Sunday, November 05, 2006
Saddam verdict: Death by Hanging
So Saddam's verdict came in: Death by hanging for crimes against humanity. Does he deserve it for being found guilty of murdering 148 people in 1982? Sure, but isn't it funny that back in the good old days (when Saddam was getting hugs, handshakes, kisses, chemical weapons, a football signed by the New York Giants, and a gift of silver spurs from Rumsfeld & Reagan)-- that Saddam was "their beloved homeboy" in the desert who was murdering plenty of his own people, but those Republicans could have given a shit less as long as he kept killing plenty of Iranians so America didn't have to. And we're fairly certain Saddam killed and tortured a whole heaping helluva lots of Iraqis. But what about Blair and Bush? How many have those 2 tortured and killed? By most accounts, Saddam is reputed to have killed about 300,000 people during his 35 yr reign. Bush and Blair's illegal bloodletting is reputed to have killed 655,000 people since the war began in 2003. Even if you half that 655K amount, it still surpasses Saddam's reputed total. So the question is: When do Blair and Bush face their trial for crimes against humanity? When do they get marched to the gallows to face the hangman's noose? And if (and this is a small leap given the horrific conditions already in Iraq) all out rioting breaks out due to this Saddam verdict... how much more Iraqi blood will be spilled? Not that these bloodthirsty moron Neo-Cons will care, since they refused to acknowledge the benefit of examining and taking to heart some 1999 Clinton admin war games, which looked at and accurately predicted "worst case" and "most likely" scenarios that would take place if a war were to remove then Pres Saddam Hussein from power.