Judge-to-Saddam: 'You were not a dictator'

[maddezmom]

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The chief judge in Saddam Hussein's genocide trial said Thursday that he does not believe Saddam was a dictator.

Judge Abdullah al-Amiri made the remark in a friendly exchange with the deposed leader, a day after the prosecution said the judge should step down because he is biased toward the defense. Saddam and his co-defendants are being tried on charges of committing atrocities against Kurds in northern Iraq nearly two decades ago.

Questioning a Kurdish witness Thursday, Saddam said, "I wonder why this man wanted to meet with me, if I am a dictator?"

The judge interrupted: "You were not a dictator. People around you made you (look like) a dictator."

"Thank you," Saddam responded, bowing his head in respect

more:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060914/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saddam_trial

[Demeter]

1. He Looked Like A Dictator To Me--Or A Bush Lackey Gone Astray

What difference does it make, anyway?

[maddezmom]

2. perhaps bias by the judge?

Sept. 13, 2006, 10:07AM
Prosecutor in Saddam's genocide trial demands judge step down


By QAIS Al-BASHIR
Associated Press

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- The chief prosecutor in Saddam Hussein's genocide trial demanded that the presiding judge step down, accusing him today of bias toward the deposed leader and his co-defendants.

"You allowed this court to become a political podium for the defendants," roared the prosecutor, Munqith al-Faroon, as judge Abdullah al-Amiri listened.

Saddam thundered Tuesday against "agents of Iran and Zionism" and vowed to "crush your heads" after listening to Kurdish witnesses tell of the horrors committed by the fallen regime two decades ago.

Al-Faroon alleged that al-Amiri was giving Saddam the time to make "political" statements that were irrelevant to the proceedings.

~snip~
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/4183300.html

[daleo]

20. That part reminded me of a Kids in the Hall skit

"vowed to "crush your heads""

[hippiechick]

3. Yeah, ultimately ...

If the BFEE still liked/had use for him, he'd still be a free man.
But since he thumbed his nose at his creators, they had to take him down as an 'evil despot' who 'wanted to conquer his neighbors' and 'gas small children'.

By no means is he a benevolent, likeable man, but then again, who is when they've been groomed and given a banana republic to do with pretty much as they please ?

WTFever. :shrug:

[okieinpain]

12. thank you, I wish some one would smack the shit out of a repug

with that when the repugs start in with that evil dictator shit.

[Anakin Skywalker]

49. It's the Latter. We were pals with him back in the 80s.

[bananas]

4. "I will crush your head"

http://www.flickr.com/groups/isquishyourhead/pool

[HuffleClaw]

5. funny that suddenly the judge is deemed 'biased' by the media

the 'trial' of saddam has always been a joke in any case. i wonder what they have planned for him next?

[maddezmom]

6. he was deemed biased by the prosecuter

Prosecutor in Saddam's genocide trial demands judge step down

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/4183300.html

[Kagemusha]

9. Which is tantamount to calling for a public stoning of the judge.

Really, in what country - besides Iraq - is the prosecutor allowed to publicly chew the judge out during court that he's biased and should step down?

[geek tragedy]

74. Attorneys make motions to disqualify judges all the time,

frequently alleging that the judge is biased against their client or in favor of a defendant, etc etc.

And, to be honest, this judge has given every indication that he IS biased in favor of Saddam. Anyone who thinks that Saddam wasn't a dictator is a brainwashed tool.

[Kagemusha]

76. Motions aren't yelling at the judge in public!

People have been killed in that country for less.

I see from another post that this is the new trial not the old one where the judge got replaced with a Kurd from a town where Saddam had done bad things...

[geek tragedy]

78. No, but we have politicians on Capitol Hill tacitly encouraging

violence against the judiciary.

[Kagemusha]

80. In Iraq the odds of this guy dying are a LOT higher.

I mean, now that he's been called out in public as a Saddam sympathizing scumbag.

I have a problem even with "tacitly" encouraging but, this is not behavior that should occur in any civilized society.

[muryan]

34. this is a different trial/judge than the previous

this one does seem much more biased than the judge in the previous trial.

[urbanasaurus]

46. It's a farce

The whole damn thing.

[No Exit]

7. What, really, do any of us know about Hussein?

I'm talking about those of us who are westerners and who have never been to the middle east, or who at least have never been to Iraq.

Each and every single thing I ever knew/know about Saddam Hussein, I got from the mainstream media.

I now know that the mainstream media will continuously lie.

Furthermore, there is a lot of propaganda that we are all fed from cradle to grave. Some of us may think that we've avoided being influenced by it, but I don't believe that. To take one example: those in my age range were taught, from their very cradles, that the Soviet Union was extremely dangerous and powerful, that if we weren't very, very careful (even about distant, irrelevant-to-us places like Vietnam), then communism would take over. Yes, it would take us over, and suddenly, we kids (I was one at the time) would be required to turn in our parents if our parents ever said anything that the government disapproved of! It broke my heart, thinking I'd have to turn in the folks, you know...

To cut to the chase: it was all bullshit, that stuff about the big "danger" that "communism would take over", seemingly any minute. Therefore, I don't believe what "they" tell me about Hussein. For all I know, he may have been a better and more sympathetic leader than fucking GEORGE W. BUSH/DICK CHENEY--as improbable as it is that anyone could top them for intelligence and compassion...

Now someone will come on here and say "HE GASSED HIS OWN PEOPLE BLAH BLAH BLAH". Please--get the picture. The only way I ever "know" that Hussein "gassed his own people" is b/c THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA, YES, YOU KNOW, THE LIARS? tells me that he "gassed his own people."

Hell, the head of our very own Air Force says we should try out new microwave weapons on our own people. (I say, then HE should be the first volunteer.) Wouldn't that be sort of like "gassing one's own people"?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

18. Ask Joe Wilson. n/t

[No Exit]

58. Joe knows he didn't seek to buy yellowcake from Niger...

and Joe knows a few things about Bush, too... Until Bush is put on trial, I don't see why Hussein should be placed on trial. It strikes me as selective prosecution.

[onenote]

24. we know that Hussein was a fucked up asshole

Check out amnesty international (unless you regard them as part of the mainstream media). http://web.amnesty.org/report2002/mde/iraq!Open

Does it mean iraq was a threat to the US? No. Does it mean we were justified in invading? No.
But let's not pretend that Saddam was one of the good guys...

[treestar]

28. No one said he was good. The poster was just pointing out that

what they knew was from the MSM.

AI - I believe is not part of the MSM. Their material is often used in asylum cases (where a person asks for asylum in the US due to persecution in their own country). They generally have extensive records of the human rights abuses of other countries (don't know if they are doing one for the US now, that would be interesting.)

Many other countries engage in human rights abuses, to the point where we cannot attack them all with the military. The reasons for choosing Iraq clearly have little if nothing to do with Saddam's human rights abuses. Though one can see the BFEE using it as a sop to the "bleeding heart liberals." If they were sincere, I might even be supportive. If they really claimed that attacking Iraq would get other countries to learn a lesson (clean up your human rights record or be attacked), it might fly with me. Though to have credibility with that, there would have to be no supporting of any other regime committing human rights abuses, and we know we don't have that situation.

[geek tragedy]

33. I learned that the Earth is round and that water is comprised

of oxygen and hydrogen from MAINSTREAM SOURCES.

Burying one's head is no way to understand the universe.

[No Exit]

59. As you may recall, the question of the earth being round was

met with some strenuous argument. (And even today, there are people in some red states who... but I digress.) I am just saying that if one doesn't have first-hand knowledge of something, one should be skeptical.

So, say, I don't have first-hand knowledge that the earth is round. But, say, a teacher whom I trust tells me that it is so. Okay, I learn (believe) it. But there is no one WHOM I TRUST who is currently telling me that Hussein is, say, worse than our own tin-horn dictator--Bush. There are only the mainstream media, the mighty Wurlitzer, the politicians who want to use fear/hatred of the man to manipulate me.

The same way they want to use fear to manipulate me into hating millions of middle easterners whose languages I don't know. I don't buy it. For me, these matters must at present stay in the "unknown" column.

Principles of science--such as the composition of water--are not definitively learned unless one starts with skepticism and demands actual proof.

[geek tragedy]

68. You don't trust the entire human rights community?

Because there hasn't been any doubt amongst the human rights activists who researched the issue as to what happened.

Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, PHRUSA, the United Nations--they all agree that Iraq is 100%, without a doubt the guilty party.

The only people who now claim that it was Iran are Reagan and Poppy Bush flunkies. Gee, what a coincidence that Iraq was an ally of Reagan and Poppy Bush (before Saddam invaded Kuwait) and Iran was the #1 hated enemy of the US when their 'research' blamed Iran. The 'evidence' that they produced is about as credible as Richard Perle's bowel movements.

[Jack Rabbit]

38. He gassed his own people

OK, they were Kurds. Saddam didn't regard Kurds as his own people.

We learned about that when Saddam was a US ally. Well, he was a Reagan administration ally, any way. And those in the Reagan state department and Pentagon we now call neoconservatives were whistling and looking the other way trying to pretend it didn't happen.

They knew what Saddam was and still sold him the very materials he used to commit the crime. What do think that photo of Rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands is about? Do you think Rummy was making a social call?

The corporate-owned MSM, which was as deferential to Reagan as it has been to Bush, belatedly reported the gassing of Halabjah. And somewhere, down under the fold, was the fact that the US government sold Saddam the materials to make chemical weapons.

[No Exit]

60. No argument there.

And now the very people who were apparently complicit in his APPARENT gassing of the Kurds are seeking to, um, EXECUTE Hussein.

It just doesn't seem fair to me. Why aren't Rumsfeld and those others on trial for THEIR lives?

[geek tragedy]

65. China, the USSR/Russia, France, UK, and the USA

all aided and abetted Saddam. His crimes bring shame upon all the great powers.

[geek tragedy]

51. Do the research, and you'll find plenty of evidence that

Saddam gassed his own people.

http://www.phrusa.org/research/iraq/news_2006-08-24.html

http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemiraqgas2.html

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1991/IRAQ913.htm

[ronnie624]

77. Not very convincing.

From your first link:

Official statements by the Turkish government were equivocal, neither confirming nor denying that chemical weapons had been used

*****

The Secretary General sought to send a team of experts to the region, but Iraq and Turkey denied the UN request.

*****

After waiting one month and receiving no response from the governments of Iran and Iraq, PHR elected to send the team to Turkey without further delay.

*****

Despite considerable difficulties, we believe that the mission was able to gather convincing evidence that lethal poison gas was used against the Kurds on August 25, 1988. Obtaining such evidence was the principal goal of the mission. We were not able, however, to visit all the refugee camps, although we attempted to do so. Neither were we able to meet with health professionals involved in treating the Kurds in the camps.

*****

We sought to enter three other camps near the towns of Silopi and Yuksekova, containing a total of 30,000 inhabitants, but we were denied access to these by regional officials of the Turkish government. We also briefly visited one hospital in Hakkari Province, but were unable to tour it of speak with physicians working there.

*****

The circumstances under which a medical scientist must perform an investigation are usually far from ideal, and important evidence is unavailable. Many sites where chemical attacks are alleged to have occurred are either in remote areas that are difficult to access or in territories held by belligerents who refuse access. Diagnostic medical facilities often are lacking. Investigations are difficult to organize and typically take place weeks or months after the alleged attacks. Fresh injuries undergo healing and memories begin to fade. Chemicals in samples, when available, break down.


There is also this:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - After four months and 26 witnesses, prosecutors in the Saddam Hussein trial have offered little credible testimony directly linking the former leader to the killings and torture for which he’s charged.

<http://www.showmenews.com/2006/Feb/20060205News033.asp>



There is no doubt Saddam was a brutal despot - like so many others in the world, many of which have been fully supported by the U.S. government, including Saddam - but for quite a while now, it has appeared as though the bulk of the accusations against Saddam Hussein have been more propaganda than reality.

[geek tragedy]

84. Nothing to say about the other two links?

Sorry, but you're refusing to see reality. Kinda like David Irving.

[ronnie624]

94. I see.

Instead of documentation, you offer insults. I must say, I'm not surprised.

Your second link was from the same website as your first, and Human Rights Watch has proved time and again they have more interest in gripping anecdotes than they do in evidence.

If there was anything to compel one to believe Saddam was guilty of "gassing hundreds of thousands of his own people" (not quoting you, just the popular refrain), you would have included it in one of your posts.

[geek tragedy]

98. In other words, you simply refuse to believe anyone

who's investigated the incident.

David Irving would be proud.

[cali]

69. It's because I have no faith in

the MSM that I read books. There's plenty of evidence that Hussein was indeed a brutal dictator.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CardInAustin]

11. Come on people....

don't confuse the issue. Yes, the main stream media is occasionally unreliable. Yes, we all dislike the current administration. But that does NOT mean that Saddam was anything other than a very bad man who was responsible for the death/rape/mutilation of many many innocent people. Don't let your dislike for Bush confuse the issue....Saddam is/was a very bad person and deserves to be brought to justice. W may be a very poor president, but his actions do not compare to those of Saddam, and to suggest otherwise simply makes the case for the right that much easier to make.

For the record, NO....my support for Saddam facing justice does not mean that I think the war in Iraq was a good idea.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

15. His actions do not compare to Saddam???

Hmmm, let's see:

Saddam invaded a sovereign nation. Bush? Check.

Saddam used chemical weapons on Iraqis. Bush? Check.

Saddam engaged in torture of prisoners in secret facilities. Bush? Check.

Saddam used rape as an intimidation technique. Bush? Check.

Saddam thumbed his nose at the world community and acted unilaterially. Bush? Check.

Saddam stripped his people of civil rights. Bush? Check.


Do you really want me to go on, because I could you know... :eyes:

For Iraqis, Bush is nothing' but another Saddam. Period.

[GeorgiaDem69]

19. You are way off base

Where do you get any support for the contention that Bush used lethal chemical weapons on civilians? Whether we like Bush or not his actions do not compare to what Saddam did.

[daleo]

22. White Phosphorous, at a minimum

I know there will be "that's not outlawed" responses. It is only allowed under Geneva Conventions as an illumination and/or smoke round. In Falluja (and other places, including Afghanistan) is was used as an anti-personnel round, in a built-up civilian area.

Napalm was also used in the early stages of the war. Maybe later too, but there are published reports of its use in the initial attack (on an Iraqi listening post).

[Hell Hath No Fury]

23. Sadly, I am not off base at all.

Do your research, we fried Iraqis with phosphorous and napalm -- it is documented. In fact, everything I listed has been documented.

What Bush has done to the Iraqi people IS comparable to what Saddam has done -- it's just that Saddam did it for 20+ years, not just 3+.

Bush belongs in the Hague -- he's a damn war criminal who has brought shame on our country.

[Tellurian]

27. Hell...the irony is..

Bush I, personally installed Saddam as the faux dictator in Iraq, in the first place.
Bearing in mind the archival photos of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein in better days.

[cali]

70. er, no bush I did not install Saddam

Saddam was there far before Bush I was in office.

[ForFuxakes]

31. Kaaaaaachow!

:spank:

[Jack Rabbit]

36. Claimed power through rigged elections

Bush? Check.

[CardInAustin]

57. No way....

Saddam would not allow people to vote in free and fair elections (yes yes....there are some instances of voting irregularities, but last time I checked, I was not beaten for voting for Kerry). No check
Saddam ruled with an iron fist and stifled any semblance of a free press. No check
Saddam killed thousands of people with chemical weapons. No check
Saddam allowed his owns sons to run wild killing and raping as they pleased with no consequences. Jenna might have had a drink or three to many on occasion, but I'm still going to have to say no check.
Saddam never had to answer to another body of government. No check

As I said before, I don't like the Bush administration and I don't like their policies. I think he has done a great deal of damage. However, to actually compare Bush and Saddam simply makes us look foolish. You can be a very bad President and still not be as bad as Saddam.

[bitchkitty]

71. I agree-bad comparison.

He's much more like Adolph Hitler than Saddam Hussein.

[geek tragedy]

73. Ugh. The Bush = Hitler comparisons are just STUPID.

If Bush was like Hitler, you'd be in a prison cell right now.

[stepnw1f]

108. Did You Vote for Bush? (nt)

[bitchkitty]

111. I said MORE LIKE, not exactly alike

Don't be so rude, it looks STUPID.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

75. "Makes us look silly..."

Speak for your self. I have no problem that I may "look silly" to the ill-informed, because I know what I say is the truth. :shrug: And I suspect that the estimated 100,000 dead Iraqis might feel the same, right about know.

Damn, if I had a nickle for every time over the past 5 years someone told a DUer, "Stop saying that, you'll make us look silly!" I'd be on a beach in Hawaii right now. :eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

82. ....

"Saddam would not allow people to vote in free and fair elections"

Bush stole a presidency. A whole fucking presidency. Check.

"Saddam ruled with an iron fist and stifled any semblance of a free press. No check"

Bush is "ruling" Iraq with an iron fist. He's removed an semblance of a free press from Iraq. Shit, son, he's even bombed Al Jazeera. Check.

"Saddam killed thousands of people with chemical weapons. No check"

Bush has killed hundreds of thousands of people, many of them with WMDs. Namely WP. Check.

"Saddam allowed his owns sons to run wild killing and raping as they pleased with no consequences."

Bush has allowed his own troops to run wild, killing and raping and torturing as they please with no consequences. Shit, he's even trying to change the Geneva conventions. Check.

"Saddam never had to answer to another body of government."

Bush has never had to answer to another body of government. Check.

Frankly, it seems to me that any person who thinks Bush is better than Saddam hasn't been paying attention.

Bush is clearly and obviously worse than Saddam Hussein, not just to the people of Iraq, but the world at large.

[geek tragedy]

83. Yes or no: Is voting in the United States utterly pointless?

If you honestly believe that Bush is just as bad a dicatator as Saddam, you'll answer that it's pointless to vote here in Congressional and Presidential elections.

I also assume that you are on the run, worried that Bush's secret police will arrest you, torture you, and leave your body in an unmarked grave. I mean, if he's as bad as Saddam, then nobody can voice dissent against him here without getting arrested.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

85. Hard to say.

All elections? Perhaps not.

2000 presidential election? Yes.

All those phony "elections" in Iraq? Yes.

If I were an Iraqi, I'd certainly be worried about Bush's secret police tracking me down to torture and kill me.

Here in the United States, it's not an immediate worry, but it's one on the horizon. Give Bush's attempted guttings of the Constitution and Geneva Conventions.

[anotherdrew]

25. he should have been shot, like his sons, even the one in the wheelchair.

but no, they had to drag him back to have this court circus, the proceddings are a damn joke.

execute saddam, no trial is needed.

[zalinda]

13. Maybe the judge just wants to keep

his head. Maybe he got a threat. How many people have been killed who were connected to this trial?

zalinda

[plasticsundance]

72. Thank you. Exactly.

As for calling Saddam a dictator, DUers might want to read the historical struggle of the Iraqi people, especially with how it pertains to Western influence. The ridiculousness of the trial is that it once again demonstrates how colonial-imperialistic powers never conclude from the failed thinking that bringing down the head man will somehow bring about a change in a particular country. This simply ignore the cultural and historical aspects of the country involved.

I don't condone Saddam's actions as president of Iraq, but this doesn't matter. We have to conclude how this came to be that Iraq was ruled by a ruthless dictator ... and now his occupied by a ruthless super power trying to gain, or perhaps, maintain a hegemony at all costs.

It's not like the Kurds are super nice guys either. They do create a lot of havoc with Iran, Iraq, and Turkey. Saddam did offer the Kurds autonomy, but only on the condition that they still answered to his presidency. Seems reasonable, since Northern Iraq has oil that helps fund the Iraqi budget.

[Aviation Pro]

14. Here it comes....

...the rehabilitation of Saddam Hussein. Place your bets that the machinery is already in motion to allow Hussein to be acquitted, to establish a place for him in the "new" Iraqi government, and to eventually return him to power in order to brutally put down the civil war.

Any takers?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

16. If they were smart...

they would do exactly that. And isn't that a sad fucking thing to say.

[humbled_opinion]

17. Merit

Your position although hightly controversal does have some Merit. i.e, when we remove our troops if Iraq does descend into a terrible civil war there will be some calls on reinstatement of Saddam to kind of pull and hold things together. Saddam in Iraq will be a huge defeat to Ahmadanajad in Iran and to Al-Qaeda. Isn't that exactly what we want?

[anotherdrew]

29. it sure is looking like a possibility

it seems sometimes like maybe he understood exactly what was needed to hold iraq together. and we've been using his old techniques all too frequently...

[Lars39]

30. Interesting theory.

It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out.

[otherlander]

32. Yeah, right. We wouldn't negotiate with terrorists.

:sarcasm:

[Dogmudgeon]

21. Are we sure this was translated correctly?

Judging from the banter-like quality of the exchange, it sounds like it would have been pretty snarky in its original language.

--p!

[Marie26]

26. Saddam/Amiri 2008? nt

[Jack Rabbit]

35. Saddam wasn't a dictator?

How much unbridled power does Judge al-Amiri think a chief executive has to have to be a dictator?

[Pastiche423]

39. More than bush?

[Jack Rabbit]

62. Yes

Saddam could do things Bush would never dream of getting away with. Could you imagine the uproar if Bush gassed an American town of with a population of about 80,000, killing about 7000? We wouldn't need to worry about impeaching the rat bastard after that; some mob would lynch him.

Bush isn't nearly as brutal as Saddam. I don't know if that's his nature or if he's restrained by a system that is still theoretically a government of laws. Nevertheless, Bush is still more dangerous because he really does possess weapons of mass destruction and will more than willing to lie to justify their use on developing nations.

[Pastiche423]

81. Dead is dead, right?

When you add the total dead from the September 11, 2001 attacks, the number of dead in both Afghanistan and Irag, the number of dead from Katrina, the number of medically uninsured who could not get medical help and died, etc............. the total soars above Saddam's.

[geek tragedy]

87. Saddam killed hundreds of thousands. eom

[Pastiche423]

88. Link, please

Regurgitate rw talking points much?

[geek tragedy]

89. That Saddam killed hundreds of thousands is NOT a rightwing

talking point. It's an historical fact.

I'm assuming you never heard of the Iran-Iraq war. Or his invasion of Kuwait.

Or the massacres of Shiites after the first Gulf War.

Or the mass killings of Kurds throughout the 1980's.

Crikey, do some basic research before you debate a topic like this.

[Pastiche423]

91. Can't supply a link, eh?

[geek tragedy]

92. Educate yourself about the Iran/Iraq war. Rather pathetic

that you're sitting here asking for a link regarding basic knowledge.


Google it yourself.

But, here's a factoid for you:

The Iran/Iraq war--a war of aggression launched by Saddam--killed ONE MILLION PEOPLE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War

[Pastiche423]

93. Believing everything the MS media

tells you is pathetic.

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone.

Link please, otherwise I will know you don't know jack shit.

[Jack Rabbit]

95. Let me assist you, my good man

Here is a summary of Saddam's crimes compiled in 2002 by Human Rights Watch. Last time I checked, HRW was an NGO, not a part of the MSM. I hope that makes you happy.

Let me rattle off some of the particulars for which HRW believes Saddam should be brought to trial:

1. Attacks against the Iraqi Kurds . . . . From February to September 1988, the Iraqi government launched the official “Anfal” campaign, during which Iraqi troops swept through the highlands of Iraqi Kurdistan rounding up everyone who remained in government-declared “prohibited zones.” More than 100,000 Kurds, mostly men and boys, were trucked to remote sites and executed . . . . The killings constitute acts of genocide
2. Forced expulsion of ethnic minorities from Kirkuk. Since 1991, Iraqi authorities have forcibly expelled over 120,000 Kurds, Turcomans and Assyrians from their homes in the oil-rich region of Kirkuk and neighboring towns and villages,
3. Repression of the Marsh Arabs and other Shi`a. During the early years of the Iran-Iraq war, the Iraqi government arrested thousands of Shi`a Muslims on the charge of supporting the 1979 revolution in Iran. Many have “disappeared” or remain unaccounted for; others died under torture or were executed. This campaign was followed by the forced expulsion of over half a million Shi`a during the 1980s to Iran, after the separation out of many male family members. These men and boys, estimated to number between 50,000-70,000, were arrested and imprisoned indefinitely without charge; most remain unaccounted for.
4. General repression, large-scale “disappearances,” and other crimes. In addition to abuses particularly aimed at the Kurds and Shi`a Muslims, the Iraqi people under Saddam Hussein have suffered a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, including political imprisonment, torture, and summary and arbitrary executions. In addition, a ubiquitous network of security services and informants has suppressed independent civilian institutions and terrorized the Iraqi population into virtual silence. Torture techniques have included hangings, beatings, rape, and burning suspects alive. Thousands of Iraqi political detainees have died under torture.
The use of chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war. Iraq used chemical weapons extensively, starting in 1983-1984, during the Iran-Iraq war. It is estimated that some twenty thousand Iranians were killed by mustard gas, and the nerve agents tabun and sarin.
6. Occupation of Kuwait and related abuses. During Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait in 1990-1991, Iraqi forces committed systematic and gross abuses of human rights. During the initial takeover of Kuwait, hundreds of persons were killed or wounded and thousands detained. Iraqi soldiers and militia committed countless acts of theft, rape and assault on civilians, as well as summary executions, “disappearances,” and torture.

I have a final observation, my good man. I certainly agree with you that it is foolish, especially in this day and age, to believe everything the corporate-owned media feed us. Skepticism in this kind of environment is very healthy. However, it is possible to take that too far and go to the opposite pole and reject out of hand everything from an MSM news source. That is as foolish as believing everything one hears.

[geek tragedy]

99. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands who died in

the Iran-Iraq war.

When it gets to the point where people demand a link proving that hundreds of thousands of people died in the Iran/Iraq war, we're in serious idiocy.

[geek tragedy]

97. Here's a link to common knowledge about which you are ignorant.

http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html

The war between Iran and Iraq was one of the great human tragedies of recent Middle Eastern history. Perhaps as many as a million people died, many more were wounded, and millions were made refugees. The resources wasted on the war exceeded what the entire Third World spent on public health in a decade.<1>

The war began on September 22, 1980, when Iraqi troops launched a full-scale invasion of Iran. Prior to this date there had been subversion by each country inside the other and also major border clashes. Iraq hoped for a lightning victory against an internationally isolated neighbor in the throes of revolutionary upheaval. But despite Iraq's initial successes, the Iranians rallied and, using their much larger population, were able by mid-1982 to push the invaders out. In June 1982, the Iranians went over to the offensive, but Iraq, with a significant advantage in heavy weaponry, was able to prevent a decisive Iranian breakthrough. The guns finally fell silent on August 20, 1988.

Primary responsibility for the eight long years of bloodletting must rest with the governments of the two countries -- the ruthless military regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the ruthless clerical regime of the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran. Khomeini was said by some to have a "martyr complex," though, as U.S. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance wryly observed, people with martyr complexes rarely live to be as old as Khomeini. Whatever his complexes, Khomeini had no qualms about sending his followers, including young boys, off to their deaths for his greater glory. This callous disregard for human life was no less characteristic of Saddam Hussein. And, for that matter, it was also no less characteristic of much of the world community, which not only couldn't be bothered by a few hundred thousand Third World corpses, but tried to profit from the conflict.

Now go read a book. That you would even doubt my assertion reveals an astonishing lack of knowledge about that region and its history.

You really ought not take part in such debates without knowing the most basic facts.

[Jack Rabbit]

101. Zmag -- must be a bunch of right wing corporate whores

:sarcasm:

[geek tragedy]

106. Noam Chomsky = Richard Perle, didn't you know. eom

Methinks Pastiche won't be back in this discussion.

[Jack Rabbit]

109. I was going to say something like . . .

If Zmag is corporate media, then Ayn Rand was Emma Goldman's channel.

You get the idea.

[Zynx]

102. I suppose the families of hundreds of thousands of dead Iranians

aren't enough for you?

[Jack Rabbit]

90. Response

I'm not in the habit of defending Mr. Bush. He is, so far as I am concerned, a heinous war criminal, as is Saddam.

Having said that, let me enumerate the problems I have with your post.

When you add the total dead from the September 11, 2001 attacks . . .

OK, I occasionally get flamed by a conspiracy theorist or two over this, but I do not hold Mr. Bush directly responsible for Osama bin Laden's crimes. He is guilty of many acts of omission, but it was not willful maliciousness.

the number of dead in both Afghanistan and Iraq . . .

OK, I agree, especially in the case of Iraq.

the number of dead from Katrina . . .

Again, this is incompetence, not maliciousness. When we are talking about Saddam's crimes, we are talking about deliberate, malicious and positive acts, such as the gassing of Halabja and the slaughter of Shiites following the 1991 war. That does not compare to deaths resulting form being unprepared for a natural disaster for which more preparation could have and should have been accomplished. On the other hand, bombing Falluja compares to gassing Halabja.

the number of medically uninsured who could not get medical help and died

If we had some kind of national health insurance (and I believe we should) that Mr. Bush had done away with in his crusade to make his rich cronies richer, this would carry more weight. But the US has never had anything like this. Do I blame Mr. Bush for this state of affairs? Yes, but no more than past presidents that failed to push for national health insurance or many present and past members of Congress -- going back to before I was old enough to vote (I'm 54) -- who opposed and blocked such legislation. It is, I should add, a bipartisan Hall of Shame.

Some time ago in these forums, I proposed a list of Articles of Impeachment against Mr. Bush. The first two concern violations of international law, the third and fourth concern his violation of constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties. The fifth covers his willful negligence, if not active participation, in the outing of a covert agent for political gain.

Yes, I believe Bush is one of the major criminals of modern times. He plunged this country into an unnecessary war, for which he garnered public support with a series of deliberate lies; he has employed torture and humiliating treatment of suspected terrorists; he has spied on American citizens indiscriminately without a warrant; he has imprisoned American citizens without a trial or without charge on his presumption of their guilt. He should be impeached, removed from office and tried for war crimes; if the US government is unwilling or unable to make a good faith to prosecute him and Mr. Cheney and several high level regime officials, including three of the four top cabinet officers, then an international tribunal should be established for this purpose.

No, I don't think Bush compares to Hitler (and neither does Saddam, for that matter). I stand on what I said that he is not as brutal as Saddam, but that Saddam didn't possess the biochemical arsenal that Bush and the neocons said he had in 2003 while Bush is in command of the most sophisticated and powerful military force in history. That, combined with Mr. Bush's imperialist bend of mind, makes him more dangerous.

Bush and the neoconservatives will not even approach the standard of evil established by Hitler and the Nazis decades ago and they are not as brutal as Saddam and his associates were just a few years ago. But they are bad enough and a major threat to world peace and international law. Like any other criminal gang, they need to be put somewhere where they will do no further harm to honest, peace-loving people.

[bamacrat]

37. I wonder of Bitch will use this defense.

"Im not a war criminal, he-he, it was the people around me, uh they made me look like one. Yeah.

[Disturbed]

40. Busholini stated that Saddam gassed his own people.

There is no proof that this ever occured.

Research this on the Net and it will become obvious that this charge has never been proven.

[Jack Rabbit]

43. Response

Please click here.

[tkmorris]

44. I hate to be nitpicky but

That doesn't exactly prove anything Jack.

[Jack Rabbit]

45. No, but I'll bet you can't prove the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, either

Personally, I can't.

Nor can I actually prove that the Bushies stole the election in Florida in 2000. Can you?

However, I regard all three (Saddam gassed Halabjah, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, the election of 2000 was stolen) as solid historical facts and don't hesitate to treat them as such.

[geek tragedy]

53. There is plenty of evidence, of course.

It's amazing that people will say "there's no proof" without doing ten seconds of research.

[Jack Rabbit]

55. And even if such a one did research, he would not be convinced

Saddam had means (the US government still has the sales receipts to prove it), motive (the Kurds weren't too fond of him) and oppotunity (those were his troops to command). In addition, Halabjah was only one of the most heinous examples of mass murder that took place during his reign.

I think one can build a case against him that would stand up in court.

There are none so blind who will not see.

[geek tragedy]

56. Not to mention eyewitnesses who saw Iraqi warplanes

dropping the chemical munitions, and the detection of nerve gas elements at the site of Iraqi bombings in Kurdistan.

And Chemical Ali on tape talking about how he's going to gas any Kurds that oppose him.

[tkmorris]

61. Hold it Jack

This is not fair at all. Our own DIA concluded in 1998 that it was in fact IRAN who had used those chemical weapons on the Kurds. Of course I have read articles and accounts that blame Iraq as well but it does not appear to me to be anywhere near conclusive.

To equate uncertainty about who was ultimately responsible for the massacre there with say, denying the Jaqpanese bombings at Pearl Harbor is just plain disingenuous. I don't mind if we disgree but to use such tactics in a debate over what is clearly an undecided and controversial matter is beneath both of us.

[Jack Rabbit]

63. You may be uncertain about Halabja. I am not.

From Wikipedia

Halabja poison gas attack

Establishing the culprit

The most authoritative investigation into responsibility for the Halabja massacre, by Dr Jean Pascal Zanders, Project Leader of the Chemical and Biological Warfare Project at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) concluded that Iraq was the culprit, and not Iran.

Some debate existed, however, over the question of whether Iraq was really the responsible party. The U.S. State Department, in the immediate aftermath of the incident, instructed its diplomats to say that Iran was partly to blame.

A preliminary Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) study at the time concluded, apparently by determining the chemicals used by looking at images of the victims, that it was in fact Iran that was responsible for the attack, an assessment which was used subsequently by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for much of the early 1990's. The CIA's senior political analyst for the Iran-Iraq war, Stephen C. Pelletiere, co-authored an unclassified analysis of the war which contained a brief summary of the DIA study's key points. In a January 31, 2003 New York Times opinion piece, Pelletiere summarized the DIA's findings and noted that because of the DIA's conclusion there was not sufficient evidence to definitively determine whether Iraq or Iran was responsible. Pelletiere also felt that the administration of George W. Bush was not being forthright when squarely placing blame on Iraq, since it contradicted the conclusion of the DIA study. However the DIA's final position on the attack was in fact much less certain than this preliminary report suggests, with its final conclusions, in June 2003, asserting just that there was insufficient evidence, but concluding that "Iraq ..used chemical weapons against Kurdish civilians in 1988". The CIA altered its position radically in the late 1990s and cited Halabja frequently in its evidence of WMD before the 2003 invasion.

Another extensive analysis of the incident is contained in a post to the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq electronic mailing list by Cambridge political theorist Glen Rangwala. Rangwala describes how the attack followed the occupation of the city by Iranian and pro-Iranian forces, leading to the conclusion that the gassing was an attack on these forces by the Iraqis. Rangwala also cites studies done by non-governmental organizations that concluded different chemicals were used than the ones cited in the DIA study. Rangwala's analysis effectively sums up the current prevailing view of the event, that Iraq was indeed responsible for the attack on Halabja, and that the DIA analysis is in error. This evidence backed up by extensive witness testimony gathered by organisations like Human Rights Watch and Indict has, more recently, added to the growing evidence that the initial DIA appraisal of the events was mistaken.

The most categorical proof is the many further well-documented incidents of deliberate attacks on Kurdish civilians occurring at the same time throughout Kurdish northern Iraq also perpetrated without doubt by Iraqi forces during the Al-Anfal Campaign. Joost Hiltermann, who was the principal researcher for the Human Rights Watch between 1992-1994, conducted a 2 year study, including a field investigation in northern Iraq, capturing Iraqi government documents in the process. This research culminated in Iraq's Crime of Genocide: The Anfal Campaign Against the Kurds (by G. Black, Yale Univ. Press, 1995). According to Hiltermann, the literature on the Iran-Iraq war reflects a number of allegations of CW use by Iran, but these are "marred by a lack of specificity as to time and place, and the failure to provide any sort of evidence". (Potter, p.153) He calls these allegations "mere assertions" and adds: "no persuasive evidence of the claim that Iran was the primary culprit was ever presented".(Potter, p.156)

We should not fall into the trap of assuming that because Bush says something that it must be false. A good propagandist will never tell a big lie; he'll provide his target audience with a bunch of half truths which are facts; it makes the illusory "truth" he is trying to create more believable. Imagine a sportscaster going on and telling his viewers that the home team scored six runs this evening; he shows film of two or three batters belting home runs and perhaps a good defensive play. A lot of viewers will get the idea the home team won the game, but a few might notice that in his report the sportscaster neglected to give the final score or say anything about the home team's pitching. The fact is that while the home team scored six runs, the sportscaster kinda forgot to mention that the team from out of town scored nine. That's how good propaganda works.

Bush isn't really a good propagandist. He provides us far more falsehoods than a good propagandist would. But the one thing he could rely on is that Saddam Hussein was a rat. That he did not have to make up.

As for the dispute, the US government, as indicated in the above, is hardly a neutral observer in the matter. After the event and through the early nineties, the official US line was to blame the Iranians. Of course, when Saddam became the bad guy, American politicians found it more convenient to fall into line with neutral investigators from such organizations as SIPRI and HRW.

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised if your favorite Frat Boy and mine goes back to the old "the Iranians did it" line as he beats the war drum against his new enemy. Of course, facts to him are only malleable fictions to be used to fit whatever case he is trying to make at the time. What's that? The fact he gives today contradicts the one he gave yesterday? Please, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. It's unpatriotic.

The US government's position on Halabja has been like that. The state department instructed diplomats to say the Iranians did it not because it was the truth, but because Iraq was our ally (and our allies would never gas their own people; I mean, they are the good guys in this fight; look, they wear white cowboy hats) and Iran, those dirty rat bastards who not long before held our diplomats prisoner in the embassy in Tehran, was our enemy (and, of course, our enemies would do something like that because they are our enemies and wear black cowboy hats).

Of course, now that Saddam is the bad guy who wears a black cowboy hat because he is our enemy (let's pretend he was ever our friend and that he never wore a white cowboy hat), he is the one capable of gassing cities with a populating of 80,000, killing about 7000.

Being one who delights in the complexity of the real world and who marvels at the wonders of human moral ambiguity, I take great offense at all this childishly simple yet hypocritical nonsense.

Please do not tell me what the DIA, CIA, state department or any other agency of the US government said on this matter. The facts to these people were never relevant. Telling the truth was never so important to them as painting our allies as the good guys and our enemies as the bad guys, as if the world were really just a cheap B western of which they are the screenwriters. Even long before G. W. Bush came along, they had hopelessly compromised their ability to be believed.

Thank you, but I will take the word of SIPRI, HRW and of those who survived the attack and say that the gas that killed their fellow townspeople was dropped from Iraqi warplanes. Their story doesn't change with who they want others to believe is the good guy or the bad guy. Their story is consistent, and thus I believe it.

I am satisfied that Saddam was responsible for the genocide at Halabja.

[geek tragedy]

67. A key point about Pelletiere: He is a POLITICAL

analyst. He was manifestly unqualified to appraise the scientific, medical, and forensic evidence.

Taking his word would be like relying upon your doctor or dentist for investment advice.

[geek tragedy]

66. The DIA analysis was akin to the Neocon propaganda

about Iraq (and now Iran!) being an imminent threat to us.

Remember--Iraq was an ally of the Republican administrations when that report came out.

There is no doubt now. Amongst progressives and human rights activists who researched the issue, there never has been.

[geek tragedy]

52. There is plenty of proof for anyone who isn't too lazy to do

a google search.

http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemiraqgas2.html

http://www.phrusa.org/research/iraq/news_2006-08-24.html

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1991/IRAQ913.htm

The only denials of this are based on propaganda produced by Reagan and Bush Sr. administration flunkies.

[TheGriz]

54. No proof?

This is on par with holocaust revisionism... shameful.

There are survivors of the gas attacks on Halabja, lots of them. There are also hundreds of photographs of dead people with no physical trauma, just grey fluid coming out of their mouths, noses and eyes, who simply dropped dead in the street and in their homes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

[ronnie624]

79. What a silly statement:

"This is on par with holocaust revisionism... shameful."

There is much confusion about what happened in and around Halabja during the Iran-Iraq war with no hard evidence of any kind. Even your own link says the number of victims "range from several hundred to 7,000 people".

According to this article much of the evidence that would have revealed exactly what did happen was stolen or destroyed by looters:

Human Rights Watch says in its 41-page report, titled "Iraq: The State of the Evidence," that coalition forces failed to stop people stealing thousands of official documents in the months after the March 2003 invasion.

They also failed to stop people from damaging some of the more than 250 mass graves in their search for the remains of relatives.
*****
"Before the war, we had officials in the United States talking about the need to bring officials from the former Iraqi regime accused of perpetrating serious crimes to justice," Mufti said.

"The next logical step would have been to secure the evidence, and this wasn't done."

<http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1615585,00.html>

It's almost as if the U.S. government wanted the evidence destroyed. But considering the Reagan Administration's policies with regard to Iraq, that would not be surprising.

Slandering those who demand evidence with statements such as yours is designed to shame and intimidate others into accepting propaganda without question. Obviously you can provide no evidence.

[geek tragedy]

86. Can you read?

For the first time ever, scientists have been able to prove the use of chemical weapons through the analysis of environmental residues taken years after such an attack occurred. In a development that could have far-reaching consequences for the enforcement of the chemical weapons treaty, soil samples taken from bomb craters near a Kurdish village in northern Iraq by a team of forensic scientists have been found to contain trace evidence of nerve gas.

The samples were collected on June 10, 1992 by a forensic team assembled by the Boston-based Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) and the New York-based Middle East Watch (MEW), a division of Human Rights Watch (HRW). The samples were forwarded to the Chemical & Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) of Great Britain's Ministry of Defence at Porton Down which analyzed them.

Eyewitnesses have said that Iraqi warplanes dropped three clusters each of four bombs on the village of Birjinni on August 25, 1988. Observers recall seeing a plume of black, then yellowish smoke, followed by a not-unpleasant odor similar to fertilizer, and also a smell like rotten garlic. Shortly afterwards, villagers began to have trouble breathing, their eyes watered, their skin blistered, and many vomited--some of whom died. All of these symptoms are consistent with a poison gas attack.

"These scientific results prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Iraqi government has consistently lied to the world on denying that these attacks occurred," said PHR and HRW. "They also send a clear signal that chemical weapons attacks cannot be launched in the belief that the natural elements will quickly cover up the evidence."

http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemiraqgas2.html

Halabja: An Iranian CW Attack?
The allegation of Iranian CW use in Halabja was first made by U.S. State Department spokesman Charles Redman on March 23, 1988. There is also a Congressional record from September 30, 1988 in which Senator McCain made the same allegation, although many of the details were wrong.

The source of these statements is the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, Special Security Office. On March 23, 1988 they stated:
"Most of the casualties in Halabja were reportedly caused by cyangen chlorine. This agent has never been used by Iraq, but Iran has shown interest in it. Mustard gas casualties in the town were probably caused by Iraqi weapons because Iran has never been noted using that agent."

Problem 1: The Alleged Agent
Cyangen chlorine has little military use; it was used in World War One. It is virtually impossible to achieve lethal concentrations of this agent, and the local climate in Halabja was not suitable for such use.

In addition, the U.N. recorded several Iranian clams of Iraqi use of hydrogen cyanide (HCN), and the technology to produce the agent is available for a country that produces tabun. Finally, UNSCOM findings indicate that Iraq had the necessary type of filling equipment.

Problem 2: Assimilation of CW to Iranian Military Doctrine
There are no indications that Iran developed such weapons at the time. To acquire such large quantities as allegedly were used in Halabja, Iran would have had to produce it very fast, but it was under embargo at the time. In addition, Iran did not have adequate delivery systems available then. The allegations also imply pre-delegation of the authority to use CW, and forward storage of CW, which are both unlikely.

Problem 3: Wrong Outward Symptoms
The skin coloring of the victims should have been red instead of blue. The coloring of the victims is more suggestive of sarin, which was in Iraq's arsenal.

Problem 4: Eyewitness Accounts and Captured Iraqi Documents
Eyewitness accounts and documents obtained by the Human Rights Watch in 1995 pose problems on the credibility of the allegations.

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/dc/briefs/030701.htm

[ronnie624]

96. The material you have provided

in no way establishes that Saddam Hussein is guilty of murdering hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens. It all seems to be mostly opinion, and the hypocrisy therein reeks to high heaven.

What is known is that Iran and Iraq fought a long and bloody war. A war that was perpetuated and perhaps even initiated by U.S. foreign policy. It is known that Iran and Iraq both used chemical weapons, and that there is much confusion and little documentation regarding their use.
It is also known that both Iran and Iraq received their chemical weapons capabilities from various western countries, including Germany, Great Britain, France, and the United States, with full blessing from their respective governments.

Too, it is known that the U.S. government has, in the past, disseminated some extraordinarily outlandish propaganda with regard to Iraq and Saddam Hussein (and currently Iran, which you seem to equally relish), and that the corporate owned media are more than happy to parrot the nonsense unquestioned.

Saddam Hussein was clearly a brutal dictator who is probably guilty of many crimes (the CIA started his career off early when they hired him as an assassin at around 19 years old). But the incessant exaggerations of his crimes, dutifully amplified by those such as yourself who are easily duped by propaganda designed to hoodwink children, seem a desperate attempt to avoid facing the truth about where guilt lies for the far greater crimes committed against the Iraqi people - the undermining of Iraqi sovereignty, the instigation of war between Iraq and other countries, the perpetuation of said war by supplying weapons to both sides, the decade of continuous attacks against water and sewage treatment plants, the sanctions denying Iraq medicine and other necessities (obviously waging war against the Iraqi people themselves in clear violation of the protocols of the Geneva Conventions). All of these crimes most certainly resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, mostly women and children. And finally, the climax is the invasion, destruction, contamination and plundering of the country for geo-political goals, and so the war profiteers can make some tidy fortunes (resulting in the deaths of still hundreds of thousands more).

Whatever crimes Saddam is guilty of, and there are doubtless many, they are no worse than those committed by other despots (many supported by the U.S.), and in many cases not as bad, and they pale in comparison to those committed by the United States against Iraq.

Wallow in propaganda and hypocrisy all you want. I will not be joining you.

[geek tragedy]

100. The record of Saddam's use of poisonous gas weapons, both

against Kurds and against Iranians, is anything but unclear.

It is only the willfully ignorant who dispute it. There is plenty of documentation regarding it. Just like there is plenty of documentation regarding gas chambers at Auschwitz.\\

Now I must bid you adieu, as your clear intent is to obfuscate and minimize the crimes of Saddam's regime, instead of actually looking at the facts and evidence.

I hear the IHR is hiring. You'd do well there.

[ronnie624]

104. I disputed nothing of the sort.

But perhaps you should run like the wind before you get spanked again for disseminating neocon propaganda.

[Jack Rabbit]

110. I'll agree with you on one point, Ronnie

(I)t is known that the U.S. government has, in the past, disseminated some extraordinarily outlandish propaganda with regard to Iraq and Saddam Hussein (and currently Iran, which you seem to equally relish), and that the corporate owned media are more than happy to parrot the nonsense unquestioned.

However, as Geek Tragedy and I have pointed out, the fiction that the Iranians, not Saddam, were responsible for the genocide in Halabja in 1988 was in fact outlandish US government propaganda. The purpose of this fiction was to protect one who was at the time a tool of US foreign policy, Saddam Hussein.

I don't know where the Halabja skeptics get their "facts". I am 54 years old and I remember the whole thing. I'm still pretty damn disgusted with the hypocrisy by the US government that has been on display for 18 years. First, he's our ally and didn't do it; then he's our enemy and he did.

The corporate media at the time, which usually was way too deferential to Reagan, didn't get on the administration band wagon with this one. If there was an underreported story in their coverage, it was how the administration was telling ridiculous lies to protect Saddam. Otherwise, they didn't leave much doubt as to who to blame for the atrocity.

Of course, there was no FoxNews in those days. It wouldn't be helpful to speculate on what its spin on Halabja would have been, but I have an opinion on that which I shall keep to myself.

[jazzjunkysue]

41. Oh this will go over real well with the Red States.

No Bin Laden.
No Saddam in jail.
No WMD.
No connection between Iraq and 9/11.
No cheap gas.
No 6-week war.
No christian missionaries in Iraq.
No flowers and candy in Bagdad.
No Pittsburgh in the Middle East.

Oh yeah. This will go over really well in the red states.

Our boys died for what?

[deadparrot]

42. OK, if the Bush Administration can't fucking find a judge to convict

Saddam Hussein of something, they really are more incompetent than I ever imagined.

[Jack Rabbit]

47. I'll bet the ICC could do the job easy

Maybe we should turn it over to them.

And while we're at it, there are some other war criminals I'd like them to have a crack at.

[geek tragedy]

48. No retroactive jurisdiction for the ICC.

Good news for Saddam and Poppy Bush.

[Jack Rabbit]

50. You're right

I guess we need to set up a special tribunal for Saddam.

And as for Poppy Bush, he wasn't one of the other ones I had in mind. But the one of the other ones' name is Bush, and many of the others worked for Poppy.

[0007]

64. How come John Negroponte comes to mind?

[Zynx]

103. Historical revisionism is one of the greatest crimes against humanity

and the amount of it in this thread is appalling.

[geek tragedy]

105. It's amazing how people can complain about Neo-Con progaganda

about Iran, and then go around and regurgitate 1980's Republican propaganda in order to blame Iran for crimes CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY committed by Saddam Hussein's regime.

[Zynx]

107. It doesn't square at all.

But I guess ideologues can't be bothered with that.