14 Comments

1. clark  •  Mar 29, 2006 @5:29 pm
   

   There was no sectarian violence under Saddam, at least not to the extent that we are seeing now.

   What Bush and them still don’t seem to understand is that, Saddam was to Iraq, as Tito was to Yugoslavia. They both were “strongmen” the world tolerated, because they kept the respective lids on the violence between the different ethnic/religious groups that was just beneath the surface.

   They should have known that, once Saddadm was dispatched, if political issues are not properly addressed, violence would ensue. Obvoiusly, they didn’t think of that, and now they want to blame everyone, even Saddam, for that.

2. lurker  •  Mar 29, 2006 @5:56 pm
   

   I enjoyed his quote from that speech.. “”I also want the Iraqi people to hear — it’s about time you get a unity government going. In other words, Americans understand you’re newcomers to the political arena. But pretty soon its time to shut her down and get governing.”

   derrrrrr… *beating head against wall in realization of futility*

3. ken melvin  •  Mar 29, 2006 @6:00 pm
   

   Saddam made me do it.

4. maha  •  Mar 29, 2006 @6:02 pm
   

   There was no sectarian violence under Saddam, at least not to the extent that we are seeing now.

   Well, to be fair, Saddam really did gas the Kurds. And he killed a lot of other Kurds and Shiites after the Gulf War.

5. joanr16  •  Mar 29, 2006 @7:00 pm
   

   I would agree with clark as to the Saddam-Tito comparison; the enforced peace of the totalitarian dictator. I bet Bush’s think we mean “what Tito was to the Jackson 5ive,” however.

6. Swami  •  Mar 29, 2006 @7:10 pm
   

   If democracy fails, Bush predicted that terrorists would use Iraq as a base to overthrow moderate governments in the Middle East and launch further attacks against the United States.

   How subtly Bush ties 9/11 to Iraq, and transfers his responsibility for failure to democracy. What a guy! Mr. Accountability himself.

7. carla  •  Mar 29, 2006 @7:53 pm
   

   Saddam was basically the glue that held Iraq together. Brutal dictatorship is neato that way.

   The fact that the idiots in DC thought that somehow Iraq would be all chummy once Saddam was gone was flat out incompetence. I can’t think of a single person with expertise in that region who didn’t discuss Saddam’s role..and how Iraq could easily fracture without an iron hand holding it together.

   Not only should they have expected sectarian violence..they should have been prepared to deal with it. But these are the same people who claimed we’d be greeted with sweets and flowers upon our invasion..as if we’d do the same thing if our nation was invaded.

   Dumbasses.

8. Henry  •  Mar 29, 2006 @9:31 pm
   

   In iraq, how can A man who was pulled out of A hole in the ground. Be the cause of so much violance in the country? Which was stated by some in the Bush Administrtation.(that they would well come us with open arms and flowers). What happen? How can Pres.GWB say its Saddams Fault? Did he start the war, or disband his army? where are the 9 billions of dollars of Iraq money which is missing. Where are the weapons of mass disception at? Are we safer now or on the verge of A much larger war.

9. Donna  •  Mar 29, 2006 @10:45 pm
   

   Henry, #8….I believe that it was more like $23 billions of dollars of Iraq money that went missing, after the UN entrusted those funds to the US Coalition Authority [$8.8 billion went missing in the first 14 months of the occupation], some $12 billion of that total $23 billion was shipped to Iraq in easily dispersible/disappearable bricks of $100. bills. Then the Coalition Authority under Bremer went on a big spree with remaining funds right before handing over authority to a provisional Iraqi government [June, '04] which effectively left the Iraqi group only some few millions to work with.
   So, I say, the American thievery of Iraqi resources is directly connected to the increasing distress of the Iraqi population who still, after three years,live daily without adequate clean water, electricity, heat, sewers, and jobs. The insurgency and the increasing violence really started up AFTER that debilitating thievery and escalated alongside increased hopelessness in the population.

   Seems to me that the Bush incompentency in ’securing’ Iraq’s basic needs happened because of crony and corporate greed by Bush buddies who went wild with the Iraqi and US taxpayer money available through the huge delicious contracting pie that accompanied this ‘war of choice’.

   Oh, but once the easy bucks were made…..oops, no money left for the Iraqi reconstruction…..but along comes the violence, which provides perfect cover as a reason [other than disappeared billions] to say reconstruction can’t proceed. Neat, huh…..

   And George Bush thinks Saddam is to blame for the insurgency? Give me a break….

10. Swami  •  Mar 29, 2006 @11:13 pm
    

    I wonder if Bush considered the damage he’s done with his mass arrests of suspected “terrorists” in Iraq. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis were rounded up, handcuffed, bags placed over their heads and numbers written on them like cattle going to slaughter. What the American army did might seem to be a process of efficiency to the American army, but became a process of humiliation and degradation to the Iraqi public. Bush doesn’t understand or can’t admit that any tolerance of America’s presence in Iraq has been eliminated by countless abuses of the Iraqi people by the American military. Even with the slaughter in Fallujah,Bush denied the defenders— who chose to fight to their deaths rather than surrender their freedom to the American will— the dignity of their cause…He labeled them terrorists and slaughtered them all. Bush can forget about winning hearts and minds, he blew that possiblity forever.

11. A. Citizen  •  Mar 29, 2006 @11:24 pm
    

    Bush is a war criminal and our nation is complicit with him. We have allowed him to make war on women and children. Grandfathers and grandmothers; people who had no intent nor the capability to harm any of us.

    Unless we bring him to justice we are as guilty as he.

    I am ready.

    Step One: Drive the Republican Party into the sea.

12. Zeus  •  Mar 30, 2006 @1:12 am
    

    “A leaked British government memo reveals that Bush did not believe Iraq was a serious threat, intelligence was “fixed” to sell the war to the American public”

    “John Sawers, Mr Blair’s envoy in Baghdad in the aftermath of the invasion, sent a series of confidential memos to Downing Street in May and June 2003 cataloguing US failures.”

    “he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair’s top foreign policy adviser”

    Please tell me again why anybody listens to this guy!

13. Zeus  •  Mar 30, 2006 @1:42 am
    

    To A Citizen:
    Call me crazy (or an unpatriotic left wing zealot), but I agree with you that Bush is a war criminal – the British leaked memos substantiate that claim. But he will never be brought to justice – only history will hold him accountable. One can only hope that he lives long enough to witness his tragic legacy, although it really doesn’t matter because he will only blame others for it as he is not capable of accepting responsibility.

    I’m with you on the republican party thing, it’s time for a “regime change”.

14. the talking dog  •  Mar 30, 2006 @8:32 am
    

    “Once the rockets go up, who cares where they come down.
    That’s not my department… says Werner Von Braun”
    –Tom Lehrer

    The name of the game was to GET INTO Iraq, so that we could remove the longstanding Bush bugbear, Saddam, and start transferring those government payments from undeserving old and poor taxpayers to deserving insider corporate insiders at Bechtel at Halliurton, Dynegy, GE and the rest. There was no exit strategy because EXIT WAS, AND STILL IS, IRRELEVANT.

    The only hitch would be if the war became SO unpopula that it costs control of the House in the mid-terms (or the White House directly; we solved that for them by nominating Kerry). But thanks to gerrymandering and a feckless opposition party and an even more feckless electorate… there’s nothing to worry about.

    In short: mission accomplished.