I didn't see it. I am indifferent to the hanging i suppose. My concern is more on the fact that one dictator - King Sadam was hung, while another dictator and threat to world peace sits atop our nations capitol and is followed by the blind.

scary stuff if you ask me. Where are the international tribunals when you really need them?

i meant to add- the devil is in the church. The fox is in the hen house. The cookie monster is on sesame street...i mean in the cookie jar. ;-)

Saw the cell phone video. Hopefully this scares all the dictators in the region.

Eh, I don't really think it matter. The net's latest snuff film failed in brining closure to the issue and simply highlighted the rifts between those who want Iraqi unity and those who will continue to hold grudges based on the past.

Slightly off-topic: after re-reading some of Bill Kristol's projections in 2003, this question came back to my mind:

One thing Bush supporters cite as proof the Iraq War is part of the GWOT is that there hasn't been an attack on US soil since 9-11. So, if there is another (which I whole-heartedly hope there will not be, please don't accuse me of "hoping" for lives to be lost simply so I can criticize Bush, I'd rather praise the White House than see civilians killed.) does that mean he was mistaken? Do the attacks in Madrid and London not count? Does Clinton not get any credit since there were no attacks on US soil during his watch after the WTC in 93?

Bill, I realize that Pelosi can be rather tyrannical, but calling her a dictator is rather harsh, don't you think?

Bill - can you specifically name so actual crimes and some actual people GWB has had killed or thrown in prison for opposing him? Thats what dictaters actually do - you moron.

Saw it, am happy about it. Glad they did it before the terrorests got the idea to hold a school full of children hostage till he was released. You know that's what would have happened if they didn't hang him. NEXT!

I only saw what was shown on the network news and that was enough.
It doesn't surprise me that Mr. Margolis is into snuff flicks, but they always seem a bit ghoulish to me.
Now that the civilized world, including Mr. Noonan's spiritual leader in the Vatican, have condemned not only the execution, but the brutish way it was carried out -- I'm a little surprised that the B4B crowd hasn't noticed that they are all alone (except for the Shia militias) in their lust for victor's vengeance.
Oh, I almost forgot -- it was this site that was so appreciative of the "speed" of the Iraqi justice system. Perhaps Mr. Margolis and company would like to see a similar appeals system here in the states?

Kahn- sure- Cindy Sheehan, countless Iraqi and other international folks held at various "concentration camps".

60+ thousand Iraqis- not sure how W can love them and kill them at the same time ???????????

let us not forget the 3000 plus united states soldiers that Bush has killed- i am quite sure their names are publically available. Oh i know they wouldn't be DEAD if Bush didn't lead us on some lie laden hunt for WMD and Powell ounding on his desk abou Chem weapons with a vial in hand.

Yeah i'd say W killed out men and women in uniform.

Do you really need al the names?

I saw the video, along with the secret cell phone version that included sound.

A couple things are quite disturbing. First, it is obvious from the video that Saddam was handed over to Shi'a militia to carry out the execution. That begs the question of: who's in charge of this country?

The executioners taunted Saddam with chants of "Moqtada, Moqtada, Moqtada". Quite obviously, the real power in Iraq lay with the Shi'a militia and Moqtada al-Sadr. These folks want to establish an Islamic theocracy a la Iran, and are in fact quite close to the Iranian mullahs. Moqtada al-Sadr is also openly hostile to the US.

Is this what our troops are dying in Iraq for? So that Iraq could go from a secular dictatorship hostile to al-qaeda to an Islamic theocracy hostile to the US and close to Iran? Is this why we invaded Iraq?

Anyone watching the execution video should feel a whole lot less safe right now.

Billy...Billy...Billy.

Don't be talking Shi* about our big nosed buddy Cindy, she can't help it if she has a thing for GW. You know that GW killed her son, don't ya???

After reading your posts, I'm sending you a membership to the Sylvan Learning Center...you need it bad! Where would I send that? Dipsh*t Kentucky...is it? That must be a suburb of Sh*tfer Brains Kentucky.

"Cindy Sheehan"????? You mean those mult-hour arrests for tresspassing? You pip.

The "countless" is good, you can't name ANY. The United States went to Iraq. Not GWB - The United States. It was for valid reasons (some later disproved, but valid at the time). It was voted on and supported overwhelmingly by both parties in Congress (no matter what they try to say now.)

I asked for specifics, and you couldn't provide any. You provided me with one name (who appears to be free and uninjured) and made inuendo and unspecified references that are clearly not chargeble crimes. Admit you were wrong and your statements are mostlu colored by hatred.

It's fun to argue smart people with opposing views and I've had the pleasure here once or twice - not today however.

Aarrooooonnnn - "Our Troops"? Liberals don't join and liberals don't serve. You support these people in no way except when you think it can hurt Republicans.

Here's an idea. Sign up. Get a commission in the Army or Marines (if you're college educated) and go get a damn rifle and go make a damn difference.

I did.

Kahn: "The United States went to Iraq. Not GWB - The United States. It was for valid reasons (some later disproved, but valid at the time)."

hahaaah haaa haahh - oh i get it it was valid at the time! hahaha

is that like- "i was really drunk at the time"? haaahhhaa

man that's some funny sh*t

- i vote Democratic (mostly) and i am a veteran. Hmm you are a smart one huh?

any way did you really want me to name the 3000 troops that are dead?

And BTW Kahn- yeah we are punishing soldiers for killings. Putting them in prison. WTF kind of message is that? kill, kill when we say and only when we say.

And W is responsible for our troops deaths. So yes- he killed them.

but i like your point- we could simply have sent the texas longhorn to Iraq to duke it out with Saddam- i bet Saddam would have kicked his ass! And deservedly so.

The video of Saddam's hanging is a sad testimony to the uncivilized behavior to which humans can sink. It is another bad mark on the presidency of Bush. Even the condemned are afforded a modest amount of dignity. The executioners acted like thugs, while Hussein was stoic and faced the situation with courage.

I certainly do not weep, or have sympathy for Saddam, but I do weep for our country for having a hand in such a childish, inhumane spectacle.

Wade

Yes, please stop assuming liberals don't serve.

I'm a liberal. I served.

Next.

I too think its obvious that Saddam was handed over to a shiite militia, I know that because...well...because...the hangmen were uh..they were wearing...umm...jeans...and shiite militia members have been seen wearing jeans. Yes, thats how I know. Jeans.

If only we had left Saddam and his benign and caring 'secular dictatorship' alone, we wouldnt be dealing with guys who wear jeans.

I take it back Kahn. I'm not sending him a membership to Sylvan, no, it'll be one from the Cindy Bignose fan club...what a freak this guy is.

Hey, did you see Cindy's nose broke up the Democrat press conference?

I watched the Saddam video a dozen times before my wife had to slap me because I kept saying.."let it be Gavin...let it be Gavin."

On a serious note. Our mighty Military, you know Bill, the one you hate so much, has killed thousands of terrorists, that, if unchecked, would be on their way here over the next few years to slit your throat and blow up your strip malls, so you'd better be talking nice about them or they might find out just who you are and take care of you themselves.

BTW, I'd also like you to name just one of our guys GW has killed, or is this the typical kook rant about WMD's and "Bush lied kids died" routine?

Kaaaaaanh -

""Our Troops"? Liberals don't join and liberals don't serve. You support these people in no way except when you think it can hurt Republicans."

In what universe do you live? Liberals in congress have served to a far far greater degree than their chicken-hawk Republican counterparts. I'd bet the list of combat vets in congress that are democrat is twice as long as the list of Republican combat vets.

In the last election (you know, the one where you got your arse kicked) there were a total of 11 veterans of the Iraq war running. Of those, 9 were Democrats. 9 out of 11.

You toadies are faux supporters of the military. The military to you is nothing more than a prop for the glory of GWB. Meanwhile, it is liberals who predominantly answer the call of duty to serve in the military.

Get it through your skull - supporting GWB is not the same thing as supporting the military. Quite the opposite, actually.

Areolatime

It isn't Republicans or Democrats that make up our military...not at all.

It is patriotic Americans who believe that the right thing to do is to protect this country....period. Included in that is to kill people and break shi*.

It also doesn't matter whether you've served or not, especially if you're sane enough to understand that this is a volunteer military. Which, I'd assume you are not, so...

My son stayed in nine years, not just to get an education, but to be there to defend us if called upon.

Careful with the 'Chickenhawk' reference, aaron, unless youre willing to admit you voted for George Bush Senior and Bob Dole over their chickenhawk opponent.

Meanwhile, you think the full-time activists who vandalize recruiting offices, burn American flags and run ROTC off of college campuses...you think those folks would align more to the left or to the right?

navydad -

Agreed. But of what relevance is your comment? I was responding to Kahn's jack-ass remarks that Liberals don't serve in the military. That's just not true.

Is Stensin for real? Seriously? I thought Cindy Sheehan would choose her own name to post here..."Bill Stensin" must be an alter-ego.

Bill,

President Bush has not killed any of my brethren in arms. That's just your own opinion, which I cannot find to be based in fact. The twits on the other side of IEDs, etc., have killed our troops. Your fatuous arguments (or screeds) cannot hold up. Nobody has made any of our current military members vounteer to come into the service. They all did that on their own, so they bear the responsibility for being educated about what war is about and what it means to serve in the military. My father did and so did me and my other two brothers (currently with 75+ years of service, 4 combat tours, 1 expeditionary tour between us). It goes with the territory, and we have always known that. See, we believe in the Constitution, which states that the CinC is empowered to prosecute wars. We are also the first to tell you we hope the decision is thought out. As opposed to another President in recent history, who was almost universally detested by the military as a man and CinC, I feel this president has a sense of what this conflict means in the grand scheme of our country's national interests and defense. He isn't out to win polls, and guess what - he doesn't have to be concerned with another election either. Oh yes, had I been ordered into combat by that former CinC, I would have willingly gone. Why? Commitment, the belief that I would be serving the better good, and a sense that the decision was made in the best interest of national interests and security.

Go talk to some of our soldiers and Marines. They will, as a group, tell you that they believe that they are doing a very worthwhile mission and that they believe it is in our national security interest. I know; I talk with them every day. My younger brother told me the same. All they want is the support of the nation and good leadership from our elected officials. What does that mean. First, support the soldier in the most important way: Support the reason he/she is there. IN other words, support thwe cause. As a retired soldier, I can tell you that our perspective is just that: you can only truly support the soldier by keeping faith with his reason for being deployed in combat. Sending care packages, etc., is fine; but they aren't even a poor substitute for the former. By the way, saying you support the soldier but not the war is as we say a non-starter. Second, elected leadership should debate reasons to deploy prior to the deployment. Discussions about strategic differences, decisions, etc., should be done under the surface and not played out on the media stage. That's at least decent leadership. It is poor leadership to air such differences about important matters in public, especially in this day of rapid and varied communications technology. It only aids the enemy's cause, and that is WRONG!!!!!! What is even more wrong is trying to use such differences for public political gain. That is the worst form of leadership. And don't even get me started on what institutions and whom I believe have committed treason in disclosures of classified information. Just my two cents, but coming from someone who hales from a family that truly believes in military sevice to our country and its citizens. Bye now.

Wow... mark this in the "Who gives a rip?" column... I should hope that the president doesn't get his jollies by watching someone die...

"Meanwhile, it is liberals who predominantly answer the call of duty to serve in the military."

Areolatime

So back it up with numbers. Maybe you'd be more believable if you'd cut and paste statistics rather than pulling them out of your ass.
So, how many of the nine Dems won? Name them.

See, it doesn't matter goofball, if all you can do is post unsubstantiated crap, no one will take you seriously. No, you and your b-hole buddy GM, need to post in a way that brings meaning to the word "debate". But this will never happen as long as you're as emotional as you are and most likely, due to a lack of education, employment or child abuse...or all three. BTW, have you tried Ridilin?

So which is it, aaron, did you vote against Clinton or are you being a hypocrite? Either way you have a lot of explaining to do.

A bigger question is who you are going to vote for in the democrat primary? Seeing as the POTUS is constitutionally allowed to send troops into harms way, I would think youre going to have to dismiss Obama and Clinton as potential chickenhawks.

I feel for you buddy, really I do.

Navydad:

To answer ALL your questions about who served, in what party, and who did NOT (including a list of the Fighting Dems who ran and won this year), have a look at this:

http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html

Enjoy!

What a nonpartisan website!!!

Cyberactor...how do you do it? You always seem to have at all the bipartisan and nonpartisan websites at the ready!

Oh wait, I forgot... today is opposite day! You've never quoted a bipartisan website, much less a nonpartisan one.

If I ever saw you actually reference the DOD or a website that wasn't sponsored by the people who would ideologically goose step with you if they knew how.

Maybe next time you can quote Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as an expert on the Holocaust and on peace.

Hiya Wally!

Shooting the messenger instead of dealing with the message again? Poor boy. I thought that kind of thinking went out of style along with bell bottoms and rainbow suspenders.

Tell you how I found it: went to Google, typed "Democrats who served" and...that was my first choice. If the DOD had provided a similar list, I'd have given you that one but...you are more likely to find a list of chickenhawk Republicans on a partisan site, dummy. Didn't you KNOW that?

Cyber - thanks.

navydad - in addition to cyber's link, here's an article from the Christian Science Monitor on the Iraq war vets running as democrats last November.

Lose the bongos - what is your point? Obviously, I never said that there are no Republicans who served in combat. I was merely refuting Kahn's demonstrably false statement that "Liberals don't serve in the military". Max Cleland, Jim Webb, Tammy Duckworth, John F Kennedy, and dozens upon dozens of other decorated war veterans would show that Kahn's statement is just plain idiotic.

Remember: "Chicken Hawk" refers to someone who supported a particular war, but who found a way to avoid serving in it. Chicken Hawks can obviously be either Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal. However, Lose-the-bongos, for every Democrat "Chicken Hawk" you can point out, I gurantee you I can point out 2-3 Republican Chicken Hawks. And for every Republican in congress who served in combat, I can point to 2 Democrats who served. It's a little ironic, don't you think, since the Repubs constantly try to paint themselves as friends of the military, and slander democrats as foes of the military.

Cyberactor finds these irrelevant sites that provide only his view of the world and until these kooks open their eyes...hey look what Cybercracker missed on the same Google search page, number three is from "commondreams.org" and states; "On the eve of the third anniversary of 9/11, the U.S. House of Representatives – by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 406-16 – passed a resolution linking Iraq to the Al Qaeda attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. This comes despite conclusions reached by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission and the consensus of independent strategic analysis familiar with the region that no such links ever existed."

Wait a minute! I thought that the Dems argued that there wasn't a link between Iraq and 911..well, maybe we missed something here.

If you go to http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.RES.757: you'll see that your loony kook Dems almost unanimously agreed that there was a link. How the hell about dat...a Democrat, going back on his vote....hmmmm. Makes one wonder, doesn't it.

Some decent comments here by a few people! Hussein was an evil man by all accounts. But, so is Bush by not a few accounts!! Those who still think of Bush as a normal, God-fearing Christian need to get treatment for anal rectosis and do everything possible to have him and his henchmen impeached.

Bush was a liar from the start... a weekend soldier unwilling to serve at anything including rich boys' days out...

Just wonder what makes Bush think it's the U.S.'s obligation to deal with the Husseins of the world. Remember, Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 no matter how Rove and Bush and Cheney and Rice and Rumsfeld spin their lies. Bet you lunch it was oil prospects and profits and a desire to "settle" an old score for his daddy!

Are we better off without Hussein? Probably. At least, perhaps. But, we'd be at least equally better off without Bush and Company.

Abe Lincoln never served (Wartime President) neither did FDR (Wartime President) or James Madison (Wartime President)or Woodrow Wilson (Wartime President) ... Since when does Military service make you a better President or a better Commander in Chief of the armed forces?

Hah! Way to change the subject, there, Big Daddy!

You asked for the list, you got it. Don't like what you see? Hey! Look over here! Here's something completely unrelated to the discussion.

Can't deal with the truth, fella? Too bad.

Navydad- i WAS in the Army. ( i am "oponant") i lost my password and had to re-up...so to say. Any way I am a veteran...and "veterans against Bush" ROCKS!

smart folks if you ask me.

I'm not opposed to dealing with the message...

but for instance, your very own "source" said "Ted Kennedy served from 1951 to 1953" yet then went and said that Rumsfeld's service was glossed over.

How would you like it if I rewrote that page and said "Ted Kennedy served from 1951 to 1953 yet left a scene of a motor vehicle he was driving while drunk and left a woman to drown.

Does that really show me being fair to the service.

Now Cyber... let's talk about the message. We can also talk about how a known Democratic Manuever in the 06 election was google bombing results to get sites they wanted to come up as search results. Is that another message you want to talk about?

Or would you like to talk about the message John Kerry delivered and continues to deliver about the horrors he maintains our troops commit.

Or would you like to talk about the message that one of your crackpot associates says that Bush killed these soldiers. Should we apply the same standard to any head of government ANYWHERE that's committed troops into action?

Because that list would include nearly EVERY President we've ever had. Who knew being President meant you were automatically a war criminal? Or is that if you're a Republican President you're a war criminal?

You're right cyber, let's talk message. Can you do that?

Cyber:
Your website "source" did provide some info.

For instance, in the House, out of the 121 veterans who have served, 71 of them are Republicans. That's nearly 60%.

In the Senate, it's a bit closer...18 to 17.

So Aarontime, does that mess with your mind's world view? Are you going to now go into WHAT they did while in service or are you going to accept that you're patently INCORRECT. But you're probably used to being proved wrong.

Cyber, thanks for proving Aaron wrong.

Wally- you don't go around banging on the DRUM crying WMDs and terroist and threat and lying and fear mongering all over the country and then expect to be called a "war hero" do you?

gee ya think?

but then again- i guess the sheep will beleive anything- after all they voted twice for W. You know- "fool me once, fool me twice, now that wasn't really nice. But i am so BLIND I can't think for myself"

something like that

Name: Paul Wolfowitz
Born: 1943
Employer: The U.S. Taxpayer
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: Deputy Secretary for Defense - yet another Bush administration man in the Pentagon who has no idea what it's like to wear a uniform. He got a BA at Cornell in 1965. Maybe if we'd had a guy as bright as he thinks he is in Vietnam, it would have turned out differently.

Name: Donald "The Don" Rumsfeld
Born: 1932
Employer: The U.S. Taxpayer
Conflict Avoided: Korea
Notes: When the shooting started in Korea Rummy here was either 18, or about to turn 18. Not to worry for him, though — he spent the war at Princeton, wearing a ROTC uniform. Once the war was over he flew jets for the Navy for a few years. Defenders of Rumsfeld will say he’s no chickenhawk — he served, and it’s not his fault the war ended before he got his commission. To which others answer, “plenty of farmers and mechanics and kids just out of high school served. Anyone as full of whatever that stuffing in him is, could have tried out for a battlefield commission.”

Name: Karl Rove
Born: 1950
Employer: Baal
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: This little cherub was born on Christmas Day, 1950. Karl “Bush’s Brain” Rove ran George W.’s campaign, right down to the tiny detail of deciding Bush was going to run. The hardest part was convincing a horde of Republican skeptics that it could be done.

He is said to have said of his boss, he’s "the kind of candidate and officeholder political hacks like me wait a lifetime to be associated with."

Now Karl’s Senior White House advisor. If he really is “Bush’s Brain,” and if the fondest wishes of former US Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV come true, one fine day Karl will be “frogmarched out of the White House in mandcuffs.”

Will history record that event as “Bush’s Lobotomy?”

Name: I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby
Born: 1950±
Employer: The U.S. Taxpayer
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby is Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff. He’s had a string of no-doubt well-paying government jobs in State and Defense. He’s also practiced law. In fact, he was Marc Rich’s lawyer for years. Yes — the Marc Rich whose pardon from President Clinton was excoriated by so many high and mighty Republicans. Maybe if Scooter had been a better lawyer, his client wouldn’t have needed that pardon. Speaking of legal questions, “Scooter” is alleged by some to have traded energy stocks while helping his buddy Dick Cheney cook up a new energy policy in secret. He’s also suspected of having inserted the bogus “Niger yellowcake” reference into the President’s State of the Union address. As if all that weren’t enough, he’s also a top suspect in the outing of CIA operative Valeria Plame. Clearly “Scooter” is a ballsy kind of guy, so it’s a complete mystery to us why, when he graduated from Phillips Andover in 1968, he didn’t enlist in the Marines or go Airborne instead of going to Yale.

Name: Richard "Dick" Cheney (R-WY)
Born: 1942
Employer: The U.S. Taxpayer
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: Says he had "other priorities." You bet he had other priorities. Imagine how early in life you must begin scheming to get away with what this guy has. He was too busy thinking about Halliburton to go fight Charlie.

Name: George W. Bush (R-TX)
Born: 1946
Employer: The U.S. Taxpayer
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: You know when a guy walks away from a National Guard obligation during wartime and gets away with it, he must come from "a good family." Not that his daddy had anything to do with his getting a Guard slot in the first place - oh, no ...

Name: Rep. Joseph "Joe" Scarborough (R-FL)
Born: April 9, 1963
Employer: MSNBC
Conflict Avoided: Desert Storm
Notes: A former Republican congresman (1995-2002) turned MSNBC motormouth, Joe qualifies as a politician and a barking head. Where were you during Desert Storm, pal?

Name: Michael Savage
Born: Unk.
Employer: UNK.
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: We're not sure if this frothing lunatic is still on the air. Didn't he get canned for saying all gays should contract AIDS and die? If only he could have channeled all that animosity against Ho Chi Minh - we'd be selling Big Macs in Vietnam today!

Name: Michael Reagan
Born: March 18, 1946
Employer: Yack Radio
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: What are the odds anyone would know who he is if everybody didn't know who his daddy was? What are the odds he would have escaped the draft if his name had been Manual Rodriguez?

Name: William "Bill" O'Reilly
Born: 1949
Employer: Rupert Murdoch
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: Bill O’Reilly loves to come off as a straight-talking, blue-collar kind of guy. Funny, a lot of guys who fit that description and graduated high school the same year he did - 1967 - went straight to Vietnam. Not our Bill - he went to college. And he didn’t just go to college, he spent his junior year, 1969-1970, in London. He graduated in 1971, briefly exposing him to the draft again, but Bill was miraculously spared.

Name: Rush Limbaugh
Born: 1951
Employer: Yack Radio
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: Where to begin ... a joke about the Hindenburg? No, let's go right to the reason he had to stay home from the war - the world's most famous anal cyst. He's denied it, but www.snopes.com, the Urban Legends Reference Pages, has got the goods on him.

Name: David Limbaugh
Born: December 11, 1952
Employer: newspapers with low standards
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: David's no fool - he stayed in school! Straight from high school to college in '71, where he stayed 'till '75, when the war was safely over. Poly sci major, wouldn't you know? The least annoying of the Limbaugh brothers, but only because he's more obscure.

Name: Sean Hannity
Born: December, 1961
Employer: Rupert Murdoch
Conflict Avoided: Desert Storm
Notes: Plenty of guys his age were in Desert Storm - what's his excuse?

Name: Rep. Newton Leroy "Newt" Gingrich (R-GA)
Born: June 17, 1943
Employer: Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: A virtuoso in the art of hypocrisy, the former Speaker of the House now claims the Vietnam War was a splendid idea, but at the time he opposed going himself. Newtie also speaks highly of morality, but as a serial adulterer he doesn’t want to get too close to it himself.

Name: Frank Gaffney
Born: 1953
Employer: Indeterminate
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: Frank here is a very clever boy. Built a thing called the Center for Security Policy, which apparently keeps him in nice suits so he will look good in front of the TV cameras, which can't seem to get enough of him. As far as we can tell, Frank is a freelance salesman for the defense industry who is paid by an elaborately circuitous process. For all his obsession with the military, it's funny he never served.

Name: Ann Coulter
Conflict Avoided: Desert Storm
Notes: Critics will howl that a woman can’t be a chickenhawk. In Ann Coulter’s case, that doesn’t matter; anyone with her level of bellicosity deserves to be held to a higher standard.

Name: William "Bill" Bennett
Born: 1943
Employer: Empower America
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: Bill's occupation used to be "public scold," but since his gambling habit was exposed, he's a little less noisy on that front. Bill's a triple-crown winner as a former bureaucrat, a propagandist, and a barking head. (All barking heads are propagandists, but not all propagandists are barking heads.)

Name: Richard Perle
Born: 1941
Employer: Impossible to say for sure
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: Along with Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle is one of the chief architects of the present debacle in Iraq. Nicknamed “The Prince of Darkness,” he was chairman of the Defense Policy Board. He got demoted to board member after an ethics flap. Space does not permit even an index to the reasons why this man should not be trusted.

Name: Asa Hutchinson
Born: 1950
Employer: The U.S. Taxpayer
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: Our present Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security has a long career of public service. Prior to his present task of “coordinating the enforcement activities of our borders, waterways, transportation and immigration systems,” he was “Drug Tsar.” We all know how well that went. He was picked for that position while serving as a congressman from Arkansas, where he was originally plucked from obscurity as a rural lawyer by Ronald Reagan. Oddly enough, the trail of Hutchinson’s public service stops short of Vietnam.

Name: Don Evans
Born: 1946
Employer: The U.S. Taxpayer
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: The Secretary of Commerce has known George W. Bush from the old days in the oil industry. Evans raised over million for Bush's presedential selection. Like his pal, George, Don Evans was otherwise occupied when his country needed him to fight the 'Cong.

Name: Andrew "Andy" Card
Born: May 10, 1947
Employer: The U.S. Taxpayer
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: Andy, as he likes to be called, used to be “the automotive industry’s main voice.” As such, he “lobbied the U.S. government against stricter fuel emissions standards.” Lobbying for the Chamber of Commerce, he “testified before Congress against the ‘Passengers' Bill of Rights.’” He got paid well enough for these services to the (business) community to be able to afford "nearly ,000 in campaign contributions in 1999-2000, including 1,000 each to fellow members of the new administration, John Ashcroft and Spencer Abraham, for their ultimately unsuccessful senate bids.” These days, of course, he’s George’s Chief of Staff. And - oh, yes - he’s a chickenhawk. (Source: Center for Responsive Politics.)

Name: John Bolton
Born: 1948
Employer: The U.S. Taxpayer
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: Let’s see - he’s the Bush administration’s man for arms control, and he opposed the Anti-ABM treaty and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Got his start at State with help from Jesse Helms. Bolton had previously helped Helms get around campaign finance limits. For all his hawkish ways, he never found his way to Vietnam, though.

Name: Gary Bauer
Born: 1946
Employer: ouramericanvalues.org
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: A reliable cog in the Republican machine, a bureaucrat under Reagan, and later a preposterous candidate for president, Gary Bauer isn’t particularly combative - he’s no Ann Coulter. Diminutive and cherubic even in his fifties, he’s hardly the sort of recruit a drill sargent would see as a potential soldier. Which is just as well, because when he otherwise would have qualified for the Vietnam draft, he had a “vague physical problem” that got him a 1-Y draft classification - “draft only if the Canadians are crossing the border shooting.”

Name: Eliot Abrams
Born: 1948
Employer: The U.S. Taxpayer
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: Taptant Secretary of State, Elliott Abrams now holds a National Security Council staff position. This despite widespread feeling that he ought to be in jail somewhere. After all, he was convicted of lying to Congress about the Iran/Contra affair.

Name: Spencer Abraham
Born: 1952
Employer: The U.S. Taxpayer
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: Our Secretary of Energy was formerly the Senator from Detroit. In his failed run for re-election the auto industry gave him ,000 - more than it gave any other senatorial candidate. Now, there’s a guy who’s eager to promote alternative energy sources! Couldn’t muster up the gumption to take on Uncle Ho, though.

Name: Dr. Marion "Pat" Robertson
Born: 1930
Employer: Christian Broadcasting Network
Conflict Avoided: Korea
Notes: Dr. Pat claimed in his biography to have "seen combat in Korea. He was in Korea in uniform briefly, but his daddy the Congressman got his reassigned to Japan. His picture belongs in the dictionary next to "pious fraud." Just recently declared that the State Department ought to get nuked, but has yet to be indicted for uttering a terrorist statement.

Name: Rev. Jerry Falwell
Born: 1933
Employer: Thomas Road Baptist Church
Conflict Avoided: Korea, Peacetime Draft
Notes: Jerry could probably have served in Korea - other kids his age did. He certainly could have been drafted into the peacetime Army. He called the members of his '70's cult the Moral Majority "soldiers of morality." For all his loathing of communism, it's a pity he didn't get to kill a few when he was young.

Name: Sen. J. Danforth "Dan" Quayle (R-IN)
Born: February 4, 1947
Employer: "investment firm in Phoenix" - Dan Quayle Museum
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: The Indiana National Guard was a nice safe place for young Dan during the Vietnam era. Good thing he was from "a good family" - too good to waste their boy in a war.

Name: Sen. Chester Trent Lott (R-MS)
Born: October 9, 1941
Employer: The U.S. Taxpayer
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: We're not sure why Trent didn't serve. Maybe he didn't think he'd look good in Army green. He was a cheerleader in college instead. Wonder how he looked in a cheerleader's uniform?

Name: Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL)
Born: January 2, 1942
Employer: The U.S. Taxpayer
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: Dennis wasn't able to serve in the Army in Vietnam because his knees weren't up to it. He did OK as a wrestler in college, though.

Name: Rep. Tom "The Exterminator" DeLay (R-TX)
Born: April 8, 1947
Employer: The U.S. Taxpayer
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: One of our most-nominated chickenhawks, Mr. DeLay has said he wanted to serve in Vietnam, but was unable to since all the positions had been taken by blacks and hispanics. We suspect there might be someone in Iraq today who would be willing to trade places with Mr. DeLay ...

Name: Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Born: 1943
Employer: The U.S. Taxpayer
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: There are chickenhawks, and then there are chickenhawks. Saxby Chambliss is a chickenhawk supreme. He got himself elected to the Senate by casting aspersions on the patriotism of the incumbent, Democrat Max Cleland. Cleland lost three limbs serving his country in Vietnam. Saxby Chambliss was unable to serve because of his bad knees, but somehow is able to totter along as a recreational runner.

Name: Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL)
Born: 1953
Employer: Florida Taxpayers
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: When Jeb was younger he managed to avoid fighting for democracy in Vietnam. When his older brother's future job was on the line, though, he had no trouble fighting democracy.

Name: Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO)
Born: January 10, 1950
Employer: The U.S. Taxpayer
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: The Congressman from Missouri and House Majority Whip who’s so concerned about defending America that offered an amendment to the law creating the Homeland Security department that would have made it tougher to sell cigarettes over the ‘Net. It wouldn’t have helped the whole country, but the part of it that belongs to Phillip Morris would have benefited. Born just about the right time for Vietnam, somehow Blunt was at Southwest Baptist University when he could have been keeping the ‘Cong out of Chillicothe, MO.

Name: Sen. George Allen (R-VA)
Born: 1952
Employer: The U.S. Taxpayer
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: George Allen is in the Senate, and wants to be in the White House. Where he belongs is in the Chickenhawk Hall of Fame.
Allen graduated from Palos Verde High in 1970. In those days he “was a supporter of Richard Nixon and the Vietnam War, although he did not serve in that conflict, taking a student deferment instead.”
During his 2006 re-election campaign Allen has “emphasized his dedication to military and veteran issues … during his term in the Senate,” according to the Hampton Roads Virginian-Pilot’s Warren Fiske. But the Disabled American Veterans only give him a rating of 50 -- mediocre-at-best.

Allen’s campaign ads are made by Scott Howell. Picking the right guy was apparently a no-brainer for Allen. Howell’s resume includes the Saxby Chambliss campaign against Max Cleland, and the infamous Swift Boat ads against John Kerry.

Name: William "Bill" Kristol
Born: 1953 +/-
Employer: Weekly Standard
Conflict Avoided: Vietnam
Notes: The son of the “godfather of neoconservatism,” he’s smooth talker, but he never walked the walk in the glorious crusade against Charlie. Bill - where were ya?

Wally- also- there is a MAJOR difference in stopping a threat or maybe even stopping terrorist in a country AND PLANTING THEM!

oh- i know the righty history book will say- "Iraq was so vile so filled with terrorist we had no choice" etc. etc.

give me a break. the entire lie was a lie from the day is was lied about.

any way did you really want me to name the 3000 troops that are dead?

Not unless your name's on the list too, Billy-boy. Or can I call you Willemena?

smart folks if you ask me.

Why's that, Willemena--because they can keep up with your intellect? That puts them in special education. Not too hard to keep up with a moron.

Nice list, Airheadtimetogo--redundant as hell, and full of b/s. As if hundreds of thousands didn't "avoid" Vietnam.

You and your boyfriend Willemena have chips on your shoulders. If you hate America so much, why stay?

I haven't seen the hanging vids and to be honest,
I really don't plan on watching. It is enough for
me to know that the man is gone...

Back to the subject at hand...

I saw the video, along with the secret cell phone version that included sound.

A couple things are quite disturbing. First, it is obvious from the video that Saddam was handed over to Shi'a militia to carry out the execution. That begs the question of: who's in charge of this country?

The executioners taunted Saddam with chants of "Moqtada, Moqtada, Moqtada". Quite obviously, the real power in Iraq lay with the Shi'a militia and Moqtada al-Sadr. These folks want to establish an Islamic theocracy a la Iran, and are in fact quite close to the Iranian mullahs. Moqtada al-Sadr is also openly hostile to the US.

Is this what our troops are dying in Iraq for? So that Iraq could go from a secular dictatorship hostile to al-qaeda to an Islamic theocracy hostile to the US and close to Iran? Is this why we invaded Iraq?

Anyone watching the execution video should feel a whole lot less safe right now.

Aaron, I agree that what Kahn said was wrong, liberals do serve, I was pointing out what YOU stated.

This is what you said earlier: In what universe do you live? Liberals in congress have served to a far far greater degree than their chicken-hawk Republican counterparts.

Now, depending on your source, the term "Chickenhawk" generally refers to someone who supports or advocates military action or war without having served in the military themselves.

That would be Bill Clinton; sent troops into combat, never served a day in the military.

Your condemnation of the republican 'chickenhawks' would therefore lead me to believe that you voted for Clinton's combat-veteran opponents in the '92 and '96 elections. If you did not, then you are a hypocrite. If you support a nominee of either party for president who is not a veteran, and that person becomes POTUS and then sends U.S. troops into combat as the Constitution mandates, you are a hypocrite because they would then be a 'chickenhawk'.

Feel free to explain yourself.

And I just have to comment on the list, where oh where did you get it? FANTASTIC!

Karl Rove's employer is "Baal"? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Shouldnt this say "modern-day Hitler", you guys need to keep your hateful rhetoric straight.

Limbaugh works for 'Yack Radio'? Would that be the same 'Yack Radio' that Air America just couldnt seem to get off the ground even with millions poured in to support it? Sour grapes.

Ann Coulter is be held to a higher standard? Nothing like changing the rules halfway through the game, thats the liberal way.

The rest is so full of insults, slanders, slurs and whiny juvenile screeching, Im thinking it had to have come straight from DLF headquarters.

Boingo- " Nothing like changing the rules halfway through the game, thats the liberal way."

hmm that oddly sounds like DeLay's strategy. Just change the law as we see fit. Oh wait- W did the same thing with illegal wiretapping.

Hey- you guys do remember whne at 1st there was no wiretapping. Then that lie got revealed.

Then it was no wiretapping except to foreign countries by terror suspects. Then that got revealed.

As we found out it is US citizens inside our borders.

odd pattern- just like the war in Iraw- 1st it was for WMD, then it was to oust Saddam, then it was to support democracy, now it is to end the terroist that weren't there until W seeded them. did i miss any steps in this set of lies?

The funny thing is W and the gang just change the story every time someone calls their bluff.

The funnier thing is YOU GUYS keep falling for their lies- or does trick sound easier for you to swallow?

I mean if lie #1-8 wasn't enough how many more does it take to get the message accross in your heads? Or do you just keep going until Lie #1994993 ?

lose the bongos.

Clinton avoided combat, that is true (as did GWB, but you guys aren't big enough to admit that he went into the ANG as a way of not getting sent to Nam). I am not here to defend Bill Clinton (and no, I didn't vote for either Clinton, Bush Sr, nor Dole). But Clinton was not a cheerleader or supporter of the conflict he avoided - Vietnam. A true chicken hawk is someone who supports a particular war, and then finds ways to not go serve in combat in that very war.

As we all know, Presidents are sometimes called to send troops into combat. By your criteria, any President who didn't serve in combat should not authorize use of US troops. Obviously, that's ridiculous.

In any case, we are getting far from the subject at ahnd. Again, I was only responding to Khan's false statement that Liberals don't serve in combat.

No, I was thinking more along the lines of the new and improved democrat 'Contract with America' that was going to oust corruption from the political ranks and usher in a new era of bipartisan cooperation.

Now that the Pelosi Posse (like that? I just coined it!) plans on ramming through their pet bills while sitting on piles of $100's provided by Jefferson, Im thinking all those peeps who managed to believe the lie and vote blue in 2006 just felt their starfish start to pucker. National security? Pshaw...we need to pass the minimum wage hike!

Which WMD lie were the American people believing, the one supposedly told by Bush or the ones told by Kerry, Gore, Clinton etc. (Hint: Clinton was a pres, Gore was a pres VP and Kerry was a pres nominee). Since these three gents were in federal office before Bush, Id have to believe that lie numero uno started somewhere with them, you decide which one you would like to blame.

Lose the Bongos - have you ever heard of this thing called "humor"?

Bongos and Aaron – “do serve” as opposed to “have served.” Big difference. The military now is heavily heavily heavily conservative, Republican, or both. The whole of the Ivy League contributes less than a dozen officers to the entire military every year. The left coast universities are the same – many had banned military recruiters from even being on campus until forced to by a Federal Court Order.

The Marine Corps, for example is almost all rural white kids and inner city Hispanic and black kids. Amazingly, these serving blacks and Hispanics are more conservative than others in their ethnic groups and many are Republican. In the Marines, everyone is green. Get it? The officers of the Corps are mostly white, southern, and conservative.

Now – Aaron – that heavily biased list you posted – you cite no source, did you write it yourself? Why not say stuff about Teddy K like: After getting kicked out of Harvard for cheating Teddy joined the Army but his rich and connected father made sure he got posted to Germany? If you wrote it, you included disproven “facts” and innuendos, and outright lies as fact. I reject it.

Outside of the military conservatives have been shown to serve and donate to charities much more than liberals. So – to both of you… I stand by my statement. Liberals do no not serve in the military. OK, there will always be exceptions – but the military today is Republican. That’s why their ballots are rejected or messed with in Democrat controlled areas…..

As we found out it is US citizens inside our borders.

As we found out? From where, Willemena? Daily Kos? Huffington Post? Sean Penn? Or maybe from your boyfriend, Keith Olberman.

Cite some proof, moron...

Waaaaa? Clinton avoided military service, not just combat. Bush wasnt in combat either, but flying the 'Thud' wasnt exactly cake. Before Kerry came along, dems didnt give a hoot about military service, suddenly in 2004 Bush's military stint wasnt good enough; it was 'only' the ANG. If a non-veteran had won the democrat nomination for president, NO ONE on the left would have brought up the military.

So using the chickenhawk label serves what purpose? I support the war in Iraq, so does my father and various uncles, all of them are too aged to serve in the military again. Do their opinions count?

How many dems supported Clinton when he sent the U.S. military to tackle Serbia? How many of them volunteered to man a tank or fly a plane? How many of the nation's MSM outlets supported Clinton in that conflict?

Using the term 'chickenhawk' is self-defeating and slanderous; its too easily applied and too easily turned against yourself.

Hey, all this outrage about the hanging video, yet no outrage from the leftards when CNN aired insurgent snipers shooting our troops.

Can any of you troll morons explain why? Don't bother; it would only be more platitudes...

Lose the Bongos - have you ever heard of this thing called "humor"?

Why yes I have, thankyou for asking.

Im usually affected by this "humor" when I listen to democrats try to convince everyone that they are going to be tough with national security. Gallows humor, but humor nonetheless.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8186600/site/newsweek/
"Elite schools including Harvard, Yale and Brown still have no ROTC on campus (though their students can take ROTC courses at other schools). In both the world wars, graduates of schools like Harvard and Yale gave their lives in disproportionate numbers. Not today: among the 1,175 students who graduated from Princeton last year, eight went into the military. "America's elite would prefer somebody else's daughter to die rather than one of their own sons," says Moskos."

I was wrong when I said the entire Ivy League only contributes a dozen officers. It's a small number - but I can't pin it down. Otherwise though - think about this article if you read it...

Here is one about the military in general

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/military_misconceptions.php

The Heritage Foundat did a great one also. Mostly about the socio-economic and racial make-up of the military.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda05-08.cfm

"Excluding ROTC from the more liberal universities has contributed to the increasing conservatism of the officer corps. Whereas only 33 percent of officers identified themselves as Republicans in 1976, that number rocketed to 67 percent by 1997."

http://www.columbiaspectator.com/media/storage/paper865/news/2003/04/03/Opinion/Military.Intelligence-2036971.shtml?norewrite200701032003&sourcedomain=www.columbiaspectator.com

And the gap is even bigger now. So - as I said....... liberals do not serve.

More facts - yes bongos and Aaron, the military is Republican. Liberals serving are an exception, not the rule.

US military more Republican, conservative than public: poll

http://www.dawn.com/2004/01/01/int9.htm

"Compared to 32 per cent of the civilian public who described themselves as Democrats, only nine percent of military officers and 16 per cent of enlisted personnel did so."

I have not bothered to view the video. It is of little importance to me - just glad the sob is dead.

As for the rest, lots of hot air on the left tonight Navydad. Having fun?

Let me see........

Aaron posts a (Bi-partisan, I can tell!) list of of politicians who escaped war during wartime. Aaron, can I add my father to that list? You see, he was a helicopter pilot (6'-4 1/2" Irishman), he was trained and gunnen to go, but he could not for all intents and purposes pass the eye exam required to go into combat! Even though it broke his heart not to be there with his brothers, I'm sure he looks back at helo statistics and breaths a sigh of relief. He's not a politician, but as far as he is concerned politicians(the good ones) sevre there country every day that they lead it! What have you done for your country lately, huh???

Bill claims to have served in the U.S. military, but can't escape sounding like teenage liberal! Some thing is wrong there. Wow, it must be that loose screw bill, would you really like to see saddaam kick President Bushes a..? By the way Bill, tribunals and all that si..y Bu..sh.. requires actual crimes & the evidence to back it up! Do you have any yet after four years of digging? No?......what about all that Plame sh.. No?....... what about the Bush Admin. setting up Saddaam by PLANTING nuclear weapons.........No? What about Bush misleading the American people........any evidence? No? Yah, your right, I guess that would mean half the world intelligence angencies were misleading us! Of course, it could be that all those intel. agencies are just packed full of unintelligent, appethetic, pacifist liberals that don't know the first thing about intel. gathering and beside the CIA and other American Intelligencia they are a bunch of numbnut, dimwit socialists!!! Yup, that must be the answer! Once again, America rules the world! Yippee Kay Yay M.F.!!!

This was absolutely at the direction of Bush. The timetable of the trial and the major milestones were too coincidental with the US political timetable. And of course getting Saddam out of the way removes the possibility of any awkward questions being asked (and embarrassing answers being given) in trials for his other crimes - such as what involvement western governments had in his regime over the years.

How stupid do they think we are??

Steve Butler, Basingstoke, United Kingdom

Kahn,
If you are going to use a poll, use the most recent one.
The American military — once a staunch supporter of President Bush and the Iraq war — has grown in creasingly pessimistic about chances for victory.

For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president’s han dling of the war than approve of it. Barely one-third of service members approve of the way the president is handling the war, ac cording to the 2006 Military Times Poll.

When the military was feeling most optimistic about the war — in 2004 — 83 percent of poll re spondents thought success in Iraq was likely. This year, that number has shrunk to 50 percent.

Only 35 percent of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42 percent said they disapproved. The president’s approval rating among the military is only slight ly higher than for the population as a whole. In 2004, when his popularity peaked, 63 percent of the military approved of Bush’s handling of the war. While ap proval of the president’s war lead ership has slumped, his overall approval remains high among the military.

Just as telling, in this year’s poll only 41 percent of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place, down from 65 percent in 2003. That closely reflects the beliefs of the general population today — 45 percent agreed in a recent USA Today/Gallup poll.

Professor David Segal, director of the Center for Research on Mil itary Organization at the Univer sity of Maryland, was not sur prised by the changing attitude within the military.

“They’re seeing more casualties and fatalities and less progress,” Segal said.

He added, “Part of what we’re seeing is a recognition that the in telligence that led to the war was wrong.”.

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php

Totally and utterly disgusted, I ashamed to be part of the same race as those who gloat and take pleasure in a public execution. How ironic that an evil man like Sadam has shown more dignity in his final minutes than those who are now in charge of Iraq of the US and UK Governments. And shame to those in the media who went along with this circus. Not in my name and not with my license fee.

Gerry, Glasgow

It is estimated that between 1968 and 2003, Saddam killed 300,000 Iraqis.

It is also estimated that between 2003 and the present that Bush killed 655,000 Iraqis.

Yippee Ki Yay M.F.!!!(oops)to fast on that post button.

So did I miss anything?

Oh yah, nope didn't see the footage on Saddaams hanging but I'm sure it would make a great reality show! Maybe "What the world does to dictators", or "I'm a dictator, whatch me hang", or Bill and Aarons fav, "What would Bush do"!

From the same article;

"While Bush fared well overall, his political party didn’t. In the three previous polls, nearly 60 percent of the respondents identified themselves as Republicans, which is about double the population as a whole. But in this year’s poll, only 46 percent of the military respondents said they were Republicans. However, there was not a big gain in those identifying themselves as Democrats — a fig ure that consistently hovers around 16 percent. The big gain came among people who said they were independents."
Yes there are more republicans, but as a group they make up less than half.

bearmanUSMC- no wonder U suckers miss Christmas. righty keeps feeding you lies an you keep eatin' like a hog ready for the BBQ pit.

Chow down

this is AGAIN why i suggest no Dems run for 2008. Just fold, let the right hang themselves. they're no too far now. But really, 4 more years of a succesor to W. I'd be surprised if we weren't all speaking spanish and standing in line for a day labor job.

Well, unless the Iranians come accross Bush's porous border and wipe us out. How would gthat make you feel-- mr. Marine? hey Bush won't clos ethe boders..don't blame me.

duuuubya

I didn't see the footage either, at least nothing more than what's shown on TV. Not that I care, he's dead that's all there is to it.

Was it a bit fast? Sure, but that's what they watned.

CActor..you poor, pathetic dope..
You swallowed the old canard re Bush being awol, hook line and sinker...
Do some real research, you twit!!!!
hint...go to the free republic web site and look up the article in the Dallas Morning News. 7-4-99.

Matt,

I saw the video also, and was also satisfied!! No doubt about it!!
__________________________________________________

Now to business..

What I think some don't see, and really it shows what sin the world is really like, and how much sin has blinded mankind, especially the liberals who post here... Over the past week, we've had two examples of good v. evil... and these are examples that were being shown as a wake up call, and that people need to start waking up to REALITY... Hear that secular liberals?! this is how it's spelled
R-e-a-l-i-t-y, Reality!!!

Now let's take a look at reality...

On one hand, you see the love, and out-pouring of caring spirits, for a Good and Decent Honorable servant who has passed from this life to the next, and is now in the presence of the Almighty!!

and on the other hand... you have the one who takes on the form of Hitler, adopting his ways, his methods and his thinking. All the while feeling justified in his own mind, through his own religion, that he is the savior of his people. But, ultimately the justice he received is the JUSTICE HE WAS DUUUE!!!!

So, the secular movement needs to... WAKE UP!!

WHAT ARE YOU SECULAR PEOPLE THINKING???... WAKE UP!! COME BACK TO EARTH!!

EARTH TO SECULAR LIBERALS, EARTH TO SECULAR LIBERALS!! Sheeeesh.

Jeremiah

Casper - I hadn't seen those - but I think I can explain them. I don't approve of the way the war has been fought either. But, does this latest poll in some way tell you that liberals have started JOINING the military? Pleeeeaaaassse.

The way I see it. There are three ways to go in Iraq. 1 - fold. 2 - stay the same. 3 - Build up, send in more troops and crush the insurgents.

I believe that many of my still conservative friends in the Army and Marine Corps are disillusioned by the fact that we did not go house to house in all the major areas at the same time. They wanted us to be MORE aggressive. Now they see the mess we have created.

But why didn't we act MORE aggressively? Maybe because every single action and every single thing we have done has been criticized by the liberals. Bush should have ignored you and Rumsfeld was just flat wrong. We needed to saturate Iraq and clear it of weapons completely. But we didn't.

They are also disillusioned by the complete lack of support shown them by the American press. Three years to get a Medal of Honor awarded? Heroic stories NEVER reported. Only casualty counts reported. Nothing about the good they've done in other areas. Since they believe (as do I) that the MSM is heavily liberal and pulls for liberal points of view either on purpose or not, they see this betrayal as being by American liberals. In short, they may be mad at the Republicans - but they HATE the Democrats.

So. These conservatives in uniform may not be happy with Bush and the Republican Party, but that does NOT mean they are now liberal and leaning toward the Democrat Party. And, since your party is so out there on many issues, we'll see this move away from the Republicans as temporary. Because even though they are mad at the Republicans (as am I), there really is no alternative offered by your party.

Lets look at your platform as I see it:
1. War - Pull out, accept defeat because we never should have gone there.
2. Abortion - the new liberal sacrament.
3. Welfare - continue it forever as a way to control the black vote. Never mind that it keeps them from ever developing.
4. Speech - stifle it through arcane campaign finance laws and redefinition. This way you can keep real opposition at bay.
5. Ignore the Constitution and heavily regulate if not right outlaw firearms.
6. Ignore the Constitution, or at least redefine it to suppress religion.
7. Do everything possible to crush the Boy Scouts because they are reverent and ban gays.
8. Tax to the point of socialism, never mind the fact that the party leadership is some of the countries richest people and that they somehow find loopholes to get out of taxes.
9. Solution to Social Security - taxes. Just raise the age and the maximum amount paid each year, forget real meaningful reform.
10. Pork - as with welfare and since you want to tax so much make sure to spend the money on projects to bring in votes and be sure to concentrate on Democrat areas.

There is more. No the military may not be as Republican as it was a couple of years ago, but it is still heavily Republican and conservative and liberals are still refusing to join.

Regarding that guy "Bill Stensin"

And you neo-con Republican knuckleheads thought the Canadian Trio maddening?

Kahn,
Why do you assume that I am a democrat. I would agree with on most of your points. I am against gun control, pork, high taxes, and my son was a boy scout. And considering that I have been a Christian my entire life, the last thing I want is to see religion supressed.

OK Casper - I redirect my post from you to Democrats.

As I said, I am not happy about the way the war has been fought. But that doesn't mean I agree with the Democrat way. I firmly believe that since they don't think the way was justified, they don't WANT victory.

kahn,
You might want to check out this article about why some few Medals of Honor have been awarded in Iraq.

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/news/159727.php

Christian,

That has to be the most asinine thing you've ever written...I do believe that there's a terrorist or two who might have killed an Iraqi from time to time.

As for the video - I haven't seen it other than the bits and pieces that the MSM ensure assault the eyes of all of us. It is something, I think, that shouldn't be seen - our minds are polluted with enough garbage in the usual day to day; no need to add to it.

As for the tempest which has arisen...I'm of the opinion that the taunts of his executioners were Saddam's last chance at redemption...that, just perhaps, there was the overall design that as Saddam approached his death, that he'd understand that he had really lost all the earthly things he had enslaved himself to, and that here was his last chance to show contrition and get right with God.

None of us will know, of course, how this came out until we make that same journey, hopefully by a better exit than Saddam's.

Mark -

Does it not concern you that the executioners were chanting "Moqtada, Moqtada, Moqtada"?

Forget about whether it was right to taunt Saddam. Personally, I don't give a damn whether Saddam was taunted as he was executed. But what bothers me, and should bother you, is that this clearly shows that government agencies in Iraq - the same government we support - are heavily infiltrated with Shi'a Islamic fanatics.

Is this what we are fighting for? An Islamic theocracy run by Moqtada al-Sadr and closely allied with teh mullahs in Tehran? How is that better than the secular dictatorship we overthrew?

Remember: the enemy that attacked us on 9/11 was militant Islamic fanaticism. Personally, I'd prefer Saddam over another radical Islamic theocracy.

Why are our troops (yes, as an American I get to say OUR troops) ,as well as OUR money, being spent on propping up a goverment rife with Shi'a militia partisans of Moqtada al-Sadr? What sense does that make?

Christian Wright

thank you for sharing one of the more critical points on the war.

let us not forget the 3000 of our troops now dead thanks to BUSH's lies. I mean if that's not liability then i don't know what is.

Aaron,

It depends, I guess, on what Sadr's game really is - does he want to be a mere puppet of Iran? Does he want to be dictator of Iraq? Does he want to be the power broker in a democratic Iraq? These are the things we really don't know - and just because an Iraqi gets or has gotten Iranian support in the past doesn't mean they are patsies of Iran...Iran and Iraq fought an eight year war and during that time Iran backed anyone who in any way, shape or form opposed Saddam's regime...just as Saddam supported anyone who opposed the Iranian regime (which has, unfortunately, made some Iranian opposition groups radioactive for our purposes). It isn't as cut and dried as you might think.

But supposing that Sadr is a quisling who is bent on turning Iraq - or at least the Shia areas of Iraq - into an Iranian satrapy: this doesn't mean he has the power to do such a thing. Millions of Iraqis voted and hundreds of thousands of them have volunteered for the US sponsored military and police and in spite of militia and terrorist infiltrators (an inevitible thing, and not at all surprising), most of them are fighting with dogged bravery for an Iraq which is neither an Iranian puppet nor an Islamist theocracy. Are they, then, fighting for a democracy that you and I would be pleased to live under? Probably not - but it is their country, not ours and they will have their system based upon their Islamic culture and religion, not our Judeo-Christian culture and religion.

It is, as I've said since the start of the liberation, a gamble on our part - we are betting that when given a chance, most Moslems will choose to live and build rather than kill and destroy. Most, of course - but in a nation of 25 million, even one percent being bent on death and destruction means that 250,000 fanatics have to be contended with. As it turns out, it seems as though we're dealing with one tenth of one percent: about 25,000 hardened enemies of the Iraqi government and the United States, and all of them are not entirely on the same page, but they do make common cause most of the time.

As I've also said all along, it might not work - it might prove impossible to get a decent life going in Iraq and thus spreading all around the Moslem world. If that is the case, then God help us all, because the numbers we'll eventually have to kill will make the death toll in the Second World War seem small...we will win this war, Aaron, because we cannot lose it and at the end of the day either Americans will recognise what they must do, or they'll be forced into such recognition by enemy action. I'd prefer to win this war the way President Bush wants to win it - but win it we will, one way or the other...it is just too bad that the President's domestic critics simply will not - because of an asburd but enduring hatred from Florida in 2000 - see things as they are.

I saw both videos of Saddam's hanging. The Sheit's chanting in that dark, dingy chamber was freaky! Hollywood could not have conjured up more horror for Saddam in the last moments of his pathetic existence.

1) Saddam did not lead his people, he merely instilling fear in ALL, friends and foes alike. He did not do anything for anyone else but himself, not for Sunnis, not for Muslims, and certainly not for Iraqis.
2) Saddam did not use Iraqs Oil wealth/revenues to build a better country with schools, hospitals, or any other infrastructure that would benefit the general population, unless it somehow directly benefited himself - rather he moved towards transforming himself into a demigod (god-like), immortal figure. But this would never be achieved in the eyes of Islam by killing 1.5 million muslims.
3) Saddam, like a dog that bit the hand that fed it, turned on the US after US supported him and Iraq in their war against Iran in the early to mid-80s. Just like Osama, who accepted US help against the USSR. Let's hand Osama over to the Iraqi Government, as long as there are several camera-phones on hand.
4) ...back to Saddam. The worse possible scenario was played out - from Saddam and the Sunni's point of view, that is! - this will surely make some (if not all) despotic dictators tremble in the thought that we might just turn him over to his enemy, ideally an enemy that will chant and taunt and humiliate him for the last moments before the end.

On the other hand, let's also take into account that the Sheit Government of Iraq must be managed with an iron fist (KID GLOVES WONT WORK) starting with eliminating Al Sadr, Irans emissary! NEXT.

RP

Jeremiah,
It's so fun to read your posts. I for one think you should have your own blog. Think about it.

Casper,

I have personally contacted several Congressmen and Senators on the Medal of Honor issue. The Senators actually have the power to award the Medal outside of military channels - but they refuse to do so. It is a growing issue and makes many (including me) pretty angry. Marine friends of mine both enlisted and officer see it as further proof that they are not supported and that people in the Pentagon and Congress don't understand what they do nor appreciate it.

Bonzo,
Although your post was OT, you should be informed that the Decider actually flew the Convair F-102 Delta Dagger (usually referred to as "Deuce"), not an F-105 Thunderchief (always referred to as "Thud").
All F-102s had been withdrawn from Vietnam by 1969.
Bush logged some 300 hours in the type -- despite a poor safety record vis-a-vis accident rates, only five were lost in Vietnam (one in air to air combat).
Had Bush chosen to fly the F-105(his group did use them in Vietnam) he may very well have had the oportunity to visit the friendly skies of southeast Asia.
There is this recurring narrative that Bush tried to get to Vietnam as an F-102 pilot, but lacked the hours (darn shame, huh?). If he really wanted to go, I've never understood why he didn't volunteer as a FAC pilot -- certainly he was qualified to fly a light prop job.

While those of you on these posts are soooo very sympathetic(and pathetic) to the Devil, Saddam and also his two EVIL SONS - who dragged out small
schoolgirls to rape rooms, cut off tongues of any
one who spoke against them- killed countless fellow citizens - who were NOT of their party -
"HUNG SOLDIERS FROM THE BRIDGES TO SWING IN THE WIND----DRAGGED OUR SOLDIERS THROUGH THE STREETS-

I SAY THIS: Fuc* this Bastard and I don't care what was said to him as he was walked to the gallows-glad it would be the last words he would hear from those whose family members were tortured
and killed by him....WERE/ARE YOU SYMPATHETIC TO THEM?

HE WAS A TERRORIST, MURDERING, THUG-AND HE GOT (NOT NEARLY) WHAT HE DID TO OTHERS.

Where we any of you, when innocent children and women were "killed for sport"....was your ire up then? Somewhat hypocritical that you can only continue to bash our President who had the balls to go in to offer people of suppression, a chance at being free. Though granted, THEY NEED TO FIGHT, IF THIS IS WHAT THEY WANT. BUT, WITH ALL THE YEARS OF TYRANNY, AND SADDAM RIDING ROUGHSHOD
OVER THEM, IT IS HARD TO IMAGINE A 'FREE LIFE'...

HOPEFULLY, THEY WILL STOP FIGHTING EACH OTHER, AND 'KNOW THAT ALL SHOULD, AND CAN BE FREE TO LIVE AMONG EACH OTHER'

Jo- easy on the steroids.

Look i don't think any one here supports saddam (or did). I just do not see how invading Iraq had anything to do with the purported reasons by W.

You see when you claim somthing and act on it...it had better be true. just try it sometime...go pull a trigger on someone and CLAIM it was self defense. It had better be true. Why would you and (we the people) set a rule of law in our judical system and not adhere to it? Yeah i know international issues are not the same. However- isn't the ONUS on W? i mean if you call it out shouldn't it be true?

now as result 3000 plus of our kids are dead.

don't you think that is a reason to gripe?

Meanwhile- Saddam is pushing daisy's or thorns, whatever. good for him. Still W misled on all counts. That says something for his integrity- or lack there of.

And following W in this manner is pretty pathetic if you ask me. Just keep on with the headphones on the program keeps repeating. Brainwashing is a dangerous thing.

I prefer to stay away from the "mein kampf" play book. No thanks