An explosion aimed at an American led convoy in the Baghdad area killed at least 30 Iraqi children. This is (supposedly) the largest number of children killed in one incident since the giant war crime against the people of Iraq perpetrated in our name was initiated seventeen months ago (jebus, it seems longer than that, no?)
If no one else will say it, I will. No one has to agree with me, if they don't want to. I'm no longer running for anything (my running mate Bruce and I, having failed to secure the Democratic presidential nomination). So I'll just say it: compared to the chaos and horror we have unleashed on the Iraqi people and the instability we have brought to the region, I'd rather have Saddam Hussein in power. He was a mother-fucker and a brutal dictator, but he was a mother fucker we could do business with, at least at one time. And for better or worse, he preserved order there.
My guess is that I will not only be joined by most of the families of Iraqi people we have murdered (and btw, estimates are that we and our trained Iraqi lapdogs kill at least two civilians for every one that "insurgents" kill, even as I write this), but by a fair number of the families of the over 1,000 dead United States service personnel and nearly 10,000 maimed, in saying that this Iraq adventure-- which has not brought us one millimeter closer to thwarting Al Qaeda-- was the kind of "mistake" for which those responsible should be facing war crimes tribunals (instead of probable reelection).
Boys and girls, Iyad Allawi is every bit as brutal a thug as Saddam-- its just that Junior never blamed him for Poppy's electoral defeat at the hands of Ross Perot... I mean, Bill Clinton. But hey-- old Iyad (formerly of Saddam's Mukhbarat secret police... and now ably tutored by good old U.S. Ambassador John "Friend of Central American Death Squads" Negroponte) Allawi cannot be blamed by Junior for Poppy's defeat, nosirree.
John Kerry is in no sense bound by my sentiments, and frankly, I suspect he is quite sincere in telling you he disagrees with them. So I'll ask someone else.
"Everybody is fond of looking back at Desert Storm and saying that it was, in fact, a low cost conflict because we didn't suffer very many casualties. But for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it was not a cheap or a low cost conflict. The question, to my mind, in terms of this notion that we should have gone on and occupied Iraq is how many additional American casualties would we have had to suffer? How many additional American lives is Saddam Hussein worth? And the answer I would give is not very damn many."
I couldn't agree more, Mr. Vice President. I couldn't agree more.
We're arriving at about the same conclusion. I wish an Iraqi could be on the debate panel tonight. Wonder what questions he or she would ask?
Posted by Glen at September 30, 2004 12:31 PM
in the post9-11 world, pre9-11 quotes and sentiments are thrown into the post9-11 dustbin. What made sense then is now "dangerous". Saddam was bad, bad is 9-11, therfore saddam is 9-11. You said saddam wasn't that bad, therefore...you get the point. Best blog nobody reads my ass.
Posted by chipper at September 30, 2004 2:44 PM
Great minds keep thinking alike.
You don't seem "chippe"r at all; you seem kind of grumpy. I think somebody needs a hug!
I'll just ask you these qualifying questions: Were YOU any closer than one block from the WTC (or Pentagon) on 9-11-01? Did YOU lose your job because of it? Did YOU live a mile downwind of the WTC? WELL DID YOU?
Because if you can't answer yes to ALL THREE of those questions, then you have no standing to be telling ME about 9-11 AT ALL.
What 9-11 ended up being was a very convenient power grab by very, very cynical people looking for an excuse to do something they wanted to do anyway, but otherwise couldn't get away with.
(And please read the damned tagline, will you. This is not the "best" blog no one reads; its the MOST IMPORTANT blog no one reads. Blogstreet's BIQ list will probably bear me out on that, btw.)
Posted by the talking dog at September 30, 2004 2:55 PM
It is now 10:57 P.M.
The debates have been over for a half hour.
Spin baby, spin.
Posted by They Call Me Mr. Crabcake at September 30, 2004 10:59 PM
I came to the same conclusion months ago. Saddam was a "placeholder" who could have been dealt with at the right time.
DID YOU SEE THOSE FRIKKIN DEBATES??
They were a wipeout. There is NO WAY that these can be spun to Bush's advantage.
Bush had his ass handed to him.
Posted by Diana at September 30, 2004 11:41 PM
And yet, by the Sunday talk shows, Bush will have somehow won decisively. Funny how that happens.
"Who won" will be reflected in polls. We'll have to wait and see how those are effected.
Posted by the talking dog at October 1, 2004 9:03 AM
Spinning the debates starts by working on people who didn't actually see the debates, and then moves in on people who did, waiting for their memory to fade. "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" And it can work.
At least, Democrats, or I guess I should say anti-Republicans, will be less passive this time.
Posted by Zizka at October 2, 2004 4:48 PM