Saddam Hussein @ MindSay 
trial
A: Because they had weapons
of mass destruction honey.
Q: But the inspectors didn’t find
any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That’s because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that’s why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn’t
find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A: That’s because the weapons are so well hidden.
Don’t worry, we’ll find something, probably right
before the election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those
weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I’m confused. If they had all those weapons that they
planned to use in a war, then why didn’t they
use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn’t want anyone to know
they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the
thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q: That doesn’t make sense Daddy.
Why would they choose to die
if they had all those big weapons to
fight us back with?
A: It’s a different culture.
It’s not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don’t know about you, but I don’t think
they had any of those weapons our government
said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn’t matter whether or not
they had those weapons. We had another good
reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn’t have weapons of mass destruction,
Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is
another good reason to invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that
makes it OK to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don’t go comparing China to Iraq.
China is a good economic competitor,
where millions of people work
for slave wages in sweatshops to
make U.S. corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for
American corporate gain, it’s a good country,
even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government.
People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to
prison and tortured.
Q: Isn’t that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What’s the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the
Ba’ath party, while China is Communist.
Q: Didn’t you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government
in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China’s a good economic competitor.
Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn’t a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government
passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to
trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped
being communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with
Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn’t
that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don’t be a smart-ass.
Q: I didn’t think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don’t have
freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China.
Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a
military coup, so he’s not really a legitimate leader anyway.
Q: What’s a military coup?
A: That’s when a military general takes over the government
of a country by force, instead of holding free elections
like we do in the United States.
Q: Didn’t the ruler of Pakistan come to
power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf?
Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend
if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q: Didn’t you just say a military general who comes
to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate
government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein.
Pervez Musharraf is our friend,
because he helped us invade Afghanistan.
Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men, fifteen of
them Saudi Arabians, hijacked four airplanes and
flew three of them into buildings, killing over
3,000 Americans.
Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained,
under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q: Aren’t the Taliban those bad radical Islamics
who chopped off people’s heads and hands?
A: Yes, that’s exactly who they were.
Not only did they chop off people’s heads and hands,
but they oppressed women, too.
Q: Didn’t the Bush administration give the Taliban
43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because
they did such a good job fighting drugs.
Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping
people from growing opium poppies.
Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies,
the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people’s heads and hands
for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people’s
heads and hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It’s OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut
off people’s hands for growing flowers, but it’s cruel if
they cut off people’s hands for stealing bread.
Q: Don’t they also cut off people’s hands
and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That’s different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical
patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to
wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death
by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
Q: Don’t Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional
Islamic body covering.
Q: What’s the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women
is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a
woman’s body except for her eyes and fingers.
The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of
patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman’s
body except for her eyes and fingers.
Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don’t go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.
The Saudis are our friends.
Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on
September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too.
But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel
the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q: Who are the Soviets?
Was that the Evil Communist Empire
Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up
in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and
capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q: So the Soviets, I mean, the Russians, are now our friends?
A: Well, not really.
You see, they were our friends for many years after they
stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support
our invasion of Iraq, so we’re mad at them now.
We’re also mad at the French and the Germans because
they didn’t help us invade Iraq either.
Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough
that we had to rename French fries and
French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another
country doesn’t do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends.
Our enemies, we invade.
Q: But wasn’t Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.
Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran,
which made him our friend, temporarily.
Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q: Isn’t that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time,
we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.
Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies
automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.
Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends
is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that’s true, too. However, if American
corporations can profit by selling weapons to both
sides at the same time, all the better.
Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means
war is good for America. Also, since God is on America’s
side, anyone who opposes war is a godless un-American
Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q: I think so.
We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.
Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to
George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
Q: So basically, what you’re saying is that we attacked Iraq
because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A: Yes!
You finally understand how the world works.
Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable,
and go to sleep.
Good night.
I’ll probably vote Republican for president next year. No big deal. I’ve done it for the past three, and the so-called “top tier” Democratic candidates haven’t done a thing to convince me to do otherwise.
We’ve got Hillary Clinton, the former first lady who rode her husband’s coattails to a Senate seat. If eight years on the sidelines in the White House qualifies you for the U.S. Senate, that elevator operator who was there for 40 years should be King of the World.
Then there’s Barack Obama. Many of the very people who claimed George W. Bush wasn’t qualified to be president after only six years as governor of the second largest state in the nation think this guy is the second coming of George Washington after only three years as one of 100 senators.
And don’t forget John Edwards. He did so much for North Carolina, after all, he surely deserves a shot to screw up the whole country. He gets $400 haircuts and claims to relate to the poor. I had to roll up some pennies to pay for my last $12 haircut. That’s relating to the poor.
There is, however, one Democrat who has been shut out by the national media’s fascination with the aforementioned three stooges. The more I learn about him, the more I like him. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson is the one Democrat I could support, and I’m beginning to think he, more than any other candidate of either party, has the right stuff to go all the way.
Richardson has 15 years of experience in Congress, something the Big Three, particularly Obama, cannot boast. Prior to his election to the House in 1980, he worked at the State Department, and then was a staff member for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
As a congressman, he met one-on-one with Saddam Hussein in 1995 to secure the release of two American civilian aerospace workers held prisoner in Iraq after accidentally crossing the border from Kuwait.
In addition to Iraq, Richardson has also negotiated the release of hostages, American servicemen, and political prisoners from North Korea and Cuba. Earlier this year, he traveled to Sudan and brokered a cease-fire between President Omar al-Bashir and various rebel factions in Darfur. While that effort was to prove unsuccessful—through no fault of Gov. Richardson’s—I can’t help but think that a man who has earned the respect of even rogue dictators can surely restore the world’s faith in America as an international leader.
In 1997, Richardson was able to capitalize on his foreign policy experience when President Clinton appointed him U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, where he served for a year before becoming Secretary of Energy.
As secretary, he implemented tough efficiency standards that saved consumers billions of dollars in energy costs. As governor, he has required energy companies to produce 10% of all energy from renewable resources, while reducing carbon emissions; and the state is moving toward 20% by providing incentives for solar, wind, and biofuels. He has promised to do the same as president.
Since being elected governor of one of the poorest states in the nation in 2002, Richardson has cut taxes, balanced the budget, and created 84,000 new jobs...all without the benefit of a $400 hairdo. His efforts have led right-of-center and libertarian groups to praise him for reforming New Mexico’s economy. The libertarian Cato Institute calls Richardson “one of the most fiscally responsible Democratic governors in the nation.”
Gov. Richardson has worked to provide affordable healthcare to all people in his state, and has cracked down on illegal immigration across the New Mexico border.
It is noteworthy that while Democratic frontrunner Hillary is as polarizing a figure as the current President Bush, Gov. Richardson commands respect on both sides of the aisle. He was reelected in 2006, with 40% of the Republican vote. He had a good track record of getting things done in a bipartisan fashion while in Congress, and he’s worked with both parties in the New Mexico legislature to improve their state. His is the kind of leadership we desperately need in Washington.
It’s been said that Hillary and Obama are riding high because people want to say they made history by electing the first woman or the first black president. Okay…if you’re so shallow that that’s the only reason you’ll vote for somebody, issues be damned, vote to elect the first president of Hispanic descent.
You not only will have made history, you’ll have voted for someone who knows what he’s doing, isn’t on an ego trip, and has the experience and leadership to restore pride at home and respect around the world.
© 2007 by J.D. Lewis
The fact that George Bush did not just treat Saddam, as a “king would treat a king” is not as disappointing as is that Saddam Hussein was irrationally hanged, tried only by local Iraqi courts. The reality is far more than perceptible – the past two years the US’s attempts to uncover “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq remain unfruitful. Is it just my prejudiced mind or is everyone genuinely duped by the US’s tactics to obliterate the cosmic, excellently resourceful Muslim Empire?
Analyzing the history of Iraq, while considering the atrocities committed against the Shia’ites and the Kurds, by Saddam Hussein, the fact that it was the United States that had encouraged the rebels in the different sects to be brought to the fore, is also brought about. The United States has unmistakably pined for the bestowal of Iraq on their behalf, so that they can majestically rule over the exceptionally oil populated region, the other reason being their ardent love for the Jewish State of Israel and Iraq being a loathsome threat against its existence. Yet, that is not reason enough to justify the repugnant killing of thousands of Iraqi, the callous devastation of homes, and the bitter ignorance of a nation’s fate in a conservative court of justice. Why is that the country so obdurately fanatical about the ideologies of liberalism slipped this once – when it sentenced a leader to an undeserved orthodox death?
If the word terrorism is really derived from the word terror, then there are countries making weapons of mass destruction, countries making nuclear weapons, having Cluster bombs, Daisy Clutter Bombs to absorb Oxygen, they are terrorists; we Muslim States are not.
If leaders were to be ruthlessly insulted, and sentenced to death for the execution of unjust manslaughter then should not George Bush’s existence be condemned? If weapons of mass destruction owned by one country were meant to be a threat to the rest of the world, and countries owning them be brutally bombed to dust, the United Sates of America should probably be a wisp of sand on the western end of the globe.
I wanna say something is up, maybe not politically, but SOMETHING is up. They all died too close together.
Showing 1 - 5. [ Next ]