Saddam Suddenly Looks Innocent
Memo To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
From: Jude Wanniski
Re: Why is He Being Held at All?
I see in the papers, John, that our government has decided that we
will maintain physical custody of Saddam Hussein even after the June
30 transfer of sovereignty to an Iraqi interim government. An
anonymous official told Associated Press the reason is the Iraqis do
not have a prison safe enough to hold Saddam, and I suppose there may
be some concern that if the Iraqi interim government got their hands
on him there may be no need for a “trial.” They might sooner have him
“die of natural causes” in his cell rather than have him answer the
charges of war crimes, which have yet to be brought against him. But I
now wonder why he is being held at all?
If you think about it, 18 months ago Saddam Hussein was sitting in his
office, the duly constituted president and prime minister of Iraq,
minding his own business. The United States did not have diplomatic
relations with Iraq and so did not formally recognize him as head of
state. But most of the rest of the world did, and Iraq had a seat at
the United Nations and in its proper rotation could even take a seat
on the Security Council. It was at this point that President Bush
decided Saddam had weapons of destruction and was conspiring with Al
Qaeda to menace peace-loving nations like the United States. He took
his assertions to the UN Security Council and the Council agreed by a
15-to-0 vote to demand Saddam permit UN inspectors back into Iraq to
search for the WMD. If you followed the U.N. proceedings over the
following months, you will find that Baghdad fully complied with every
demand made upon it by the Security Council.
Even if you missed the TV coverage, if you read the papers carefully
you would find no instance where Saddam thumbed his nose at the
Council. When he read of accounts from President Bush, Vice President
Cheney and Secretary of State Powell that he was still hiding stuff
from the inspectors that our CIA knew about, he said he would invite
the CIA to come and look in every nook and cranny. Remember? And when
the UN inspectors were given tips by the CIA on places to search for
WMD, they did so and found no traces of WMD. Not a teensy weensy bit
of evidence. So when President Bush asked the Security Council for a
resolution backing a war with Iraq, the Council turned him down. The
other members pointed out that U.N. diplomacy had indeed worked and
that the inspectors could clean up the last bits and pieces in a few
months and certify that Iraq was absolutely clean.
President Bush did have authorization from the U.S. Congress to go to
war with Iraq to get his WMD, but the resolution required that before
he committed troops he had to certify in letters to the House and
Senate that diplomacy had failed. Mr. Bush sent such letters to the
House and Senate two days before our generals led coalition troops
into Iraq from Kuwait. Some members of Congress objected, but what
could they do but sit back and wait for our troops to defeat the Iraqi
army and then locate the hidden WMD?
As we now know, Saddam Hussein was telling the truth. He had no WMD,
had in fact gotten rid of them in 1991 when the U.N. passed a
resolution demanding that he do so. Well, the administration of which
you are the chief legal officer then insisted the war was justified
because of Al Qaeda connections to Saddam’s regime. We don’t need a
permission slip from the UNSC if we see there is a potential threat
from a government somewhere, anywhere, that might develop WMD and give
them to Al Qaeda, who would then sneak them into the United States and
cause catastrophic loss of life. But now we find Saddam was absolutely
telling the truth that he had no contact with Al Qaeda or Osama bin
Laden and that the one overture that came from Al Qaeda to an Iraqi
official several years ago, asking assistance from Baghdad, was
rebuffed. Apparently our intelligence agencies knew all this, as the
9-11 Commission has since discovered, but the administration you serve
chose to believe otherwise. The war went forward and the mission was
accomplished, at least in its formal military phase. Estimates of the
number of Iraqi military and militiamen killed in combat range as high
as 60,000 and estimates of the collateral damage to civilians range
from 16,000 to 35,000 deaths.
Saddam Hussein was eventually located in his spider hole and whisked
away, put under lock and key in a secure prison, with the idea that he
would eventually be turned over to a duly constituted court of law and
tried as a war criminal. President Bush on many occasions has pointed
out that Iraq is better off without Saddam because his regime was
known to have used “torture and rape rooms” at Al Ghraib prison. Now
you know President Bush did not order our military people to use those
same rooms to rape and torture Iraqi “detainees.” He says so and I
believe him. But I wonder if you have evidence that Saddam ordered the
Iraqi state or local police to “torture and rape,” or might he also
insist as Mr. Bush has that he was at the tippy top of the national
government and if he had known what excesses were committed by local
cops, he would have put a stop to it.
To tell you the truth, John, as far as I can recall, there have been
no assertions of the “brutality” of Saddam’s regime from anyone but
the Iraqi exiles associated with Ahmet Chalabi or those Kurds who
fought on the Iranian side in the Iran/Iraq war. There are all kinds
of anecdotes about Saddam doing dreadful things, entire books written
about them, but the source of all of them is the same pool of people
who have been feeding faked “evidence” of WMD and Al Qaeda connections
to our government. Can it be that there is nothing that Saddam has
done all these years that cannot be justified as the permissible acts
of a head of state acting in defense of his people. Yes, he invaded
Kuwait in 1990, but in retrospect that was a really easy war to
justify, given the economic warfare being conducted against Iraq by
the Emir of Kuwait. I mean easy in relation to now having to justify
this American invasion and destruction of good chunks of Iraq, on
false premises.
President Bush still has it in his head that Saddam tried to
assassinate his father in 1993, but if you did the smallest bit of
digging you would find this was a hoax perpetrated by the neo-cons.
The President also has it in his head that Saddam committed genocide
against the Kurds in 1988, killing tens of thousands of them with
poison gas and/or machine guns. If you lifted a little pinky to get to
the bottom of this story, you will find it is also made of neo-con
whole cloth. I’m not making wild assertions, John, because I have
spent countless hours on this subject and find no loopholes left. Just
call Human Rights Watch and ask if they have yet found the mass graves
of those tens of thousands of Kurds and they will sheepishly admit
they are still looking.
I’ll have to admit there is no easy way out for the Bush
administration in explaining how it could have been snookered from
first to last about Saddam Hussein. I’m not suggesting you ask to meet
with the President and tell him he should go on TV and tell the
American people he made a Bigtime Boo-Boo. I’m only suggesting you go
back to your law books and, for your own good, get a good grip on why
Saddam Hussein is behind bars when it now turns out he doesn’t seem to
have done anything wrong. You might then be in a better position to
advise the President on how to proceed in the best way to avoid
further Bigtime Boo-Boos.
* * * * *
.
|
|
| User: "Leigh_Bee" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam suddenly looks innocent |
24 Jun 2004 07:56:40 PM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<2lold01ae1ppap4u5d6kpci19mnjru4tjd@4ax.com>...
Saddam Suddenly Looks Innocent
Only because he has been guilty for so long!
Memo To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
From: Jude Wanniski
Re: Why is He Being Held at All?
SNIP You might then be in a better position to
advise the President on how to proceed in the best way to avoid
further Bigtime Boo-Boos.
* * * * *
RES SH WDTGT?
LB
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam suddenly looks innocent |
24 Jun 2004 05:47:07 PM |
|
|
In article <2lold01ae1ppap4u5d6kpci19mnjru4tjd@4ax.com>, wrote:
Saddam Suddenly Looks Innocent
Memo To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
From: Jude Wanniski
Re: Why is He Being Held at All?
I see in the papers, John, that our government has decided that we
will maintain physical custody of Saddam Hussein even after the June
30 transfer of sovereignty to an Iraqi interim government. An
anonymous official told Associated Press the reason is the Iraqis do
not have a prison safe enough to hold Saddam, and I suppose there may
be some concern that if the Iraqi interim government got their hands
on him there may be no need for a “trial.” They might sooner have him
“die of natural causes” in his cell rather than have him answer the
charges of war crimes, which have yet to be brought against him. But I
now wonder why he is being held at all?
If you think about it, 18 months ago Saddam Hussein was sitting in his
office, the duly constituted president and prime minister of Iraq,
minding his own business.
This is true - he was delegating all the tortures, killings and imprisonments to
others.
;-)
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mondo" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam suddenly looks innocent |
25 Jun 2004 10:25:43 AM |
|
|
But then again, President Bush does the same thing.
This is true - he was delegating all the tortures, killings and
imprisonments to
others.
;-)
Woods
"Woodswun" <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in message
news:LRICc.386255$M3.300558@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
In article <2lold01ae1ppap4u5d6kpci19mnjru4tjd@4ax.com>,
wrote:
Saddam Suddenly Looks Innocent
Memo To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
From: Jude Wanniski
Re: Why is He Being Held at All?
I see in the papers, John, that our government has decided that we
will maintain physical custody of Saddam Hussein even after the June
30 transfer of sovereignty to an Iraqi interim government. An
anonymous official told Associated Press the reason is the Iraqis do
not have a prison safe enough to hold Saddam, and I suppose there may
be some concern that if the Iraqi interim government got their hands
on him there may be no need for a ?otrial.? They might sooner have him
?odie of natural causes? in his cell rather than have him answer the
charges of war crimes, which have yet to be brought against him. But I
now wonder why he is being held at all?
If you think about it, 18 months ago Saddam Hussein was sitting in his
office, the duly constituted president and prime minister of Iraq,
minding his own business.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam suddenly looks innocent |
24 Jun 2004 09:49:46 AM |
|
|
Only to brain dead idiots.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam suddenly looks innocent |
24 Jun 2004 10:01:17 AM |
|
|
On 24 Jun 2004 14:49:46 GMT, (TonyZ2001) wrote:
Only to brain dead idiots.
Tony
Did you read it pantyboy? Doubt it, your Alien buddies have already
turned your pea brain to mush.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Gentle Robot Has ET's Looks and Disposition
Energy bill looks bad for wyoming, and everybody
FRICK !!!!!!!!!! It looks like the proverbial is gonna hit the fan at lot sooner than expected, peoplez !!!!
"Ariel" Looks like Going from the stage.
Looks like Boeing are getting more desperate than ever...
Looks like Jane's been here!
What a sleazy slimy perverted, depraved, evil, vile, putrid, deviant, hideous parasitic worthless criminal sewer rat looks like.................
From the looks of this list...
| Scary Stuff, peoplez !!!!! Looks like the Fat Lady iz clearing her throat & the poop-encrusted fan iz about ready to get splattered again with the icky brown stuff !!!!
Condoleeza O' Rice Says "***** Congress" in regards to Syria (looks like we are headed toward dictatorship)
Hey, This Guy Looks Just Like Your Uncle Wally ............................................................................
ASTRO: "Look, the sun looks just like a **GIANT SPOTLIGHT**!"
Looks like KimM will have to be retired (for now) !!!
**IT LOOKS LIKE BUSH, BUT KERRY CLINGS TO HOPE.........................................
Bush At Bay - Fitzgerald Looks At Niger Forgeries
|
|
|
