.--"consent of the governed"

[defirststate]

em292380 I respect the office being defiled by the current occupant. We should be waiting for another terrorist attack because we have created and provided target practice to many more of them. Instead of handling the terrorist problem of 9/11, dumbya started a terrorist recruitment campaign by invading Iraq. bin-Laden must be happy that Iraq diverted us from his tail. Saddam's execution improves the human race. One should be proud of someone who stands up for what he believes and protects our country, but since neither of these apply to the leader of the DC junta, what's your point? I agree that Saddam needed to die for everyone he%u2019s killed and hurt, including thousands of innocent people.

The disgrace of the US you like so much has accumulated a death toll among our military nearing 3,000. Iraqi civilian casualties are 50,000-600,000+ killed. So many have lost limbs or even brain function. Saddam's execution was justice. Our moron-in-chief's numbers are worse; how is anything less for him justice?

Dumbya's record:
forget bin-Laden & al-Qaeda Check
attack Iraq with no 9/11 role Check
increase number of terrorists Check
more military lost than 9/11 deaths Check
spend $3,000-5,000/sec in Iraq Check
attack Constitution's protections Check
violate US & International law Check
go to Vietnam (it's safe now) Check

[feelfree1]

emtak1,

Re: "The president has not done anything illegal."

The fraud-based war of agression against Iraq constitutes the mother of all war crimes.

Many WWII era Nazis were convicted for this very offense, and many were sentenced to death by hanging as a result.

The U.S. is Constitutionally bound to abide by the very same laws which condemned the Nazis. War crimes proceedings await the Bush pirates and their stooges.

Election fraud, spying on Americans without a warrant, secret torture centers and prisons, dismantling of the Bill of Rights- these acts are also among the many Bush regime crimes.

[aisat2666]

whitman

Did any of your mother%u2019s children live?

You among many others are sure making a lot of derogatory comments.

The President serves as the chief executive and head of the executive branch of the United States government. Article Two of the United States Constitution establishes the President as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and enumerates powers specifically granted to the President.