We Can't Do Anything Right

Update: Well it appears that we tried to delay the execution of Saddam. Kinda takes the wind out of the argument for this woman's article.

Apparently, we can't even hang Saddam for the right reasons. Or at least that's what this idiot seems to think. So we go back to 1982 when Saddam ordered 140+ people murdered, which can be proved and was admitted to, but that's the wrong crime. This woman then states: "But that still requires Saddam Hussein to be a monstrous villain (which he certainly was)"

So she admits that Saddam was a villain and certainly deserved to be hanged for his crimes, but God forbid that we use a crime that can be proven. She then goes on to state: "Fair enough, and the trial for the gassing of the Kurds actually got started a couple of months ago. Other trials, for his savage repression of the Kurdish revolt in 1988 and the Shiite revolt in 1991, were already scheduled to happen in the New Year. But none of that came to pass. All the other trials have been cancelled, and they actually hanged Saddam for the judicial murder of 144 villagers in the town of Dujail who were allegedly involved in a plot to kill him in 1982."

Saddam admits to this. Saddam admits to many crimes, but because we try him on one crime, she wants us to believe that almost all crimes committed by Saddam had the US involved in one way or another. Sure, we supported Saddam when he went to war with Iran. Iraq was the lesser of 2 evils at the time. When Saddam went off his rocker we went in and righted a wrong. Do we get credit for that in this woman's eyes? Of course not, she wants to blame the US for anything wrong. She makes wild claims, does she back it up with evidence?

What many of you may not know is that it is quite common to have a defendant accused of a large number of crimes and only be tried for a small amount of the most provable cases first. That way if there is an acquittal, you don't have someone who walks away free from all of the crimes they are accused of committing.

A perfect example is Terry Nichols, the Oklahoma City Bombing accomplice. He was first tried for the deaths of the Federal agents in the building because prosecutors thought they had a rock solid death penalty case. But just in case, they kept the civilian deaths separate in case of acquittal or a life sentence, which is what happened.

When you think that Saddam is a monster and deserves to be hanged, which crime do you start with? How about one where there's evidence and witnesses. So, if you want to have Saddam hanged for the "right" reasons, perhaps you should take a look at what is provable in a court of law vs. what is thought up in your head.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com