Saddam Hussein has been sentenced to die by hanging. If anyone deserves death, it's Saddam, so I hope there aren't too many tears shed by leftist "pacifists" who opposed the invasion and continue to share common cause with the fallen dictator.
A defiant Saddam Hussein shrugged off a possible death sentence, saying he would die without fear and the U.S. occupiers of his country would leave humiliated like they did in Vietnam, his lawyers said on Saturday.They said a jovial and highly spirited Saddam chatted with them for more than three hours about the violence in Iraq and mounting U.S. losses just hours before an expected death sentence on Sunday in his trial for crimes against humanity.
The prospect of the sentence appeared to be the least of his concerns, they said, his focus instead being on the insurgency and the rising U.S. death toll.
"He was totally unconcerned about the verdict. In fact there was derision about the court and this farce," Khalil al-Dulaimi, the defense team's chief lawyer told Reuters by telephone from Baghdad.
It's so strange that Saddam Hussein and American leftists seem to share the same hopes and dreams. I just can't figure it out.
Fortunately, it sounds like Saddam was a little more shaken after the sentence was handed down than he wanted to appear beforehand.
Angry, shaking and defiant, Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death this morning by hanging for ordering the massacre of Iraqi civilians."Allahu Akbar!" (God is Greatest) and "Long live the nation!", he shouted, pointing defiantly at the judge as the verdict was delivered.
Looking away in disgust, and then staring angrily back at the judge he continued to shout "Long live the people and death to their enemies. Long live the glorious nation, and death to its enemies!"
He had refused to stand for the verdict and had to be lifted to his feet by two court bailiffs.
"Make him stand," the judge ordered as the former president stayed seated.
"Make him stand." Historical words. My wife, who is part Iraqi, says the world will be a better place once Saddam swings.
The left's "hopes and dreams" do not include Saddam's.
Spin a little faster and harder, MW, and you may become a top.
Mark: Didn't you say you were a libertarian?
DD: More often than not, yes, I am.
Then how come you get so upset when we insult rabid leftists?
It's all very unoriginal. Right-wingers insult and say bad things about leftists.. ooh, there's a newsflash.
"The left's 'hopes and dreams' do not include Saddam's."
Though, Ramsey Clark and his ilk would beg to differ.
If given a choice between representing the Pendleton 8 (guilty or not) or Ayman al-Zawahiri, I'm sure Clark would defend the jihadist foreigner, instead.
Mark: Oh, and "libertarians" don't do the same thing. Why don't you just drop the charade? I thought rabid leftists were supposed to be proud of themselves. Gay pride, etc.
r80: Who cares about Ramsey Clark? If the right doesn't care about and downplays such "fringe" groups as white supremecists and other fascist groups, why should the left care about Ramsey Clark?
DD: So you're saying that being like other groups is okay? Interesting.
Mark: You didn't make any sense. I was saying to stop pretending that you aren't a radical "progressive."
I used small words. Hopefully you understand them.
As I've said before, I think that y'all are fortunate to have Mark as your "troll".
You can find a real hippy liberal shithead here. For some reason, he likes to troll at blogs run by conservative women. I hope that he never comes here.
DD: I abhor governmental involvement in most aspects of everyday life from the bedroom, to the hospital, to the classroom, to the bar, to the market, and to the rest of the world. If that makes me a "radical progressive" in your eyes, I'm not the one with any explaining to do.
Mark: That's doesn't address my question at all. Read through all of your comments on various MW posts throughout the past six months. You're not a "radical?" Could've fooled everyone. Alas, you proved my point once again.
Reagan: Apparently you don't read the comments' sections on this site enough. That would make you remove "fortunate" and the quotes around troll. ;)
I wonder where the Pirate is, he usually jumps in on the Mark-insanity fun right about now.
Reagan: Also just finished reading Strawman's handy-work...he's just funny whereas Mark is hilarious. And by funny I mean completely wacko.
DD: And you consistently prove my points about you.
Mark: Also known as: I know you are, but what am I?
Isn't that a favorite rebuttal of yours?
Apparently you're the only one here who has such wacko opinions of me, DD. I don't even think your husband would quite agree with you on it.
But if you think being against the big DHS bureaucracy and being upset about federal spending is me being a "radical progressive" who is also "wacko", you're a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black.
Mark, I don't think that you're particularly liberal in your politics. I mainly object to your relentless relativism. For you, every idea is just like every other idea. Nobody can argue for anything because somebody can make a counterargument. We can't criticize the other side because the other side can criticize us. And on and on and on.
You consider it the height of cleverness to prove that no one can or should believe in anything. And that's a cute rhetorical game at first, but after a while it becomes very tedious. You seem to be an intelligent and sincere guy; I just wish that you would put those qualities toward some definite purpose, rather than criticizing everyone who wants to accomplish anything.
I guess I'll have to keep an eye on his posts more often, Deo. Maybe I'll eventually notice those qualities that Ben was refering to.
Ben: Much of the "relativism" you're observing (or think you're observing) is primarily rooted in the lack of objectively presented information and insight on any given issue, and this blog of MW's is no different in that regard than its counterparts on the left end of the spectrum. The result, in my book, is that neither is to be trusted or agreed with wholesale at an ideological level.
Everything I've been through and experienced in my life thus far has supported and reinforced this natural skepticism of those so devoted to one side or the other. Their motives always play into it and are always something to be considered. When, for example, Rush Limbaugh goes into another anti-liberal diatribe, the first thing I think of and remind myself is that he's paid to do those things. He makes a living being a right-wing crackpot. As such, his words and message I am always skeptical of. And by no means is he the only example on either an individual or spectrum-wide basis.
The bottom line is that it seems, more often than not, that the truth on nearly anything is somewhere in between the rhetoric of the two most vehement sides on any given issue. Each situation must be judged individually, of course, but the preponderance of the situations is as I've said it is.
Markie Mark:
Check out the latest poll. Oh, snap!
And I must admit, my husband did that on his own.
Mark: I don't hate you. I apologize for being immature, but it's a personality trait, what can I say. However, Ben Bateman hits the nail on the proverbial head. You seem very smart and well-versed in many areas, but you just go in circles with everything. There is no black-and-white, no concrete definitions of anything, no idea base with which you build your arguments.
That's exactly why I put you on the rabid Leftist list.
Everything in life is NOT relative, and there are some black-and-white areas which you simply refuse to recognize.
I agree that not everything in life is relative. What many on here (and other blogs, both conservative and liberal) don't seem to believe, though, is that there is a lot of gray, perhaps more than there is black and white.