December 29, 2006
Good riddance

Saddam Hussein has been executed.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 29, 2006 07:53 PM | Email This
Comments
1. "The Tree of Liberty should, from time to time, be watered with the blood of tyrants, for that is its natural manure." -- Thomas Jefferson

We helped to bring Saddam to justice. I hope that counts for something when we're judged for all of the other things our illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq has done.

Posted by: Paddy Mac on December 29, 2006 08:10 PM
2. A hanging cad.
I demand a recount.

Posted by: JCM on December 29, 2006 08:14 PM
3. What a way to start the new year!

Posted by: Matthew Lundh on December 29, 2006 08:15 PM
4. I dunno... there's something about this that just doesn't feel right.

Yeah... they nailed him for 150 people or so. But what about 5000 Kurds? Don't the survivors get their day in court?

I dunno... it's just... something...

Here in the US, murderers get 10 or more years before we fry them... and we do this guy in a few months?

What's the hurry? Something isn't being said here.

Posted by: Hinton on December 29, 2006 08:34 PM
5. And the bed-wetting crowd over at the PI "SoundOff" blog are in their heyday agonizing over the demise of a ruthless tyrant . The crowd that loves to be "ashamed," and/or "embarrassed" by the "mean-spirited" actions of others. When the others aren't moonbats or despots.

Posted by: Tyler Durden on December 29, 2006 08:54 PM
6. Hinton:
the answer to your question is that it is against the law in IRAQ to hang someone once the reach the age of 70. That was to happen in a few months. There legal system is setup to be quick. Ours has so many reviews and lawyers do delay after delay. In Iraq no delays were allowed the reviews were done and the requirement was within 30 days of that review. The review was similar to our Supreme Court but slightly different. I think there legal system is closer to that of the British.
Which is a lot different than ours. A lot of people do not understand that not all court systems are not like ours. Most countries you are guilty until you prove you did not do it. Police arrest you are considered guilty you have to prove you did not do it. Pretty hard for Saddam to prove he did not order the killings.
The records will be made available and you can kill a man only once. Justice is served.

Posted by: David Anfinrud on December 29, 2006 09:01 PM
7. All I got to saw is about time. With this guy dead the Saddam loyalists may (and I say this with some doubt)come into the fold.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on December 29, 2006 09:07 PM
8. The saying "hanging's too good for him" never rang more true than on SH. Why didn't he get the plastic shredder?

Posted by: PC on December 29, 2006 09:15 PM
9. Saddam has now finally actually met Satan. And his name wasn't Bush....

Posted by: Seabecker on December 29, 2006 09:19 PM
10. Read the ABC account again. Not once does it say Saddam killed or murdered anyone. Opponents were purged, 21 people were executed in a single day, many people died in an 8-year war--the article is carefully worded to separate Saddam from the deeds.

And of course, the obligatory Bush dig at the end:

"...the leader remained defiant until the end. In July 2004, he told the court that it was President Bush who should be put on trial."

The MSM's hatred of America, democracy, and the president continues in a post 9-11 world.

Posted by: Organization Man on December 29, 2006 09:22 PM
11. #10, yeah, doesn't it figure. ABC just beat CBS to the punches there.
I forget, what ever happened to Tariq Aziz? Did he get to see one of our bombs close and personal?

Posted by: PC on December 29, 2006 09:26 PM
12. PC: I had to check my "Iraqi most-wanted" deck of cards to confirm 'ol Tariq was who I thought he was (the eight of spades, if you're interested). As I recall, the U.S. military rounded him up fairly early, about the same time as chemical Mary, the WMD scientist (five of hearts). Not sure of their whereabouts--probably killing time in one of our facilities in Eastern Europe.

Posted by: Organization Man on December 29, 2006 09:50 PM
13. Well, Paddy Mac, I was wondering how long it would take you to espouse your hatred for our country.

17 minutes seems to be all it take.

What makes you think that our invasion of Iraq was illegal, other than the fact that you love socialists, fascists, and dictators, as long as they provide abortion on demand?

Saddam had violated something like 17 resolutions from the UN. Dubya went to the UN, and to the US Congress to get a resolution authorizing our invasion of Iraq.

So I guess in your twisted mind that makes our invasion "illegal."

Only when you hate your own country and think that it's the sole source of evil in the world could one have these thoughts.

If you'd like, I'll pay for your one way ticket to the totalitarian country of your choice; China, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Cuba, or your choice.

Then you can enjoy free medical care after they gouge your eyes out. I'm sure that they'll celebrate your hatred of America.

Let me know how I can pay for your ticket.

Posted by: Obi-Wan on December 29, 2006 10:48 PM
14. The South Park guys nailed it. Saddam and Satan finally together forever!

Posted by: Matthew Lundh on December 29, 2006 11:17 PM
15. Saddam didn't have a chance. There's a provision in the new Iraqi constitution that stipulates that an execution can only be stopped by a phone call from James Brown or Gerald Ford.

Posted by: Jim on December 29, 2006 11:27 PM
16. A lot of people (his victims, namely) got justice tonight. This is for all the gassed Iraqis, those who were thrown into plastic shredders face first just for fun, the ones who were killed for not winning enough in soccer, the woman who received her husband sent home from Saddam all chopped up into pieces in a plastic bag (for simply expressing a different opinion from Saddam as Saddam's high-level official), the women who were raped whenever Saddam or his sicko sons wished it. And on and on.
Thanks to "cowboy" George W Bush, who was the driving force in bringing this guy to justice. Not those pansies at the U.N. ("do that one more time and...and....WE'LL VOTE FOR ANOTHER RESOLUTION AGAINST YOU!! but that's all.....)
Good job, W.

Posted by: Michele on December 30, 2006 12:31 AM
17. "Well, Paddy Mac, I was wondering how long it would take you to espouse your hatred for our country."

Yes, quoting the approving words of Thomas Jefferson, prime author of our Declaration of Independence, shows hatred for America. (What weird planet do you live on? Does rain fall upwards there? Can you get me a tourist visa?)

"What makes you think that our invasion of Iraq was illegal...?"

We tried the Nazis and Imperial Japanese commanders for invading countries which had not threatened them. Saddam's evil regime did not threaten us; heck, the Reagan Administration even supported him. (Did Ronald Reagan hate America? How about Donald Rumsfeld?)

"Only when you hate your own country and think that it's the sole source of evil in the world could one have these thoughts."

I love my country. I hate to see it bring evil to the world. Our soldiers' sexual abuse of Iraqis will haunt us for years to come. I blame not our soldiers, but their commanders, President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld, for putting them there, and for undermining their discipline with stupid diktats. I hope to see Bush and Rumsfeld on trial in the future.

But for now, we can all rejoice that a tyrant has died, and that Jefferson's request has been granted yet again. I hope that Saddam's many victims can find peace in his long-overdue execution. Someday, all tyrants will be long-dead, and we'll all be the better for it. Again, I hope that our good deed today redeems us for all of the suffering we have caused to the innocent peoples of Iraq, who deserved neither Saddam, nor the "shock and awe" we used to dislodge him.

Posted by: Paddy Mac on December 30, 2006 01:07 AM
18. Wonderful, thoughtful writings, Paddy.

Let's let the world & its mean people alone and hope they won't bother us. Wait 'till the kettle spills over everywhere--especially in strategic oil & nuke areas. Ostrich Principle. Words hurt. Our bombs hit only the innocent civilians. Soldiers only torture and degrade the innocent "freedom fighters." Heads aren't severed, it's just a VERY close shave. Our 9-11 countrymen were not jumping to their deaths.

I guess a tyrant's years of ignored UN resolutions, oil-food scandals and "legal wars" like Kosovo only apply to justify certain administrations' military actions. Pick & choose your righteousness depending on the party?

Let's love & understand everyone, right, Mr. Chamberlain? Here's your treaty.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on December 30, 2006 06:36 AM
19. Hey, Paddy Mac, get it right.

"...should be watered with the blood of tyrants AND PATRIOTS."

Let us not forget the nearly 3,000 American service members (and a handful of civilians) who have so far lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is their blood, too, that keeps that tree of liberty alive and flourishing.

Take a moment to honor their sacrifice, and that of their loved ones.

Posted by: Joe Waldron on December 30, 2006 07:03 AM
20. Paddy Mac, if you're going to quote Thomas Jefferson please do so correctly. It's the blood of "patriots & tyrants," and "refreshed," not "watered," among other errors.

The quote you mis-quote is in a letter from Jefferson to William Smith, John Adams' secretary and future son-in-law, dated November 13, 1787. He was expressing support for Shay's Rebellion. From the transcript of the letter in the Library of Congress:

"what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it's natural manure." (Emphasis mine.)

Jefferson wasn't expressing support for refreshing the tree of liberty with blood of tyrants like Saddam, he was expressing support for rebellion of a free people against their rulers, and blood must be shed in pursuit of the goal of keeping their rulers in check, and the people free.

Posted by: Obi-Wan on December 30, 2006 07:38 AM
21. Ob-Wan, Well said! And if Paddy Mac is REALLY worried about sexual abuses in prisons, he may want to check out the King County Jail. (Which is what Federal Agents are doing now.)

Posted by: Walters on December 30, 2006 08:26 AM
22. Finally, a horrific chapter in the Iraq's book of history has ended. Hopefully, with the removal of their demented despot, Iraqis will now begin writing a new chapter and a new destiny for themselves. This is no small thing, and our country played no small part. Most of the world is breathing a sigh of relief, including most of the Arab world. And yet, we have Paddy Mac and those like him, who cannot help but say Yeah, but, but, but...BUSH IS BAD! How sad.

Posted by: katomar on December 30, 2006 08:40 AM
23. I hope to see Bush and Rumsfeld on trial in the future. Proud 5th Column Member, Paddy Mac

Anybody who equates Saddam Hussein with our President and his advisors is not to be taken seriously.
Taken outside and smacked upside the head for being a fool, maybe. But taken seriously? Nope.

However, it is helpful for you to reveal to others just whose side you're on.

Posted by: jimg on December 30, 2006 09:35 AM
24. The moonbat left is raging online over at Tacoma's Morning News Tribune also.

http://tinyurl.com/y6lal9

Some flamer who calls himself "moderate" is beside himself blaming Bush and this evil country for everything from tooth decay to acne.

WE ARE EVIL.

Posted by: Huey on December 30, 2006 09:37 AM
25. If my nieghbor abused his family while I sat back and did nothing while having full power to stop him, I'd be an accomplice wouldn't I Paddy? Don't give me that crap about the UN inspections either because he clearly called the shots there. Try telling the police where they can inspect your house should they show up with a warrant.
You don't like it that we went in with guns first then meals on wheels, and didn't get run out of town like the MOG.
I'd like to see your position on Darfur.

Posted by: PC on December 30, 2006 10:47 AM
26. I see the local MSM immediately ran to get a quote from local terrorist sympathizer, Jeff Siddiqui of the Muslims of Puget Sound. Amazingly, Siddiqui thinks the execution of a twisted mass murderer will only make the world view America as being anti-Muslim, anti-Arab.

If Saddam represented the best of what Islam has to offer, than all Americans should be anti-Muslim. Not sure how Siddiqui explains the thousands of Muslim-on-Muslim murders going on in Iraq; I suppose it's GWB's fault.

We shouldn't mourn Saddam's passing. After all, he's waking up this morning trying to decide which of 72 virgins he'll sleep with tonight.

Posted by: Organization Man on December 30, 2006 11:01 AM
27. If ever a monster deserved and needed to be executed, Saddam was it. However, if we're going to begin protesting official executions (as opposed to all the free-lance ones) in SW Asia, let's start with those of people convicted of lesser crimes. You know, desperate criminals like 16 yr old "adulterers", gays, "apostates" . . . surely we can find a better poster child among all of them.

Posted by: starboardhelm on December 30, 2006 11:27 AM
28. Now maybe we can end this adventure and bring everyone home.

Posted by: Libertarian on December 30, 2006 12:12 PM
29. Okay.
All you pro war guys who couldn't wait for the weapons inspectors and decided to invade RIGHT NOW. (In spite of the CIA finding out and telling the Pentagon and White House that Saddam Hussein did NOT have weapons of mass destruction.)

Now that Saddam Hussein is dead, where do we go to get the 3,000 kids' lives back?
Not to mention the $1,000,000,000,000.00 or so that we have spent.

Posted by: Jim on December 30, 2006 12:23 PM
30. Sadaam is beheaded, well almost... The murdering thug got what he deserved. We could stand to take lessons from Iraq in dispensing justice - they didn't waste time.

Now, there needs to be a new direction in the war/occupation in Iraq. The president can improve or ruin his place in history - depending on what happens over the course of the next 2 years. There is no easy way to rectify this situation - however, clearly the wrong way is to proceed without changing the course. Stop the politically correct fighting & give the troops the tools to engage the enemy under any terms - it is either kill or be killed in some instances. I am skeptical about sending more troops in and that really shouldn't happen until this action is justified with a new plan.

Stay out of Bagdad ! unless Al-Sadr is there & the Iraqi Government specifically says go there. Also, why did we never make an attempt to secure the borders with Iran and Syria ? Even if there has been some attempt, there was no PR from the White House/Pentagon about that. Seems like Bush has no interest in securing borders - (just calling it like I see it). We need to capture or preferably kill Al-Sadr soon, and unless that happens - expect an increase in sectarian violence in response to Sadaam's execution.

Posted by: KS on December 30, 2006 12:33 PM
31. Thank you for correcting my sloppy quotation of Jefferson. I apologize for my error. (I do like the proper quote much better.)

Saddam was executed for a mass murder he'd ordered in 1982. In late December of 1983, Donald Rumsfeld shook his hand. (Another great moment in morality from the Reagan Administration!) We sure know how to set a wonderful example for the rest of the world, hm?

Our 'morality' was always simple. We embraced him when we thought it served our interests, and we removed him when we thought it served our interests. That we seem to have been wrong on both occasions does not in any way alter our utter subservience to expediency -- it just adds incompetence to our list of unappealing attributes.

Poor Rummy-- when he finally goes on trial, his only character witness will no longer be alive to testify on his behalf.

Posted by: Paddy Mac on December 30, 2006 01:17 PM
32. Paddy: I sincerely wish you a Happy New Year, and hope that you wake up on New Years Day miraculously seeing your glass half full rather than half empty.

Posted by: katomar on December 30, 2006 01:45 PM
33. Paddy Mac,

It seems to me that you only think we have unappealing attributes. Can you list any appealing ones, or are you so blinded to the greatness of our nation?

Posted by: Michael H on December 30, 2006 01:48 PM
34. "It seems to me that you only think we have unappealing attributes. Can you list any appealing ones, or are you so blinded to the greatness of our nation?"

We have the largest diversity of religions in the history of the world. Neither the Roman nor British Empries ever contained so many disparate beliefs. Yet, unlike those governments, we have no sectarian violence. We prove, by living example, how persons of different faiths can live together in peace. In a world with so many religious conflicts, we provide a shining example of the best possible situation. We actually live the ideal other countries want, but cannot obtain. Every American should be proud of this, especially during this time of (several concurrent) Holiday Seasons. I certainly feel great pride in our accomplishments, especially when they align perfectly with our stated beliefs. It shows the rightness of our values, and the rewards for sticking to our great principles.

We led the worldwide struggles against Fascism and Communism, resolutely winning a crushing defeat in each case. Freedom reigns supreme in more places than it ever has, and the U.S.A. deserves a huge amount of the credit. We should have little problem with a handful of religious nut cases, but that relatively small conflict bedevils us still. This is especially puzzling given our great history of religious diversity. Why can we not leverage our strengths to defeat a bunch of people who live in caves? Especially when their ideology holds little appeal for most of their fellow Muslims, and no appeal for anyone else.

If I didn't care about this country, I could just leave. But I love the United States, and I believe that our greatest days lie ahead of us. It hurts to have us make such huge mistakes, as we repeatedly have in Iraq. That image of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand rankles still. Think about it. Rummy went there because the Reagan Administration feared a collapse of Saddam's regime, after Iraq had launched an unprovoked invasion of Iran. We supported a dictator who'd slaughtered his own citizens, and rewarded him for his external aggression. Does it come as any surprise that his victim list grew much longer after that, or that he'd invade yet another country? We bear some responsibility for encouraging him, even if we thought it served our interests to do so at the time. (Wouldn't working to end the Iran-Iraq war have served our interests even better?) Aggravating our stupidity, we have now created the very conditions which Reagan sent Rumsfeld to prevent! We've lost more Americans than died on 9/11, and the radical theocracy of Iran gets whatever benefits come from our invasion. If we wanted to stop radical Islam -- and I certianly do -- we've done just the opposite. ("The stupid! It burns!")

Posted by: Paddy Mac on December 30, 2006 02:26 PM
35. Paddy, do you remember a guy named Josef Stalin? He was one of our allies during the Second World War. He was also a horrid dictator and mass murderer. There are photos of FDR shaking his hand. Get it? Probably not.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 30, 2006 02:57 PM
36. "If I didn't care about this country, I could just leave."

If only. And can you take the other terrorist sympathizers with you?

Thanks, PM... much appreciated.

Posted by: Hinton on December 30, 2006 03:34 PM
37. Dear libs,

sorry for your loss.

Posted by: libsrpatheticcoddlers on December 30, 2006 03:35 PM
38. "Why can we not leverage our strengths to defeat a bunch of people who live in caves?

What is being leveraged is the message from the US leftists to every terrorist in the world ..,we do not support our nation, we support any terrorist that will work against America.
Sen Rockefeller is so proud of his trip to meet with the terrorists (long before our troops went in to Iraq) in Jan 2002.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175433,00.htm
This month we have Sen Nelson, Sen Kerry, Sen Dodd, Sen Specter and others flying off to meet
with leaders of countries that are committed to defeating the US.
We had the same in the 1970's, American soldiers defending a nation, that American leftists led by John Kerry destroyed. John Kerry's own statements in front of the Committee on Foreign Relations on the US Senate on 22 Apr 1971 admitted that he met with our enemies, while they were killing American soldiers, adopted and promoted the enemies position.
In 2004, the Democrats nominated John Kerry to be their candidate for President of the US. Every terrorist in the world got the message..

If the American left supported America, South Vietnam would still be a free nation, and Iraq would have been over long ago. Terrorists can not defeat the American military. Only the American left can defeat America. There are American leftists in both major parties today.

Posted by: Pagar on December 30, 2006 03:48 PM
39. Isn't it customary in Iraq to hang the body in public for a couple of days in his home town?

Haven't we offended their dignity by not cutting off his head with a dull knife on live video?

I'm terrified that this execution was perhaps too westernized for iraqi culture.

Posted by: Andy on December 30, 2006 04:11 PM
40. http://blogs.abcnews.com/bizarrebazaar/2006/12/saddams_hanging.html#comment-27102907


I would not dance around the death of any man.

Posted by: fRed on December 30, 2006 05:36 PM
41. Dear Mc Dermott, Sorry for your loss in Bagdad. Friends like that are hard to find I know. Good luck, there are still quite a few tyrants in the world you can warm up to.

Posted by: GS on December 30, 2006 05:48 PM
42. When do we get to hear Howard Dean say "well, this is a good thing...I guess"

Posted by: Michele on December 30, 2006 05:54 PM
43. He who lives by the wood chipper should die by the wood chipper. Hanging was to sensitive. Rest in Hell -- not.

Posted by: James M. Olsen on December 30, 2006 06:26 PM
44. "Paddy, do you remember a guy named Josef Stalin? He was one of our allies during the Second World War. He was also a horrid dictator and mass murderer. There are photos of FDR shaking his hand. Get it? Probably not."

Indeed, Churchill was concerned about what we were doing in the name of freedom and liberty. Then again, the British Empire was not exactly the latest word in those areas, either. Perhaps FDR should not have provided Lend-Lease Aid?

We took full advantage of one dictatorship attacking another, and we eventually finished both of them off. If we bowed to expediency, at least it worked. The Reagan Administration provided weapons to Iran during the 1980's as well, lying to the world about it. So what purpose did Rumsfeld's embrace of Saddam serve? As I wrote, if we want to justify a policy on the basis of expediency, the policy should at least work.

In reality, we have to make careful choices in the world, and we can't always do the pure thing. But aiding Saddam and the Iranian Imams simultaneously was worse than useless. (Rumsfeld in particular seems to have learned nothing from a failed policy he himself had implemented.) Rashly toppling a secular despot, when a radical theocracy right next door was just waiting to take advantage, was also worse than useless. (It also detracts from our real struggle against Islamic extremism, currently flailing in Afghanistan.)

(BTW, Hitler declared war upon the United States. We didn't just decide to go take him out one day.)

"If the American left supported America, South Vietnam would still be a free nation, and Iraq would have been over long ago. "

Wow, what's the weather like on your planet? Do you seriously think the Sunni insurgency depends in any way on what American leftists think or do? This President did everything his way on Iraq, utterly unihibited by anyone, for the last four years. And the gawdawful mess that is Iraq is his result. Saddam's removal of power (now permanently) is the only good result, and 'good' only if we refuse to look at how much the radicals in Iran have benefited.

Do you believe that if the Parliament had kept financing the war in the colonies, America would not have become independent? The occupier simply could not win, even against a few (barely) regular troops, because enough of the locals supported the effort. The French (and Americans) had to learn this again in Viet Nam, and we're going through it once more, a lesson we taught the world in the first place.

Posted by: Paddy Mac on December 30, 2006 07:33 PM
45. Paddy Mac, does Will Duranty mean anything to you? It biggest problem really isn't tyrants who are the problem. They are easy to kill. The proplem is here in the USA when we have to deal with their ENABELERS. America is loaded up with GREAT human beings who would take on the likes of Sadam, the problem is those who WORSHIP the likes of him. Go fly a kite, is what I say. Take a CLOSE OBJECTIVE look and see what the likes of you have wrought.

Posted by: JDH on December 30, 2006 09:55 PM
46. Paddy:
Give it up. These clowns have been force-fed the Saddam/WMD/heartbreak of psoriasis koolaid so long that it's too late. I think a bunch of 'em here are in the 17% who think more troops = answer.

They congratulate themselves for getting Saddam, (the troubles with which were documented 16 years ago), as if that will somehow make up for this incompetently run occupation.

Now that Saddam is dead, where do I go to get the 3,000 dead U.S. kids and 600,000 dead Iraqis and my trillion dollars back?

Lest they forget, the European head of the CIA told the Pentagon and White House BEFORE Bush's war that Saddam told his senior staff that he had NO WMDs and NO WMD PROGRAMS.

By the way, pseudo-conservative Bushbots, how's that national debt going?

Posted by: Jim on December 30, 2006 09:55 PM
47. We have rounded up KNOWN terrorists and the likes of you DEMAND that they be given protections that common criminals get. WTF Homer, these people make clear what their aims are yet you think them abused because they are denied Habius Corpus??? WTF this is a conflict of visions. These people are trying to either DESTROY CIVILIZATION or get civilazation to become total missoginistic filth and worse. I can't for the life of me figgure why you and the likes of you are so opposed to Christianty, yet you crawl on your belly to embrace what these people are demanding?? Oh yea...they have every right to believe..... give me a break!!!!

Posted by: JDH on December 30, 2006 10:05 PM
48. well said... if only our own America haters within our own country would listen:

A PROUD DAY FOR U.S. AND A LESSON FOR TYRANTS
By RALPH PETERS
NEW YORK POST

December 30, 2006 -- SADDAM Hussein is dead. The mighty dictator met a criminal's end on the gallows. The murderer responsible for 1 1/2 million corpses is just a bag of bones.

For decades, the world pandered to his fantasies, overlooking his brutality in return for strategic advantages or naked profit. Diplomats, including our own, courted him, while the world's democracies and their competitors vied to sell him arms.

Saddam always bluffed - even, fatally, about weapons of mass destruction - but the world declined to call him on his excesses. Massacres went unpunished. His invasions of neighboring states failed to draw serious punishment. He never faced personal consequences until our troops reached Baghdad (a dozen years late).

As long as Saddam paid sufficient bribes and granted the right concessions to the well-connected, the world shut its eyes to his cavalcade of atrocities. Even when his soldiers raped Kuwait, the United Nations barely summoned the will to expel his military - and the alliance led by the United States declined to liberate Iraq itself from a tyrant with a sea of blood on his hands.

Everything changed in 2003. For all of its later errors in Iraq, the Bush administration altered the course of history for the better.

It may be hard to discern the deeper meaning of our march to Baghdad amid the chaos afflicting Iraq today, but President Bush got a great thing right: He recognized that the age of dictators was ending, that the era of the popular will had arrived. He and his advisers may have underestimated the difficulties involved and misread the nature of that popular will, but they put us back on the moral side of history.

Bush revealed the bankruptcy of the European-designed system of international relations. An unspoken code agreed between kings and czars, emperors and kaisers, had protected rulers - however monstrous - for centuries, while ignoring the suffering of the masses. The result was that any Third World thug who seized a presidential palace could ravage his country as long as his crimes remained within his "sovereign" borders.

Supported by other English-speaking democracies, Bush acted. Breaking Europe's cynical rules, our forces invaded a dictatorship to liberate its population.

And suddenly, the world was no longer safe for tyrants.

No matter the policy failures in the wake of Baghdad's fall, the destruction of Saddam's regime remains a historical turning point. When our troops later dragged the dictator out of a fetid hole, every other president-for-life shivered at the image.

Tonight, none of those other oppressors will sleep well. They may try to console themselves that America is failing in Iraq, that we've learned our lessons. But no matter what they tell themselves, they'll never feel safe again.

We set a noble precedent, and the critics who insist that deposing Saddam was a mistake are rushing to a very premature judgment.

We did a great thing by overthrowing Saddam. We may have done it poorly, but we did it. We also revealed the hypocrisy of those governments who sold out their professed values for oil money (and pathetically cheaply, too).

From Paris and Berlin through Moscow and Beijing, many will never forgive us. We should be honored.

Was justice done when the trapdoor opened under Saddam's feet? In a clinical sense, yes. But such an easy death was far too kind. He should have been turned loose, naked and handcuffed, in the central square of Halabja, where the survivors of his most notorious poison gas attack could have ripped his flesh with their bare hands.

But we live in a civilized community of nations. Bloodthirsty dictators must be executed humanely - and over the protests of human-rights advocates who insist they shouldn't be executed at all.

Still, Saddam's death was a last humiliation for him. He lived long enough to see his sons die, destroying his dynastic dreams. And long enough to discover that all those Iraqis jumping up and down and crying "We will die for you, Saddam!" didn't really mean it.

Given all of the recent violence in Iraq, it's remarkable how little has been committed in support of Saddam - occasional demonstrations on his home ground, and little else. There'll be a hiccup of violence now, but even his fellow Baathists have been seeking to regain power for themselves, not for their erstwhile master. (And it's easy to picture their relief at the death of the man they, too, once had to fear.)

The various factions of Iraq are fighting for many things - but Saddam hasn't been one of them. Sycophantic lawyers - Western and Iraqi - doubtless whispered that the people still supported him, that they and his Western friends would never let him hang. (He must have thought ruefully of Ramsey Clark as the noose tightened around his neck.)

Saddam's pathetic grandeur lies in ruins. Millions will celebrate his death; few will mourn. In the end, the all-powerful dictator was just a delusional old man in a cage insisting, "I am the president of Iraq!"

Of course, the Middle East has an ongoing problem with reality. Conspiracy theorists who insisted that the United States was keeping Saddam alive to restore him to power as part of a complex plot will now suggest that one of Saddam's doubles went to the gallows, that the dictator still lives, held in reserve by mysterious forces.

But Saddam Hussein is dead, condemned to death by an Iraqi court. Even the die-hards will figure it out in time.

Again, we can be proud that the United States of America brought him down. And that no dictator can ever feel entirely safe again.

President Bush changed the world. For all of today's carnage and confusion, and despite the appalling policy errors after Baghdad fell, the future will show that the change was for the better.

again, well said... if only our own America haters within our own country would listen... but they won't, for they find persverse pleasure in blaming their President and countrymen.


Posted by: Ragnar Danneskold on December 30, 2006 10:22 PM
49. Paddy Mac, Does one have to DECLARE WAR, or do their actions speak for them? SADAM was AT WAR with us period. Deny that big shot. Actually let me tell you what it wqs... Sadam was using Islamic nut cases to further his aims. USA is GREAT because of our values, he couldn't understand that with the wealth (from oil) the middle east was still backward. Get a clue, monetary wealth gives you NOTHING, it is what is behind that wealth creation that counts. The USA has systematically become GREAT because of thevalues that have also lead to monetary wealth for our country. Yea you can point to abuses, but they are self correcting (it's harder now that we are moving away from being a Nation of Laws) and conferring privlige based on what group you belong to, but we still have the best path to individualo greatness that has ever existed and that is what i under the skin of Islamists. Plain and simple, it's the politics of ENVY that fuels the rise of Sadams just as it was the driving force behind the the Soviet Union and Pol Pot's regime. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. I don't give statists the benefit of the doubt, you are all the same to me.

Posted by: JDH on December 30, 2006 10:23 PM
50. Enough with the responses to Paddy Mac. He's like the enemy within that Savage talks about. Thinks his own country is horribly evil. Pretends to care about the military when we know that the left barely tolerates the military. (Michael Medved confirms that; he used to be a lib, and would therefore know such). In fact, if you're Bill Clinton, you LOATHE the military. (you can't deny that one y'all on the Left). Just let PM alone now. One day he may yet see the light that Saddam really WAS a bad guy, and that the U.S. might be a beacon of light after all.

Posted by: Me on December 30, 2006 10:33 PM
51. "Pretends to care about the military when we know that the left barely tolerates the military. (Michael Medved confirms that; he used to be a lib, and would therefore know such)."

Rep. McDermott served in the U.S. Navy during the American War in Viet Nam. He opposed invading Iraq. Mr. Medved avoided military service. "Dulce bellum inexpertis." ('War is sweet to those who know it not.')

" SADAM was AT WAR with us period. Deny that big shot."

When and where did he attack us? When did he declare war? Al-Qa'eda attacked us on 9/11; Saddam had nothing to do with it. We've let Al-Qa'eda and their Taliban hosts regenerate in Afghanistan while our soldiers die in Iraq. And for what? The benefit of radical Islamists in Iran. Huge swaths of Iraq are now under Sharia law, just like in Iran. We've paid 3,000 lives and one trillion dollars for this. Why?

Posted by: Paddy Mac on December 30, 2006 11:15 PM
52. Paddy @17

"We tried the Nazis and Imperial Japanese commanders for invading countries which had not threatened them. Saddam's evil regime did not threaten us; heck, the Reagan Administration even supported him. (Did Ronald Reagan hate America? How about Donald Rumsfeld?)"


Well then by your standard we'd have to hsng FDR because he attacked Germany even though it never attacked us.

Posted by: pbj on December 30, 2006 11:53 PM
53. "Rep. McDermott served in the U.S. Navy during the American War in Viet Nam. "

McDermott was a psychologist that spent the entire Vietnam War in California in an air conditioned office. Saying he "served in the war" is a lie. He served in a cushy stateside position while others such as John McCain served in the Navy during the Vietnam War.

Posted by: pbj on December 30, 2006 11:56 PM
54. "Well then by your standard we'd have to hsng FDR because he attacked Germany even though it never attacked us."

Germany's dictator declared war upon us, after Germany's ally attacked our Navy. Under international law, that sufficed for us to prosecute war against Germany. When did Saddam declare war upon us? When did his allies attack us? (Did he even have allies?)

Again, we've paid 3,000 lives and one trillion dollars to see sections of Iraq under sharia law. Why?

Posted by: Paddy Mac on December 30, 2006 11:58 PM
55. 'Saying he "served in the war" is a lie.'

Which is why I didn't say it. As you yourself quoted me:

"Rep. McDermott served in the U.S. Navy during the American War in Viet Nam. "

He was (and is) a psychiatrist, not a psychologist, and his job was to evaluate Americans who'd served in Viet Nam. He had to decide whether to send them back into war or not. He saw how the war had hurt them, and whether they could take any more of that horrific experience. I would not ever want to do that job.

One of my female co-workers has a son, a Marine who served in Fallujah. (Or, "that hell," as she describes it.) That city, last I checked, was under sharia law. He fought so that women like his mother now cannot work like she does. Why?

Posted by: Paddy Mac on December 31, 2006 12:07 AM
56. When and where did he attack us? When did he declare war?

Well technically, we had a cease fire arrangement from the gulf war which he spent 14 years violating.

And as noted, he was allies with an enemy that attacked us.

Finally, his plotting to asassinate a sitting US president was fairly unfriendly, wasn't it?

But this is moot, he was executed for the least smidgeon of the tip of the iceberg of his brutality against his own people.

He had no defense. Everyone knew it.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Posted by: LSU on December 31, 2006 03:05 AM
57. Paddy, your whining about Sharia law just provides all the more justification to stay in Iraq and make it a stable democracy.

Thanks for sharing that.

Posted by: LSU on December 31, 2006 03:06 AM
58. Like most others, I believe that this has been a long time coming. What I find amazing is the news coverage. The careful use of the English language and the small headlines. This is true for all of the liberal media, but for Fox. When it was announced I surfed all of the news sites and they all had headlines but they were small and went away quickly. This was a momentous day in history for the world and for the US. We should be proud of what was accomplished here...

Posted by: Jeff - Seattle WA on December 31, 2006 08:06 AM
59. Paddy Whack stated:

When and where did he attack us? When did he declare war?

Saddam attacked Kuwait who had a defensive agreement with the US. An attack against Kuwait was in effect an attack against the US, we were obligated by agreements to defend Kuwait.

Paddy Whack stated:
Al-Qa'eda attacked us on 9/11; Saddam had nothing to do with it.

Saddam supported terrorists in direct defiance of UN resolution 687 which was the agreement to end hostilities against Iraq, an agreement that Saddam and the Iraqi government agreed to in order to end the hostilieties during the first gulf war. An agreement that Saddam refused to abide by.

Paddy Whack stated:
We've let Al-Qa'eda and their Taliban hosts regenerate in Afghanistan while our soldiers die in Iraq.

Regenerate? While there is some resurgance in Taliban activities it a far cry from the level before our invasion of Afghanistan. Remember Afghanistan has held it's own democratic elections, agreed on a constuitution and elected it's own leaders since the Taliban were removed. This makes your statement above seem quite ludicrous.

Paddy Whack stated:
And for what? The benefit of radical Islamists in Iran. Huge swaths of Iraq are now under Sharia law, just like in Iran. We've paid 3,000 lives and one trillion dollars for this. Why?

Because we are at war with radical muslims that is why. Our enemies are out to destroy us and everything we stand for, listen to what they say and look at their actions.
We have fifth columnists like yourself that work in their behalf. Fifth columnists that question everything that we do and refuse to question the motive and actions of our enemies.
Who is our real enemy? Is it the terrorists or people like yourself that give them comfort? I say it is both. As long as we have people like yourself who do not realize or acknowledge that we are at war with people who will use all methods and means to kill us we are in grave danger. We cannot fight a politically correct war and win against an enemy that has no such politically correct boundaries.
When are people like yourself going to wake up? Will it take a nuke detonation in one of our major cities before you and your fifth column friends decide it is politically correct to protect our country at any cost?

Posted by: Cliff on December 31, 2006 08:17 AM
60. Paddy Whack stated:

When and where did he attack us? When did he declare war?

Saddam attacked Kuwait who had a defensive agreement with the US. An attack against Kuwait was in effect an attack against the US, we were obligated by agreements to defend Kuwait.

Let us not forget his possible involvement in the original WTC bombing in 1993.

Posted by: Mike H on December 31, 2006 09:51 AM
61. Now, Cliff... confusing the fringe with facts just makes their heads explode while throwing off their interchangeable "Hate Bush/Hate America" mantra.

Posted by: Hinton on December 31, 2006 10:25 AM
62. So, PM... could you source your assertion that Fallujah is under "sharia law?"

I ran a quick google and came up wit5h something in mid 04 that made that assertion.

But of course, since then, most of the islamofascist scum has been driven out.

My advice to you?

Make "last time I checked" a little more frequent then 2 years ago.

Posted by: Hinton on December 31, 2006 10:31 AM
63. Mike, It seems a little more than "possible"...

Abdul Yasin the WTC 1 bomb maker escaped to Iraq and was employed by the Iraqi government at the time of the invasion.

Ramzi Yousef the mastermind of WTC1 was a career Iraqi intelligence operator.

And lets not forget the killer of Leon Klinghoffer, abbu abbas. Remember him? He was also living in Baghdad under the protection of the Saddam regime.

How easy it is to forget Saddam's ties to terrorism and what led up to the Invasion of Iraq. Everyone remembers the WMD issue and the lack of them found in Iraq but WMD's were only part of the reason we invaded. Everything else is forgotten except the one issue that proved to be based on bad intelligence.

How easy it is to forget.....

Posted by: Cliff on December 31, 2006 10:37 AM
64. Hinton,
Fallujah was at one time given to the Sunni Iraqi's to control. Remember the first proposed invasion of Fallujah? The operation was abandonded and the Iraqi's were allowed to control Fallujah which led to a massive build up of arms and terrorists. At the time it was controlled by Sharia law.....but not for long. The US Marines ended that after they realized just how bad of an idea it was hence the second and final invasion of Fallujah.

Posted by: Cliff on December 31, 2006 10:44 AM
65. Paddy at #44, in regarding U.S. support of Saddam in Iran-Iraq war versus U.S. (under FDR) support for Stalin during WWII:

"We took full advantage of one dictatorship attacking another, and we eventually finished both of them off. If we bowed to expediency, at least it worked."

Expediency? It took 45 YEARS to finish off the "other" dictatorship. And what about the generations of eastern Europeans who were condemned to live under communist dictators during those 45 years? And the millions who died as the Soviets sponsored directly and indirectly communist revolutionary forces in dozens of countries around the world? What portion of the 33,000 AMERICANS killed in Korea and the 50,000+ AMERICANS killed in Vietnam can be attributed to Soviet support (especially advisors and military hardware) resulting from this "expedient" decision?

You've got a serious problem with perspective. You might want to take a history class. Also, by your own criterion, you might want to wait until 2025 (or 2045) to see how this all turns out.

Posted by: Ex-WA on December 31, 2006 10:56 AM
66. "Finally, his plotting to asassinate a sitting US president was fairly unfriendly, wasn't it?"

The United States has made repeated attempts on Castro's life; therefore, Cuba can attack the United States any time later. Somehow, I think not.

Whether we ever had a defensive agreement with Kuwait was a very hot topic in August of 1990; that invasion was reversed in early 1991, and Iraq had made no moves against Kuwait since.

The practical effect of our invasion and occupation has been to increase Iran's influence in the region, put parts of Iraq under sharia law, and detract from our proper anti-terrorist work in Afghanistan, whose Taliban government did have involvement in 9/11. Adding more troops to Iraq will do what -- make each of these problems worse?

If we're not going to eradicate the Islamic extremists in Afghanistan-- and our current Administration has shown little to no interest in fighting Islamic extremists over there -- we should at least refrain from assisting the Islamists in Iran and Iraq. But why listen to reason now? You've ignored it for four years and running already, so I guess it's working for you, hm? What's 3,000 dead American soldiers, a missing trillion (!) dollars, when we've acheived such great glory?

Posted by: Paddy Mac on December 31, 2006 11:50 AM
67. Ex-WA at 64: The history classes I took described different kinds of conflicts. The fact remains that we allied with the Soviet Union when Hitler forced us to (we didn't choose that alliance) and turned on the Soviets afterwards. History teaches us to choose conflicts carefully. (What military force were we supposed to exert against the Soviet Union, which had nuclear weapons and a huge army?)

Our imperial military misadventure in Viet Nam harmed our prosecution of the Cold War. In my history class, I learned that the Cold War ended even with all of Viet Nam under Communist rule. Therefore, preventing a Communist take-over of south Viet Nam was irrelevant to winning the Cold War. We should have avoided that conflict entirely.

Our invasion and occupation of Iraq have harmed our efforts against Islamic extremism in Afghanistan. On that basis alone I oppose it, because our efforts should go against the Taliban, Al-Qa'eda, etc. Squandering more military strength in Iraq will not improve the situation in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

Posted by: Paddy Mac on December 31, 2006 12:03 PM
68. Guys, I think we need to stop responding to Paddy Mac's tirades. It's obviously an ego trip for him, or maybe he's practicing writing a thesis on our time. Obviously he's of the mistaken impression that he is pseudo intellectually besting everyone, so we need to just ignore him and maybe he'll go elsewhere.

Posted by: katomar on December 31, 2006 02:23 PM
69. "Germany's dictator declared war upon us, after Germany's ally attacked our Navy. Under international law, that sufficed for us to prosecute war against Germany. When did Saddam declare war upon us? When did his allies attack us? (Did he even have allies?)"


Sept 11, 2001 his Al Qaeda allies attacked us. Furthermore, his sons declared war when they called for attacks against America in their state owned newspaper following the Sept 11 attacks.


And please tell me when Bosnia attacked or declared war upon us? Under your standards, Clinton should be hanged.


Posted by: pbj on December 31, 2006 03:55 PM
70. As for paddy's assertion that the Taliban has "regenerated", that is a lie. There may be a few crazies hiding in a cave, but probably no more than the gang member in Compton California. By those standards, the Democrats have let the Nazi party regenerate in Germany as there are still Nazi's in Germany.

And Paddy, how is Truman's Korean War going? Have we won that one yet? It's only been 45+ years!!!

Apparently Carter and Clinton thought the way to win it was to give the North Koreans nuclear technology. How is that strategy working out for ya?

Posted by: pbj on December 31, 2006 04:03 PM
71. "In my history class, I learned that the Cold War ended even with all of Viet Nam under Communist rule. Therefore, preventing a Communist take-over of south Viet Nam was irrelevant to winning the Cold War. We should have avoided that conflict entirely."

Your history class apparently forgot to tell you that JFK started that war. He was also responsible fro the assassination of legitimately elected president Diem in 1963. It is fitting Kennedy also died by the same means he chose for others to die.

Posted by: pbj on December 31, 2006 04:08 PM
72. Oh an Paddy, my source on Kennedy's assassination of Diem is the JFK library, so you can't hide behind assusations of a right wing plot there.

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/JFK+in+History/Vietnam.htm

"A few weeks later, on November 1, 1963, in a coup given tacit approval by the Kennedy administration, the South Vietnamese government was overthrown. President Diem, refusing an American offer of safety contingent upon his resignation, was assassinated. "

Posted by: pbj on December 31, 2006 04:11 PM
73. As for Paddy's diatribe on McDermott, paddy clearly meant to imply he was in combat, which he never was. Instead, he sat out the war in an air conditioned office in California.

More Republican who sent out nation to war have served in the military than Democrats. C'mon Paddy challenge me on it! I DARE ya!

Posted by: pbj on December 31, 2006 04:22 PM
74. WWI - Woodrow Wilson - coward never served.
WWII FDR - Never served. And for our military illiterate Democrat friends, Assistant Secretary of the Navy is NOT a military position, it is a civilian one.

William Jefferson Clinton - Coward who never served and even protested his nation on foreign soil. Illegally sent troops into Bosnia without UN approval without Bosnia having attacked us.

Posted by: pbj on December 31, 2006 04:25 PM
75. Since it seems to be a consensus, now we can get on with Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Venezuela, Syria... Why not just execute the head of Texas!!!

Posted by: Wondering on December 31, 2006 06:04 PM
76. An entire thread on Paddy, basically. Say it ain't so.

Posted by: Out with the old; in with the new on December 31, 2006 07:12 PM
77. Wondering wrote:
Since it seems to be a consensus, now we can get on with Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Venezuela, Syria... Why not just execute the head of Texas!!!


What do you have against Governor Rick Perry, an air force veteran?

Posted by: Edmonds Dan on December 31, 2006 08:53 PM
78. Paddy @ 67: I don't know why I bother, but you missed the point. You said that FDR's alliance with the Soviets was the correct move because, 45 years later, it turned out OK. Then you go on to say with certainty how wrong our invasion of Iraq was, after 3+ years. Do you see the disconnect? Remember when the Israelis took out the Osirak reactor back in 1981? Despite the initial protests, many realize now that this might have been a good thing not just for Israel, but the entire region. Unfortunately, history doesn't give us the chance to see different scenarios, like some video games. Despite what you were told in your history class, we cannot know what would have happened had we not fought in Vietnam. Can you say with certainty that without losing hundreds of thousands of soldiers to the Americans and South Vietnamese, that the North Vietnamese wouldn't have had more regional ambitions in SE Asia? While you said that US deaths in Vietnam were useless in the context of the cold war, you blew off my statement about Korea. What seemed like a useless war at the time allowed a democracy to flourish in South Korea, and nowhere can you see a greater contrast between democracy and a communist dictatorship than on that peninsula.

The point is you are arrogant in believing that you know the answers now. Yes, we must pick our conflicts carefully, but we can't yet judge Iraq as a lost cause.

Posted by: Ex-WA on January 1, 2007 09:05 AM
79. Paddy chooses to be misinformed. He and alot of secular progressives employ the strategy that heir Gerbles (sp ?) used in Nazi Germany - speak of lies enough times and the masses will eventually begin to believe it. You think that just because this is the USA that it can't happen here ? Guess again !

Here's a question: Why did Walter Cronkite lie to the nation about the result of the 10th offensive in Vietnam back in 1968 by saying we were losing - instead of the actual fact that we were winning ?
Face it, it happened and was a major turning point in that war.
(I was opposed to that war, but was too young to understand all of the ramifications then. However, looking back on that event, that lie helped embolden the enemy and was a big blow to the morale of our troops). Judging Iraq as a lost cause has been done by much of the mainstream media, in an power hungry effort by the media to emulate what Cronkite was able to do - in a disgraceful way ! That is why many on the right want to call your ilk traitors - even when they may disagree with the principle of this war. Why do you and the mainstream media want to embolden the enemy ?

Posted by: KS on January 1, 2007 11:31 AM
80. KS, it's something intrinsic to the left whereby they see any defeat for the United States as a "good." Some have speculated that in order to remake the Country the way they want to, they must first tear down what exists. I think this has a ring of truth to it.

Posted by: JDH on January 1, 2007 08:47 PM
81. 80 - Sadly, I agree with your analysis - the secular progressives who want to change this country are very self-centered and narcissitic and obviously don't care about the effects it will have on others. I think that the so-called Euro-trash are somehow feeding into this. Al-Qaeda loves them and unbeknowningst to them, they are fighting on the same side, but it doesn't matter to them because they don't care.

The battle lines have been drawn; Welcome to the culture war !

Posted by: KS on January 2, 2007 07:47 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?