On the capture of Saddam Hussein

[Skinner]

The capture of Saddam Hussein is obviously huge news, which will likely have a significant impact in Iraq, in the US, and elsewhere. While there may be an increase in violence in Iraq in the short term, I believe that in the long term this is good news for the people of Iraq, and for the possibility of a peaceful and democratic future for their country.

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. Those who try to claim otherwise are either severely misinformed or blinded by their own partisanship. Now that he has been captured, we have the opportunity to hold him accountable for his crimes. I also believe that the chances for a peaceful and democratic future in Iraq have improved significantly. The fact that he had previously not been captured probably did provide a powerful incentive for pro-Saddam interests to continue their insurgency against the United States military, and against efforts to create a new Iraqi government. Unfortunately, there are likely still many other groups -- Islamic militants, for example -- who have no love for Saddam and will still continue fighting. For the sake of the Iraqi people, and for the sake of American soldiers, I hope that their will to fight is diminished by today's announcement.

As you all know, I was an opponent of the invasion of Iraq, and today's announcement does not change that. But I am also a pragmatist, and I recognize that we cannot go back in time and undo what is already done. While I believe that the Bush Administration has botched nearly everything about this war and occupation, I am still holding out a narrow sliver of hope that peace and democracy are possible for Iraq. If that happens, it will be a good thing for Iraq and for the Mideast region.

The impact of Saddam's capture in the United States is also likely to be significant. The capture of Saddam does not make an unwise war wise, it does not make an illegal war legal, and it does not make a foreign policy failure into a success. But it is going to make it much easier for the Bush Administration to paint the Iraq war as wise, legal, and successful. And it will make it much harder for Democrats to paint the war as a failure. Good news out of Iraq helps Bush, but I am not so partisan that I wish for bad news. The two biggest issues for 2004 are going to be national security and the economy, in that order. With Saddam's capture and a recent up tick in the economy, the Democrats' position has weakened significantly. With a primary looming, we have to figure out how that will impact our electoral strategy. I fear that Saddam's capture has the potential to make Howard Dean a weaker General Election candidate, and might even hurt Wesley Clark, who has taken a less-outspoken anti-war position. My vote is still up for grabs, and today's news makes it even harder to choose. I'm certainly going to give greater consideration to John Kerry and John Edwards.

Saddam's capture is good news. Let's hope that the Bush Administration does not botch this opportunity as well, and that even more good can come from it.

[fishnfla]

1. World without tears

I think it means 4 more years.

[pistoff democrat]

44. No way!

Where's Osama?

Emphasize Bush/Saudi connection!

Economic upturn for who? Not us regulars: "jobless recovery".

Never give in; never give up...get active!

:pals:

[KaraokeKarlton]

53. Bush didn't capture Saddam, the troops did

And Bush cut their pay. This will only intensify attacks from groups that don't want a US backed leader. The ones causing the problems in Iraq aren't the Iraqis, it's foreigners who are coming in and stirring up shit. They'll be stirring even more now, in my opinion.

It's great news for the Iraqi people Saddam has been caught, but it's not going to change the fact that Bush sucks on domestic issues.

[fishnfla]

58. That image of SH you see this morning?

The WH spinsters and shillists will be showing that all next summer. In the fall they will having it morphing into the Dem candidate before our very eyes.

[KaraokeKarlton]

72. So let him

It won't make people forget that their jobs still haven't been found.

[impeach the gop]

2. bush has botched up everything his greedy little hands ever touched

this won't be any different. he's a buffoon.

[ithacan]

3. but others should also be held responsible: GOP support for Saddam

namely, those in the Reagan and Bush I administrations who actively supported Saddam in the 1980s, provided him with chemical weapons, precursors to biological weapons, prevented the US Senate from denouncing him for using chemical weapons, forced the State Dept to take him off the list of supporters of terrorism, pressured the UN not to denounce him, etc.

For full details see U.S. Diplomatic and Commercial Relationships with Iraq, 1980 - 2 August 1990 http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html

If the media were really doing their job, this history of active support for Saddam by the very people running this country right now would be front and center!

[beardedOldMan]

14. Not to piss on your back and tell you it's rain, but

There was this little thing called "The Cold War" that pitted the United States against the Soviet Union.

Well, back during this other little thing called "World War Two" the United States supported, sent aide to and was an ally of the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany. Even though the dictator of the Soviet Union was probably more of a mass murderer than Adolf Hitler.

So the US was doing this sort of thing before Saddam (not so sure about the level of support to Iraq). Moral of the story?

The enemy of my enemy is my friend (de jour).


Live it learn it love it.

Sucks but it's the way of the world.

[ithacan]

32. support for Iraq had NOTHING to do with Soviet Union

Republican support for Saddam was because the republicans were obsessed with Iran in a way that blinded them to actual security national interest of the US.

They showed by this that they had incredibly bad judgement, that they could not see the world in proper perspective.

The US supported and fueled a war in which millions of Iraqis and Iranians died, in which Saddam used chemical weapons, etc.

Will we hear about any of this? No.

Whether or not it was justified, if the media were doing its job it would report on this in its detailing the history of Saddam.

We cannot understand the history of Saddam and his rule of terror without looking at the major Republican support for him throughout the 1980s.

(PS if anything, Iraq was a client state of the Soviet Union in this whole period... and the Iranian revolution was very anti-communist and anti-Soviet, almost as much as it was anti-US)

[AngryAmish]

56. Why did we support Saddam?

We wanted to bleed those people white in the Iran/Iraq war. Let gas each other, human wave attacks, etc. After all, its only brown people - or so thought those evil mothers in Reagan.Bush I, the Awakening.

[ithacan]

63. not "we" : the **Republican Party** supported Saddam

Let's not mix these things up.

This was NOT a decision taken by the US people or their representatives.

It was a decision taken by the Reagan and Bush administrations, including the people within those administrations, many of whom are currently running Bush's foreign policy.

In any war crimes trial these people should be in the dock alongside Saddam.

They are just as guilty as Henry Kissinger.

[Muddleoftheroad]

71. You do recall that the U.S. and Iran had issues?

That whole hostage crisis perhaps?

[Maddy McCall]

4. I agree that it is a good thing...

We should be more concerned with the fact that this will help the people in Iraq than whether Bush gets a minor bump in the polls.

I can't believe how many people on DU are bemoaning Hussein's capture. This is a great thing for the people of Iraq, and hopefully it will speed along the stablization of IRaq so that our sons, daughters, nephews, students, etc. can come home quicker, safely.

[La_Serpiente]

11. here here to that

people need to realize that Sadaam was a menance and that it is good that he is gone. In other words, let's be realistic, not partisan about this.

:toast:

[Maddy McCall]

26. Yes, using the capture as a partisan wedge will destroy our party...

We need to stop it. Let partisanship begin when decisions are made on trying Saddam, but not now. Democrats need to be a celebratory as Republicans...Clark's move to congratulate the troops who captured Saddam was BRILLIANT.

We have to portray ourselves as patriotic as Republicans, especially in this day and age, if we are going to be victorious in 2004. We know we are patriots, but the general electorate will have to see that, and not see us as a bunch of negative naysayers, if we are to regain power, or at least balance power, in the next few years.

[CWebster]

43. The invasion wasn't about Saddam it was about the threat of WMD's

and the BIGGEST mistake Democrats make is by cheering on Bush's deception. It is little more than an endorsement for the entire undertaking built on lies and fabrications.

[Maddy McCall]

62. Oh Duh me so dupid me thought it was all about saddam...

And me so stupid that me see the capture of saddam as mutually exclusive of the consideration of WMDs.

Me too dumb to consider two thoughts at once. Me capable of seeing gray, not a black and white world like you.

You are full of shit to label me supportive of Bush or his "undertaking."

To label those of us who are glad that Saddam was caught as simpleton supporters of bush is not fair, and actually only reveals your simple view of a complex issue.

[CWebster]

76. yes, I agree

it is always so easy to have a convenient monster to pin all the evil in the world on.

[Maddy McCall]

78. And have you considered that the capture of that monster will

leave Bush with no convenient monster with whom to blame opposition in Iraq?

This capture is a GREAT thing, in many ways. Now bush can only blame himself when our forces experience hostilities. He can't blame Saddam leading opposition forces, or "Saddam loyalists" any more. That smoke screen is now gone.

[CWebster]

83. Glad to see you coming around

Just heard a caller on C-Span--a marine who was aginst the Invasion of Iraq, he said if we really cared about what Saddam was doing to his own people, we would've done or said something at the time, instead of supplying him with more weapons and shaking his hand at photo-ops.

[Maddy McCall]

99. You are putting words in my mouth...

you are saying that I am so narrow minded that I can't conceive of the US's fault in creating the monstrous reign of Saddam...of that I am fully aware. You think that I am not aware of everything that that Marine said? I am full aware. So the other alternative is to leave Saddam in Iraq? No doubt that even if he were not captured he would never assume power again. I am aware of that. BUT this is a hugely important symbolic moment for the people of Iraq who were terrorized by that man--whatever the US admin's role in him being installed is secondary to the fact that now the people of Iraq have been told, at least symbolically, that the shadow of Saddam is gone, forever. That is GREAT FOR THEM! No other way about it.


Does the fact that tue US created the Saddam monster mean I should rue the day that that US-created dictator is captured? Absolutely not. This happened in vietnam with the JFK administration (creating and toppling leaders) and now it has happened in Iraq. The US has a history--in both Dem and Repub admins--of installing leaders to do their bidding. The Vietnam people's will wasn't considered when Diem was installed, just as the Iraqi's will was not considered with Saddam's brutality was commenced under the watchful eye of a very corrupt US admin--an admin every bit as corrupt as the one that now sits in the tower.

BUT, all that aside, I am happy for the people of IRaq that the bastard is gone--and I hope that the riddance of that distraction will contribute to the stability that the Iraqi people so derserve. Fuck this administration--I care not how or if they benefit from the capture. I am concerned about the fact that the people of Iraq now have the shadow of Saddam removed.

Bush has his own battles to fight at home. IT will be his domestic policy more than his foreign that brings him down. My parents are dyed-in-the-wool Republicans who have begun to vote Democratic in the past two years, and who will vote for ABB in 2004 BECAUSE OF THE FALIURE OF BUSH DOMESTIC POLICIES. The recent Medicare fraud only sealed their decision to vote Democratic.

The capture of Saddam does NOT seal Bush's victory in 2004. Anyone who thinks that needs to look at the implications. We now have a dictator in our possession who will publicly tell of the inner workings between him, Rummy, daddy Bush, and Bush himself. And the day that bin Laden is captured will be even better--oh the dirty laundry that will be put forth!

There is no way that the capture of Saddam is bad--NO WAY. IT is good for the Iraqi people, it is good for troop morale, it is bad for Bush in the long run.

Please don't try to paint people like me who see the good in this as simpletons who haven't the ability to extrapolate the implications. I apologize for saying you are full of shit, and I hope you can see by this post that I am aware of the huge implications of this capture, as well as its place in history.

It is incredibly short sighted for people to rue this capture as a boon for Bush. Bullshit--it may be just what he doesn't want. The news reported that when Rummy calld him and told him, he responded, "That's good, right?" He was hesitant to even see it as good because he knows it opens a whole new phase in his foreign relations. The boogie man is now gone.

[Ardee]

61. why is it a great thing?

please explain why this capture is such a grand and glorious event. Hussein was found, bearded and unkempt, lying in a hole in the dirt.Doesnt sound much like the leader of an army in opposition to me.

That he was a brutal dictator is a fact, that the US supports any number of such brutal dictators is also a fact, that the US put several of these into power in the first place is another such fact.That the invasion of Iraq and the deposing of this particular brutal dictator, who happened to rule above a sea of oil,and was once our trusted ally,was a severe violation of the rule of law is also a fact.

[caledesi]

5. But, but, Saddam Hussein was torturing his people for years....

So, suddenly in 2003, we come to the conclusion that he is an evil dictator. Where are the WMDs, Saddam? Just asking.

[pistoff democrat]

51. I love that picture...it's so

Republican AND Republican Guard!

[eileen_d]

6. Good morning Skinner!

Your post echoes a lot of my thoughts. Thanks.

[La_Serpiente]

7. Wow, never seen an opinion piece written by Skinner

but I respect your opinion :-)

[Junkdrawer]

8. Question: Should Democrats press for an open trial? Should Saddam...

be allowed to present a vigorous defense?

:shrug:

[Skinner]

19. The trial should be open,

and Saddam should be allowed to defend himself. I don't know what law is relevant to a dictator in Iraq, but we should always stand by the principle of fair trials for the accused no matter how heinous their crimes.

[La_Serpiente]

27. It could also teach the Iraquis about Democracy

that is if they are willing to embrace it.

[thebigidea]

31. is that a joke?

I can't tell.

[La_Serpiente]

36. yes

sorry, I didn't really mean it. It is a joke.

[Junkdrawer]

33. Let's see...

I can't help but think that, one way or another, we'll not hear much uncensored from Saddam. Prior to the invasion, he really couldn't discuss his Pre-Gulf War I US connections and retain his prestige in the region. Now, he'd have nothing to lose. US support for the Baathist uprising in the 60s...US support for his rise in the 70s...US supplied WMDs during the Iran-Iraq war...

[fishnfla]

40. The "captured alive" part is a problem for the admin.

They wanted him dead. A trial will be a huge distraction, and a constant headline.
Also the secrets Saddam holds. They gonna get ant WMD intell out of him.

[NashVegas]

68. Nah,

If they'd wanted him dead, he woulda been dead, with all the bullet holes they shot into his sons.

If this is truly an unstaged photo op - (and I have my doubts, Karl) - and IF he's been calling the shots from Tikrit, they need to negotiate to get him call his dogs back to their kennels.

[wndycty]

9. Skinner knows a thing or two abour leadership. . .

. . .thanks for this Skinner.

[Guaranteed]

34. Yes...very well written,

very well said.

Thanks, Skinner. If you don't speak for all of us, you speak for the vast majority of us.

[Ellen Forradalom]

57. Yes, well put, Skinner.

It does remove a huge question mark from the picture. Let's hope it bodes well for the people of Iraq.

[PinkTiger]

87. Excuse me, but who makes you the judge?

The vast majority of us is not something that can be decided by one person. I, for one, think it is bullshit.

[quaker bill]

10. Thanks

I hope for a more peaceful future as well.

It is good to have Saddam in custody.

The political landscape has changed, but it was always going to. The Republicans were never going to let this war be the issue to decide 2004. That would have made it too easy for the Democrats.

Don't dismiss Dean quite so quickly. While his press has been anti-war, or at least anti-this-war, he has been running a much broader based campaign. I believe he always knew that this war would remain the defining issue through next November.

We will see how this all sorts out, but I am happy for the promise, however faint, for a more peaceful future.

[Resistance]

12. Y'know, while we're out capturing terrorists

Why not nab Ariel Sharon?

I know nobody's paying attention to Palestine these days, but just a little FYI, over 70 Palestinians have been killed since the last suicide attack, mostly civilians, many children, and hundreds of homes are continuing to be destroyed. I say this to make the point clear -- Yes, Sharon really is a terrorist. So why not go after him too?

[Skinner]

22. This is just flame bait.

This is a thread about Saddam Hussein. Please do not deliberately take it off track.

[Resistance]

67. Sorry, those are just my thoughts on the capture of S.H.

It is of special interest to me how U.S. planners picks and chooses which terrorists are deemed worthy of financial aid (Sharon, Suharto, ... even Hussein when he was a good boy) and which are to be the declared enemies of freedom and democracy and all this b.s.

So, while we're busy "liberating" Iraqis and capturing the brutal dictator, we're at the same time preparing a $9 billion lottery payout to Ariel Sharon, whose army continues to target Palestinian civilians for murder every day (stealing land and bulldozing homes while they're at it). The hypocrisy is just incredible, and it only proves to me that U.S. decision-makers are not at all concerned with human rights or freedom or democracy; rather, what they care about is increasing corporate profits.

[CWebster]

30. Yes, well, this is not open for discussion

We will just gloss over this little niggling reality...

[pistoff democrat]

Please see Skinner's Message 22

This is NOT I/P...must you (plural) always? :bounce: :puke:

[CWebster]

59. I\P is not a seperate issue in the Middle East

Only in american politics.

[pistoff democrat]

86. I believe you misunderstood Skinner's use of "flame bait"

eom

edited for personal safety - only half kidding ;-)

[wndycty]

13. A thread for everyone to consider

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=903119

[underpants]

15. I agree with some of that and not with some of it

We'll see but do expect some real grandstanding starting today. I am curious what the spinline Rove is working up will be, what ever it is expect to hear it A LOT.

[Pocho]

16. PRESIDENT HUSSEIN DOESN’T HAVE A DAMN THING TO DO WITH THIS

except in the minds of those swayed by US propaganda. It is about land, resources, power, and profits.

The score in the bottom of the first is still: Before their war was won = 138. After their mission accomplished = 317 more, Total young land of the free and home of the brave heroes just following orders = 455 not counting dying among 2,577 wounded.). Iraqi men, women, and children evil doers massacred = 9,766. Those seeking vengeance for sake of family and invaded homeland honor = most. Years for Viet Cong to come together = several. Time for Iraqi resistance to build = damned near immediate. Have a nice day.:)

[Skinner]

25. "President Hussein"?

You've got to be kidding me. There is no reason whatsoever to give this kind of respect to that man. You are making us all look ridiculous.

[CWebster]

45. sort of like "president Bush"? nt

[Ardee]

70. simply citing fact is not showing respect

for shame Skinner, for shame.

[Muddleoftheroad]

75. It's not a fact, it's past tense

He now president of squat.

[Ardee]

85. laws are such silly things after all

Like him or not, think him an unfit ruler or dont, the simple fact of the matter is that the US acted in an illegal fashion in deposing his govt. He was and is, according to international law, still the legal head of the Iraqi govt. until such time as a new govt is formed.

[Muddleoftheroad]

90. Not silly, a dictator was deposed

He is no longer president. To use an honorific title for such a monster is ridiculous.

[thebigidea]

88. and what do they call Carter?

former Senators for that matter?

Kissinger still gets called Sec. on all the chat shows.

[Muddleoftheroad]

89. Often they add the word former

But they include the title as a form of respect. Saddam has earned no respect.

[thebigidea]

96. but apparently, you're on first-name terms with him

next time you see him, tell him he still has my "Twin Peaks" DVDs.

[Darranar]

17. Yes, his capture is good news...

He was a brutal dictator and deservees punishment for his crimes.

However, I do not think his capture will change much. As you point out, the attacks in Iraq are not due to only Saddam. There are plenty who didn't like Saddam who will still fight the US occupation. I am not at all convinced that even traditional Saddam loyalists were being ordered around by him, nor am I convinced that Saddam loyalists will now lay down their arms and stop fighting.

[Bucky]

41. I agree. Amen. Hopefully this will accellerate the timeline

[Ninga]

18. Dear Mr. Skinner

your points are well taken. However,I am here to say that I have been around for a long time, voted for Kennedy and protested hard and long Vietnam.

My experience tells me it is waaaaaaaaaaay to early to spin the results of the capture of this "Saddam."

Bush will get a bump, and this will most surely bolster the neocons. Now the will feel justified and they will not abandon or alter the gameplane that brought them to the dance.

This is far from over.

Stay tuned, keep your nose clean and your ear to the ground. Grassroots efforts will not be abandoned.

[Iverson]

20. on peace in Iraq

There is little doubt that the capture of the ex-dictator is a step in the right direction. However, I would argue that chances for peace in Iraq have improved only marginally, not significantly. That is because I am not convinced that loyalty to Hussein is the primary motivator behind the various attacks upon coalition forces. That may be one element, but it is clear that the attacks are not confined to a particular geographic, ethnic, or political group.

A hostile occupying force is still killing civilians from time to time while essentially looting the country. That is such an overwhelming obstacle to peace that the capture of Saddam is unlikely to change it. I welcome being proved wrong by swift and meaningful policy changes or something similar.

[CWebster]

21. It boggles my mind, after all that has transpired,

after all the death and destruction, that it can all be waved away by a cowering man in a hole in the dirt.

What did WMDs have to do with it?

[snippy]

23. I agree with everything you wrote, but I see this as an opportunity for us

The Iraqi people are going to want their country back now. Bush won't like that. Democrats should side with the Iraqi people. Make Bush defend retaining control of Iraq.

Most Americans probably thought that Saddam would be killed or captured sooner or later. Rather than think that the capture of Saddam solves everything, they will be asking what happens now. Bush won't have an answer to that question until Turd Blossom Rove runs it through the focus groups.

Democrats should seize this opportunity to argue for turning the reconstruction of Iraq over to the UN. They need to emphasize the number of countries which have offered lots of troops and lots of money if the UN is in charge of the reconstruction. Democrats should stress that this is a wonderful opportunity to save American lives and money. There is no reason that the rebuilding has to be done by Americans. Make Bush defend the continued occupation and exploitation of Iraq and the costs to America in lives and money.

First it was about WMD.

Then it was about removing the evil dictator.

What will it be about now? Bush will look bad answering this question.

[chimpymustgo]

24. This race is wide open. I think this boosts Clark and Kerry.

I'm interested that you are giving another look to Edwards - who has been at the top of my list since the beginning.

I think - and hope - all Democratic voters will take a fresh look at all the candidates. Who is the best the take the fight to AWOL? Who has the best ideas for dealing with the country and the world in its current context? Who can take his case to ALL of America?

The Democrats still have a great case and great candidates. Let's pick the very best one.

[Ninga]

29. STAY TUNED, ITS NOT GOING

TO SHAKE OUT LIKE YOU THINK. IT NEVER, NEVER DOES!!!!!!!!!

[pistoff democrat]

55. Clark's first response was

to congratulate the US military w/o mention of Bush. Great move!

Clark/Edwards (pragmatically speaking for the general election)

[chimpymustgo]

66. Morning in America. Clark/Edwards. Edwards/Clark.

Kerry for MAJORITY leader of the Senate.

[bloom]

28. I haven't noticed what the other Saddam threads are saying, yet

but your post echoes my thoughts.

It's complicated.

Who knows what will happen with the elections. But the Iraq situation isn't over, yet.

[T Bone]

35. I rejoice with Skinner and the President of France

It is always a good thing when TYRANTS, anywhere, are deposed, captured, and made to stand trial for their crimes against their own people and the people of the world.

[pistoff democrat]

93. Chirac 'delighted' at Saddam's arrest

cut

World leaders congratulated the United States and the Iraqi people on Sunday, in reaction to the news that U.S. forces captured Saddam Hussein.

French President Jacques Chirac said he was delighted at Saddam's arrest, and added that it would clear the way for Iraqis to rule themselves.

Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa called the capture of Saddam an important event and added that the Iraqi people should decide his fate, Sky News reported.

cut


http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/371853.html

[G_j]

37. I have always felt that

our best target was and is the long list of verifiable criminal and treasonous actions committed by the Bush admin. This does not change that. It's not just foriegn policy either. It's accross the board lies and deception.

edit, if someone robs banks they can't escape prosecution because of some unrelated 'good deed'. We have the evidence.

[Saudade]

38. Disagree

Bush's Iraq conquest should be seen as a test case for the doctrine of "preemptive war" and as a first step in the implementation of the neoconservative plan for America's global domination.

To applaud Bush's "success" in Iraq is to accept the premise that preemptive war and global domination are good for America.

Because I believe that these goals are destructive, I disagree with Skinner's post.

[pistoff democrat]

82. Forgive me, but you miss the point:

"To applaud Bush's "success" in Iraq is to accept the premise that preemptive war and global domination are good for America."

We are applauding the capture of a tyrant. That does not equate to applauding "success" in Iraq.

[Jacobin]

39. Excuse me if I suggest that this sounds very naive

Iraq does not welcome our continued occupation of their country. Most non-partisan analysts believe that if an election were held that the Shiites would gain power and turn it over to a fundamentalist Islamic cleric.

The eventual government of Iraq, if it is allowed to develop without U.S. interference will undoubtedly be more similar to Iran than to our fictionalized idea of what it should look like.
This is distinctly bad news for our interests in the M.E.

I'm suprised at the extent to which the PNAC agenda has infiltrated and affected the world view of thinking people on the left.

[jonoboy]

42. I cannot believe you have all fallen for this claptrap

for the first time I really am beginning to realise why the rest of the world hates the US and hates Americans..you just don't get it do you..as if capturing Saddam is going to have the slightest effect on the outcome in Iraq. It's as though no matter how much you know the US media is full of falsehoods and lies you still choose to believe the crap..Skinner's post is no different from the garbage that was spewed out when Saddam's sons were killed and their bodies displayed. Within 2 months everything was back to the way it was before.What a great insult to the Iraqis that are fighting to get imperialist US forces out of their country.
I'm ashamed of the people on this board that are giving any credence to the importance of this story.

[Iverson]

46. tap tap tap

More than one opinion is being expressed here.

[Jacobin]

48. Read responses to Skinner

All are not fooled.

[shirlden]

47. Well said, Skinner

My question is this.......Who screwed up and captured Saddam? No way, can * want this man alive. This is going to be very interesting.
One tyrant down.......many more to go.

I hope the Iraqi people soon get their country back.

:kick:

[Deja Q]

49. Great. Now who's gonna hold Bush accountable for his?

Not the US.

[curse10]

50. I agree

as much as we'd like to have Saddam be a good guy, he just isn't. Was the war right? No. But that doesn't make Saddam any less evil.

[LoneStarDem]

74. Exactly

Exactly. It seems like when faced with some sort of binary opposition, people have to paint one side as good and one side as bad for it to make any sense to them (I see this all the time). It has always seemed to me that one of the signs of an open and enlightened mind is the ability to recognize that sometimes it's just assholes vs. assholes.

[Ardee]

80. evil is as evil does

Was Hussein evil when we gave him millions upon millions in military aid? Was Hussein evil when we supported his attacks on Iran? Was Hussein evil when Bush the first let him off the hook and failed to overthrow him when we were poised to do so?

Are we , as a nation, any less evil because we slaughtered ten thousand or more inncocent Iraqis to depose Hussein so that Halliburton could reap billions in profit, some of which is illegally earned(again)? Is it fine to commit an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation because its ruler is unfit? Who are we to decide who remains and who gets axed?

Lastly, where is the call to overthrow the other unfit leaders , some of whom we put in power in the first place? Is the determination of intolerable evil decided by the amount of oil under the dirt?

[Skinner]

94. Yes, he was evil then.

And the fact that he was evil when we were supporting him does not automatically make him good when we are not.

[Zomby Woof]

52. Thanks Skinner

You're fair and balanced, but in the GOOD way. :-)

I think what a lot of people on DU will dread is not his actual capture, which should be considered a good thing by all of us - I cringe terribly when anyone downplays the brutality of tyrants - but the relentless gloating and spin the Bushies, war apologists, and Faux/CNN/etc will put into it. I fear coverage will be remarkably shortsighted, draped in bunting and cheerleading, while downplaying the long term "big picture" you addressed quite succinctly.

We shall see if Bush botches the Saddam aftermath as he has just about everything else, but for the sake of Iraqi lives, soldiers' lives, stability, and peace, we cannot root for failure. Peace must prevail.

Plenty of time for the Democratic candidates to adapt to the changing climate ahead. I believe the essential platforms of each candidate will remain intact, but it comes down to how effectively they can contest the Bush spin on Iraq, the economy, and domestic security. We all know too well how quickly fortunes can change for campaigns, and for the occupants of the White House.

It never gets dull, does it?

Glad to read your views on the event, and thank you.

[Spazito]

54. Thanks Skinner, I agree!

It is good news! Saddam was a dictator, we should all rejoice at his capture and commend the troops on the ground for this! It is but one aspect to the Iraq situation and questions on the overall success strategy will continue, I have no doubt, but, in this, I salute the troops!

[DemLikr]

60. Couldn't disagree more, Skinner. Anything good for W is bad for U.S.

The U.S. should never have invaded Iraq, even using the excuse that Sadam Hussein is a REALLY BAD MEANIE man, so why the hell would I be glad that a misguided, false objective has now been achieved, particularly on the part of the unelected, mendacious Bush administration?

It was my hope that Sadam would remain on the lam through the 2004 election, hopefully reducing Shrub's chances of reselction. There, I said it, and I mean it, and I LIKE meaning it.

[Blue_Roses]

64. While I agree this is big news

it still leaves alot of unanswered questions. For one, where are the WMD? This is troubling, considering this is the reason we went to war to begin with. It's obvious that there is and was NO immediate threat to the US, so I just don't see how this will work well for Bush very long. It looks good today and I am so glad the Iraqi people are rid of this tyrant, but what now? If Saddam's captured had happened after the first gulf war I think I would be more elated, but I just don't feel that today.

I think that once the dust settles from this excitement, we need to be asking this administration some serious questions. If we are going to go "liberate" every country that has a dictator, then the US better get ready for the draft, 'cause that's the only way we will ever have enough military to defend against this kind of pre-emptive strike. Is that the kind of administration we want? I don't.

I just have serious mixed emotions about this today and it has nothing to do with whether Bush will win in '04. As someone who lives in the deep south, I have other reasons to worry about his re-election that are stronger than this. And it doesn't take away from the fact that this administration still is not on the up and up with the American people.

It's going to be interesting how this whole thing plays out in the next few months.

[Cat Atomic]

65. Saddam's capture will be one more argument AGAINST the invasion

in a few months time. The violence will likely continue. The Iraqis don't want us there.

With the removal of Hussein, the administration's last flimsy excuse for continued Iraqi resistance (Baathist loyalists) is gone. How will they explain the lack of support in the general population? They can no longer say that the Iraqis are all just afraid to speak out, for fear of Hussein returning to power. How can they justify a continued occupation? Americans will eventually start asking themselves why we haven't left the country, if in fact we've "won".

As you mentioned, for many Americans, the capture of Hussein will be read as "War Over. We Win". A positive for Bush today, indeed- and for morale. But in a year? Perhaps not.

[RainDog]

69. Thank you, Skinner

for this post. I just woke up to the news, and frankly I dreaded to see what some here would post about this issue.

beyond partisan politics, this is a signifcant moment for our troops in Iraq and for the people of Iraq.

what happens after this is not known, but hopefully Saddam's capture will decrease the threat of violence in the Sunni Triangle, and will deny Saddam loyalists their legitimacy.

The people of Iraq have suffered enough and too long from all the power politics by every side and I hope and pray they will be able to move forward with sovereignty.

This capture still does not legitimize the governing council for many Iraqis, I'm sure, and perhaps his capture will strengthen the case for an Iraq for the Iraqis, and not for Bush puppets and American war profiteers like Halliburton.

Obviously this helps Bush at this moment. But who knows what the future will bring in election politics. I, for one, cannot put my partisan feelings above my hope for peace in Iraq.

[Maddy McCall]

77. Rain Dog, beautiful post...you expressed my sentiments perfectly.

I agree with EVERY point you made. I too dreaded visiting DU--feared what the extremists would post. Good to see level-headed posts from you and Skinner, and many others today.

Beautiful post...eloquently expressed my feelings.

[DoYouEverWonder]

73. Don't worry

by next November we will still be in Iraq, a lot more Americans will have died for Bu$hCo's oil war, and it is very likely with Saddam out of the way that Iraq will devolve into civil war.

Yes, I would love a rosy outcome. I would love if peace and prosperity suddenly decended upon the people of Iraq. But the situation there is so bad and the Americans refuse to provide enough security that it is not possible for Iraq to quickly recover from what we have done to them. In the meantime I expect things to get worse not better.

[deutsey]

79. I've been against Hussein since I protested outside the Iraqi embassy

in the '80s, back when Rumsfeld et al. were pals with him. I was against the invasion of Iraq, but I was glad he was no longer in power as a result of the invasion.

I'm now happy that he has been captured and I hope some justice comes of it. I never doubted that we'd defeat Hussein and, frankly, I'm surprised he's remained free and alive this long.

However, I'm not sure I see how this hurts Dean and Clark. Removing Hussein from power was not the rationale for invading Iraq. We were told that Hussein had all these deadly weapons of mass destruction that were 45 minutes away from being launched at us, if you recall.

Dean and I believe Clark too have questioned this argument as the basis for invading Iraq. Bush Inc. never made a convincing case that gained the support of the world community so they just went ahead and did what they wanted to anyway and when WMDs were not found anywhere, suddenly Neo-Cons and Fox News were crowing about how invasion was to liberate the Iraqi people.

Dean and Clark (and Kucinich, too, although his rationale is much different than the other two) called Bush on the flimsy, disingenuous case he made for invasion, for alienating the world community and violating international law, for putting our troops in a quagmire, and for setting a dangerous precedent for "pre-emptive" wars.

It sometimes feels like I'm Winston Smith in 1984 who holds on to this scrap of knowledge that for everyone else has been sucked down the memory hole.

[1songbird]

81. The capture of Saddam is hopefully good for Iraq, but

how is this good for us in our War on Terror. Aren't we at war to protect America from terrorist? His capture will not diminish the efforts of Al-queda(sp) at all since there was never a link between the two. Gen. Clark has said that our war should be with Al-queda and I still fervently believe this. I think it has no negative effect on the candidacy of Gen. Clark. The war on terror, which we are losing, starts with Al-queda. I will not let the media tell me who I should vote for.

[loudnclear]

84. Well said Skinner. I agree with you.

But there are lot of questions to be addressed when the dust settles. And we all will know better what kind of blowback, if any, will occur. That being said, we should all be happy that this capture might well make it easier to get our troops off Iraqi soil and back safely.

Thank God!

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pistoff democrat]

95. Whaaaaaa?

There's not one deleted message after nearly 100 posts!!!

[Skinner]

97. It is still against the rules to call someone a freeper or disruptor. (nt)

[Malva Zebrina]

92. must be something wrong with me because something is not quite right

and something is not exactly ringing true, in spite of that excellent piece of writing by Skinner.

Here is the rub and the irritation as I see it now

--George Bush, then, was right. He was right to invade Iraq, to lie, to make a spectacle of the UN, to turn the rest of the world against us because he knew that if he got Saddam, we would all have to thank him and see how he indeed, did "liberate" the Iraqi people, who may now, that Saddam is captured have a chance at --what?--why "freedom" of course.

He invaded, he lied, he killed thousands,--we tore our hair out, we cried, we mourned, some prayed and the pictures of the dead and bleeding children entered our nightmares at night. But...

Bush knew what he was doing. He knew what he was doing when he ignored the millions who took to the streets to protest, and called them fringe people. He was right to ignore them. He and the neocons, knew perfectly well what they were doing. Bush murdered people and lied about the invasion. I watched it unfold and cried. But now..

he has played the one card that he and his advisors knew would forever get him off the hook--

he captured Saddam--the tyrant.

So nothing more is to be said about Bush's folly--his lying and his murders=--the end justifies the means and we shall all go on our way saying--I was against the war, but Bush, after all, did capture the mean, evil (yes, evil is how Bush describes him) tyrant who "gassed his own people" kept his people in slavery and etc etc.

If I woulda thunk that-- I would definately have joined Lieberman and the rest of the ones who voted for the war on Iraq but especially LIeverman.

--we are there now, yes, and there is nothing we can do about it-and that is exactly what Bush and the neo-cons was counting on, isn't it? He's bagged us. Indeed, Bush IS the greatest leader we have ever seen to have been so clever as to predict such great things for the Iraqi people after he captured Saddam.

-to a certain extent that is true, but in a certain way it is also accepting Bush's method and surely, should it happen in another country that has a tyrant for it's leader, who makes slaves of his own people, we should repeat the performance--

[Iverson]

98. good point and addendum

"-to a certain extent that is true, but in a certain way it is also accepting Bush's method and surely, should it happen in another country that has a tyrant for it's leader, who makes slaves of his own people, we should repeat the performance--"

Even now, just hours after the news has broken, major networks are reporting that Lieberman is calling for the death penalty for Saddam right now. Granted, network news is often untrustworthy, but the Bush mentality is getting reinforced over and over again.

Gum?

[pistoff democrat]

100. Here is what you referred to as the rub:

"George Bush, then, was right. He was right to invade Iraq, to lie, to make a spectacle of the UN, to turn the rest of the world against us because he knew that if he got Saddam, we would all have to thank him and see how he indeed, did "liberate" the Iraqi people, who may now, that Saddam is captured have a chance at --what?--why "freedom" of course."

That does not appear logical to me.

Our military caught Sadam Hussein.

That does not make the invasion of Iraq right and we have not "liberated" the Iraqi people.

Maybe you could elaborate, but I don't see it the way you do at this point.

Thanks!