SackOCrack,
I had the same thought at first. What if that is not Saddam, but one of his look a likes? Then I heard on one of the news channels that they ran a DNA and compared it to one of his sons. It came out a match. That is in fact Saddam!
That is also why you saw President Bush. Blair and other world leaders cheering his capture. They know for a fact that it is Saddam.
Very interesting article from the NY Times concerning the confrontation of Saddam Hussein by the new Iraqi government.
A good read for you M. Quebec. It might do help with those delusions from which you’re suffering.
US=GG, Here’s my theory. Gore(still with Clintons) backs Dean(Also with Clintons), divides the Dems and Bush gets elected again with out any trouble. Here is the Kicker. Hellary runs to win in 2008, unless the GOP can come up with a good front runner. The second theory is possible as well. Hellary divorces Bill and has a lesbian affair with Janet Reno and they run together on the firat all lesbian ticket in 2008. Either way Hellery is just trying to buff up her resume so she can take over Hell when she gets there.
Me Solomon Grundy
P.S. - No I don’t want anyone to go to Hell.
Blah, blah, blah, Senior Quebec.
We found him.
Don’t worry, you’re not the only one pissed off. So are all the democrats.
cmon man… this shit shouldnt be a partisan issue.
very few people supported saddam. the main partisan disagreement is about the approach to getting rid of him. another disagreement is on WMD.
the only one who really supports saddam is saddam…
hitlery, hellary… yeah yeah… she’s not on your short list for presidents… we get it.
Exactly danh. When will people realize that democrats don’t think Sadaam is the good guy. We think the method of going after him was flawed and too hasty. There are plenty of military types who are Democrats, there are plenty of democrat war veterans, but preemptive attacks have always been a tough issue no matter what century it is. I’d love to hear one of you tell Gen. Clark, or other Vietnam vets that they aren’t patriotic because they believe in caution.
Morg, you proved my point exactly.
Good job, lads.
The war is still a clusterfuck though.
Better kill Saddam quick, before he talks!
Sack and Danh:
I agree that most Democrats are of the “loyal opposition” types and should not be accused of supporting Hussein simply because they disagreed with the idea of sending in troops to remove him. That sort of “in effect supporting Hussein” argument is actually Stalinist in its pedigree – he accused those who didn’t support his policies of being “in effect fascists.”
However, that said, there are elements of the anti-war movement that are not part of the loyal opposition. They’re not really anti-war; they just want America’s enemies to win. I’m referring to groups such as International ANSWER and their ilk here. I’ve read stories about purported “anti-war” groups in Germany, with ties to the whole anti-war coalition of groups here, actually raising money for the Iraqi “resistance.” (see the website for the group here: http://www.antiimperialista.com/view.shtml?category=9&id=1060180259&keyword=+) I’ve also seen comments from partisan supporters of the anti-war efforts here in the U.S. to the effect that they hoped there were lots of U.S. bodybags to teach us the folly of our ways. That is not loyal opposition.
To the extent the Democrats allow those people in their big tent, all Democrats will be tarnished by the association in the minds of those who do not have the time or energy to research the position of each individual Democrat. This is not fair for individuals, but it is what will happen, and has happened. It is akin to what would happen if Republicans welcomed the support of the KKK on some issue or other.
Finally, the above is different from saying that following anti-war policies was wrong and disagreeing with those policy prescriptions. You are going to see some broadsides fired Howard Dean’s way on that end – in fact, they have already started. Here is one from Joe Lieberman, from his reaction to the capture of Hussein:
“This news also makes clear the choice the Democrats face next year. If Howard Dean had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power today, not in prison, and the world would be a more dangerous place.” (from his campaign website, here: http://www.joe2004.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6492).
Should be interesting to watch the developments in the Democratic primaries now.
Sorry, decided I wanted to flesh out my analogy above just a little bit more.
The Democrats’ welcoming of support from groups such as International ANSWER and other anti-U.S. groups for their anti-war efforts would be akin to Republicans accepting KKK support for a coalition against affirmative action. While there are many non-racist reasons to object to affirmative action, such support would tarnish the entire enterprise in the minds of many. Same thing with the anti-war position the Democrats are taking. There are many arguments that can be made from a loyal-opposition standpoint, but accepting help from truly anti-American organizations in that enterprise will necessarily tarnish the entire enterprise in the eyes of many.
Sack,
Actually, you disproved your own point by your very first comment on this thread!
The first thing you do is defend Hillary Clinton. Then you state:
“I still think it’s not Saddam but it’s like face off where some dude has Saddams face on him and is now getting prosecuted as Saddam.”
What sort of comment is that? Was this your wish? It only shows once again that many of the politically minded democrats are unhappy that Saddam has been captured.
Do you actually think anti war Howard Dean was jumping up and down with glee when he heard the news? Most of these democratic candidates have placed all of their money, time and reputation betting that President Bush is wrong and hoping that his policys fail! It could be the economy, or any other major issue. In this case “failing” means humiliation in Iraq. Anyone who thinks otherwise is quite naive.
DANH, In all seriousness, this is not a partisan issue. I would hope that all Americans (and others) would rejoice at the news. Unfortunately most people would rather read a good conspiracy theory than the truth. I am finding it harder to pick a party side. My statement is that this story will be spun in many different directions. You are correct that Hillary Clinton or any Clinton for that matter, is on my short list for president. I think that it shows strength of character to question and express opinions that are not popular. It is the epitome of patriotism.
Me Solomon Grundy
Let me clarify.
My comment that the democrats are pissed off is based on the obvious fact that they need a platform to run on in the upcoming election.
First, it was “the economy sucks, and it’s the Bush administration’s fault.”
Well, the economy doesn’t suck right now, does it? And Bush’s tax cuts may have had something to do with that.
And, “that fruitless search for Saddam is ending up just like the fruitless search for bin Laden, isn’t it?” Oops, guess not!
We got Saddam! Alive!
Kinda takes a little wind out of the sails, doesn’t it?..
The democrats aren’t basing their campaign on Bush’s failure to find Saddam - rather, they are basing it on the exaggeration of evidence leading to war, which in their minds (and mine) is still very much a true statement.
ZEB, I was being sarcastic about the faceoff thing. Why would tht be a serious comment? Do you really think we can graft whole faces onto other people perfectly? Use some common sense dude.
And what the hell does that have to do with my argument about Hillary Clinton?
I am happy that we captured Sadaam, nobody doubts that he is a bad guy. Yes, perhaps I may be bitter that its going to go to Bush’s head and think he was responsible for Bush’s capture, but I am not angry that Sadaam was captured. I am only angry about the way that we went about ending his regime because I respect international views as well as our constitution. I wouldn’t be surprised if we suddenly pulled otu and now went back to Afghanistan to find Osama. Don’t you guys think Osama should have been the main target in the first place?
Oh, and ZEB… does capturing Saddam have anything to do with any pre-war views? Did Dean and other people who didn’t support the war not believe our military was strong? That makes no sense.
Sack,
The original comment by you was telling, in that you chose to make a snide remark rather than rejoice. This simply shows that like some other politically minded democrats you are not as ecstatic as perhaps the average American citizen.
Why else would it take you three posts before you openly show any happiness at all regarding the capture of Saddam. Only after my post pointing out that you had not done so, did you actually force your fingers to type the words: “Of course I am happy that we captured Saddam.” Even then you added a caveat: “Perhaps I am bitter that it is going to go to Bushs head.” You admit you are bitter! And why? Because you are concerned that our President will feel some sort of an ego rush regarding the capture of the murdering tyrant Saddam Husein. Can you understand why some on this board question certain democrats?
Like you the democratic candidates cannot say anything other than that they are happy that Saddam was captured. Since the latest poll shows that the voting public is also happy about his capture. Do you think they want Bush to “feel good” about it? Do you think they want him to add to his political momentum? Of course not!
Understand I am not questioning your patriotism, nor the patriotism of the democratic candidates. However, politics is politics, and it never ends, on either side
Woohoo! The last nasty evil dictator in the whole world has been captured. Hello utopia!
Err what do you mean he wasn’t the last one?
Surely if there were any others, the wonderful all caring USA would be out to get them too?
Hey Mook, where you from? Your country been out lately to capture murdering, torturous tyrants?
So, because we “just got one”, then who gives a shit?
No reason to celebrate that there is one less tyrant?
Use your head, poindexter…
and I wonder why I avoid these political debates…
I get such a warm feeling knowing that Saddam will finally be reunited with his ol’ buddy Don Rummy 
Kuri, why don’t you outline for us exactly when and how and how much the U.S. supported Iraq? There are plenty of pictures of Roosevelt smiling warmly with Stalin. This is not to offer any particular defense of our relationship with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, but you have to discern deeper than such a photo.
Perhaps if we had a moratorium on alliances with any country than we would be able to get back on our high horse and interfere without facing accusations of hypocrisy… In the meantime, I suppose it was similarly hypocritical when we kept up our no-fly zones to protect the Shiite resistance and the Kurds and we should have let them die…