Thursday, March 02, 2006
Saddam Trial Gets Serious
Perhaps the trial will pick up some speed now. Saddam's guilt is clear enough.
Any Screwies out there want to defend Saddam? Eh?
12 Comments:
By 
, at
Thu Mar 02, 10:36:00 AM:
>Any Screwies out there want to defend Saddam? Eh?
Certainly not, considering the company the man used to keep back in the mass graves days.
Is there anyone who denies what Saddam did or is this just more strawmening?
By , at
Thu Mar 02, 12:20:00 PM:
The idea that the left somehow loves Sadaam is a strawman.
By 
Catchy Pseudonym, at
Thu Mar 02, 01:38:00 PM:
I think Saddam is just merely misundertood. Give him a chance, man. Listen. Share. Learn. Instead of a trial, maybe we should try a hug, a few kind words. Maybe some love? I'm sure he's got a very good explaination for everything. I look forward to the day that we can all share a hookah with Saddam and look back and laugh about all this foolishness.
Now, picture me saying that with long-hair, a tie-dye shirt, a bong in one hand and a "Frodo failed, Bush got the Ring" bumper sticker on my car. Am I close to Righty's generic view of Lefty? When you picture us Cardinal, is this kinda what you see? I can only imagine what you've got floating around in that Righty brain of yours. I'm off now to my Hate God and America, Abortion Rocks, Let's Free Tibet, Saddam is Love Concert. Wish me luck!
By , at
Thu Mar 02, 01:50:00 PM:
Umm, Michale Moore defended Saddaam, first by saying he was all our fault (for arming him, which we doid not do, and for giving him satelite photos poiinting out Iranian positions, which we did), and then by presenting Iraq as a kite-flyer's paradise before the bad old US military went in.
George Orwell called pacifists back in the day "objectively pro-Nazi" and I guess Tigerhwak and I share the same view of the "screwies".
By Cardinalpark, at
Thu Mar 02, 02:21:00 PM:
Actually - let's be clear. Yes, we, the US and the west generally, did arm him. We wanted him to be our muscle in the region against Iran. Bad idea. Appalling. Inexcusable, immoral Cold War conduct. Then, when we mobilized 500,000 men to bounce him out of Kuwait, we left him in power. This after referring to him a the current age's Hitler. Real bloody smart that was, huh?
So now, when we finally get around to doing the right thing, wage a just war to correct myriad injustices and atrocities committed by this animal, precisely those who should be saluting the act instead carp, whine and undermine.
Hence my ironic challenge to all you Screwies out there.
CP
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Thu Mar 02, 02:30:00 PM:
Umm.. Michael Moore is a singular person, where as Lefty's are many. And "screwie" is actually one person, Screwy, who I'm sure will make an appearance. And before you cite the Lefty's love of Michael Moore's movie as guilt by association, know that one can enjoy watching something that sticks to W, without endorsing each and ever thought or philosophy that comes from it.
I think most of the "pro-Saddam rhetoric" that you condemn lefties for speaking with is actually an attempt by some to show that America has handled Middle East affairs in the past with poor judgement and politics based on greed.
By Gordon Smith, at
Thu Mar 02, 02:52:00 PM:
So I'm expected to defend Saddam Hussein now?
Why in Allah's name would I want to do that?
While we're at it, I won't be defending our invasion of Iraq under false pretenses.
Other things I won't be defending include Devo 2.0, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, torture, secret prisons, rape, or the "Achy Breaky".
The strange tactic of making individuals defend the words and deeds of other individuals who have no tangible affiliation is very strange. I could ask you, for instance, to defend Adolf Hitler. It might look like this:
"Any CardinalParks out there want to defend Adolf Hitler?"
"Any CardinalParks out there want to defend Lynndie England?"
"Any CardinalParks out there want to defend the Reverend Fred Phelps?"
"Any CardinalParks out there want to defend Donald Rumsfeld?"
Something like that.
Anyway, sorry I couldn't offer the spirited defense of Hussein's many crimes that you delusionally expect from someone of my political stripe. But I sure do appreciate your willingness to admit that arming strongmen in an effort to control the middle east is a lousy idea.
By Cardinalpark, at
Thu Mar 02, 04:00:00 PM:
Hi Screwy! Good to hear from ya bud.
Carping about the war and wmd and problems is your stock and trade because you don't like the white house. that's fine I suppose, but i've said before it diminishes the argument when you consider the implications of said carping - implicit defense of saddam's status quo and undermining of the effort of 150,000 fantastic americans. you don't like to hear it, but it's true.
I've many times acknowledged that steadfast historical support for saddam, coupled with leaving him in power, was an abomination. I don't recall your ever owning up to your perspective on that of course. I'm not the least bit embarrassed to say it because my view on Saddam and the war has nothing to do with partisanship. Zero. It has everything to do with my view -- my strident, hawkish view -- of how we have to deal with the Middle East, how we should deal with dirtbag tyrants and genocidal maniacs (lie Slobo, too, for instance).
Hey Screwy, did you see where Clinton got paid by the UAE to give them advice on getting the ports deal done? While Hillary is fighting against...hilarious, right? It's like Carvill and Matalin or something...
By Gordon Smith, at
Thu Mar 02, 04:23:00 PM:
CP,
"implicit defense of saddam's status quo and undermining of the effort of 150,000 fantastic americans."
Just because you say it doesn't make it true.
When I criticize the President and his administration for their actions, I am neither supporting Saddam Hussein or criticizing the troops on the ground.
To suggest otherwise is ludicrous.
Sometimes, strident one, a cigar is just a cigar.
By Cardinalpark, at
Thu Mar 02, 05:07:00 PM:
It's not ludicrous at all. You just don't like to hear it. Tone deaf I'd say. Got your finger stuck in your ears singing "me me me." Certainly most returning troops would say it. And I jsut waved goodbye to two young brothers in the marines going now who defintely said it. What makes their or my impression of your comments illegitimate?
To play it back at you, just because you say it's not, doesn't make it so either.
That fellow who wrote the obnoxious column in the LA Times a few weeks ago saying he was against the war and against the troops was simply being honest about it, and calling his fellow antiwar travellers out on the carpet for not simply acknowledging it. Pure sophistry really. I am against the war but support the troops. I am against the war to depose him but I agree Saddam was a horrible monster, a tyrant, a genocidal maniac. That's ludicrous Screwy. Now really...
By Gordon Smith, at
Thu Mar 02, 10:39:00 PM:
So, to be clear, one can not criticize the war without criticizing those who are fighting it. That's what you're saying, right?
If one takes an oath to follow the directives of one's superiors in the armed services, then not to follow those directives, while courageous, is also prosecutable. You buy the ticket, you take the ride, it seems to me. But when the roller coaster operator is drunk with power and doesn't tell you that the rails are shaky, it seems obvious that one could criticize the operator without criticizing the riders.
If it's unpatriotic to criticize the President and his prosecution of the war, then I must living in the wrong country. The country in which one either pledges unending fealty or is some sort of treasonous soldier-hating traitorer isn't familiar to me. That sounds like a dictatorship.
You just don't like hearing criticism. That's o.k., too, but the whole baiting with Saddam? Come on. Who are you kidding?
By Cardinalpark, at
Fri Mar 03, 08:18:00 AM:
SH - you're not reading very carefully. I didn't say don't criticize. Ralph Peters does it very constructively actually. His criticism doesn't undermine the troops. Yours does undermine them. It hampers their effectiveness. By the way, I didn't say it was implicit that you were crticizing the troops. But in continuing to carp about the sources of the conflict, and wrongly accusing the administration of manufacturing wmd intelligence, you certainly do undermine and demoralize the people doing the work over there.
There are forms of criticism Screwy which are constructive and helpful because they aid in adapting the mission to circumstances on the ground. The military is exceedingly and very analytically self-critical. The DoD is self critical. Ralph Peters and John Lewis Gaddis and Tom Friedman make legitimate arguments about the management of the the war and relations in the Middle East. So criticism - intelligent, knowledgeable, honest criticism -- is helpful and avidly received.
What you do isn't criticism. It is whining. It is not intended to further the success of the project in Iraq (or Afghanistan, or anywhere else regarding the WOT). It is intended at every turn to accuse the Administration or the Military of bad behavior, unethical behavior, criminal behavior. All for a partisan objective. It's sort of like your man Dean saying "I hate all Republicans." It's not criticism, it's demagoguery and sophistry.
I've said it many times that if you have a particular philosophy or principle which leads you to oppose the war -- pacifism, for instance, by all means, speak up. But really, the constant whining about wmd or signals intelligence and FISA -- its all just anti war "blah blah blah" under false pretenses. Any device which can serve as a platform for political criticism is seized upon, no matter how weak. that's not criticism. It's BDS. And you have it, because you're clearly not a dumb guy. Misinformed sure, but not dumb. You just don't ultimately listen or care much for information that doesn't fit your world view - I don't like Bush, I don't like his war. I don't see fighting Al Qaeda as war, I see it as law enforcement problem. On that last point, I think you are firmly in the minority in this country. Deeply so.
So there you go Screwy. Fun to chat with you.
