Iraq is such a mess that sometimes we forget or dismiss how bad it was when Saddam Hussein ruled. The New York Times reported last week about a mass grave that contained the bodies of at least 28 men who had been executed in 1991. An Iraqi chief investigative judge told the Times that the court had documentary evidence, and statements from witnesses, showing that at least 100,000 Shiites, and possibly 180,000, died in the 1991 repression. However, the killings are “not only a macabre marker in the history of Iraq under Mr. Hussein, but a harrowing footnote in American politics,” the article noted, as most of the deaths occurred after an uprising that, critics and survivors charge, President George H. W. Bush encouraged but then didn’t support.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- Daniel on Open thread 11/23
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- Daniel on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- dtrabert on Too many exemptions
34 Comments
And yet another political hit blog brought to you by our ever so insightful Phillip…
Why is Iraq such a mess Phillip?
Perhaps we could have more intelligent discussion about your topic here if you gave us a bit more than your simple statements to talk about.
You say Iraq is a mess, I would say differently.
There must be an entire book full of other factors involved in what took place during the first gulf war. I would say it is not as simple as saying it was Senior’s fault, but then again I am not a left wing liberal…
Hmm, let’s see now, Saddam kills hundreds of thousand to keep Iraq together and he is EVIL, right? But, not so honest abe and his blue coated thugs killed hundreds of thousands to keep the Union together and he is a Hero?
V.L.R.B!!!
Ian, Honest Abe killed 500,000 and it was never about freeing the slaves, but rather the price of cotton.
That’s why General Sherman was given orders to march to the sea and destroy all of the cotton producers.
It’s always about money.
This is why we’re in Iraq.
Project for the New American Century
A neoconservative organization supporting greater American militarization, challenging hostile government…
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
The “war on terror” is an illusion. Something that all you dimwits can ogle over, while being herded into flocks of Arab haters like good little sheep { so the Israelis can steal your money and then own your country }.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
Yeah, but at least Iraq was stable. Who cares if hundreds of thousands die. We Dems only want to use this for political purposes. After all, when we were in charge, we let thousands in Rwanda die. No biggie.
Police in some areas see increase in home invasions
This is how the unaffordable high priced gasoline starts working its way through a Bush-damaged economy.
The illusion of “terrorism” has a price-tag.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-06-07-home-invasions_x.htm
Well. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was taken out in a U.S. bombing raid. Nice work. Goodbye to a bad, bad, bad human being. No tears from me.
Not that it changes much of anything. Iraq is in a civil war. Horrific as al-Zarqawi’s activities were, they pale in magnitude to the daily killing that U.S. and Iraqi forces are powerless to stop.
Killing al Zarqawi counts as first order change: one face goes away. This doesn’t promise any major second order change. Al Qaeda remains in Iraq, killing civilians and harassing American and Iraqi forces, and Iraq remains a moving disaster for American forces and prestige in the Mideast.
So, nice pinprick and a photo op for the Administration. Beyond that, nothing changes. Downward spiral continues.
Bush is on NPR right now inflating al Zarkawi. Judging by his words, Bush is sporting wood. Spinning to insert Al Zarkawi into the mechanism of sectarian violence.
“The ideology of terror has lost one of its most visible and effective leaders.” Huh. There IS no ideology of terror. Terror is a weapon. It’s tactical.
Now more happy talk about the Iraqi government.
Where’s Bin Laden?
Holy Cow! Check out this prophetic piece from yesterday’s “Strategy Page.” They may have called it.
Doesn’t sound like Al-Zarkawi was real popular with Al Qaeda. Has anybody called in to collect that $25 million?
And did a phone number from somewhere in Northwest Pakistan show up on caller ID?
*******************************
Zarqawi Scheduled for MartyrdomJune 7, 2006
The relationship between terrorist leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi and and the mainline al Qaeda leadership continues to deteriorate. Zarqawi’s recent audio messages have not only attacked the U.S. and the Shia-dominated government in Iraq, but also Iran. He’s even claiming that the U.S., Iran, and Shia in general, are in cahoots to destroy Islam. He has also called for continued attacks against Shia.
Except for his verbal attacks on the U.S. and the Iraqi government, he is almost totally distanced himself from the central leadership. Other al Qaeda leaders have been trying to down play anti-Iranian and anti-Shia rhetoric, and have been strongly discouraging attacks on civilians.
Given that Zarqawi has become a loose cannon and that his actions are handicapping Al Qaeda’s efforts, it seems reasonable to expect that an accident may befall him at some point in the near future. If handled right it can be made to look like he went out in a blaze of glory fighting American troops or that he was foully murdered. Either way, al Qaeda gets rid of a problem and gains another “martyr.”
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20060607.aspx
Leave it to CF. Zarqawi’s death is really a good thing for Al Qaeda.Sorry, CF, peddle your crap elsewhere.
BlowJoe,
Great analysis as usual.
It’s been numb-nuts rah-rah-rah Wingnuts like you who helped mire America in Iraq with your inability to think strategically.
Considering that the Shia are the largest power bloc in Iraq, ask yourself, BlowJoe: was it really doing any good for Al-Qaeda’s global ambitions to alienate such an enormous group of Muslims by targeting them for killing and bombing in Iraq?
Considering that the religious leadership of Iran are also Shia, Al Zarkawi poses a big headache for Al Qaeda, indeed. Take him out of the picture, and Al Qaeda mollifies a large portion of its base of support among state and non-state actors.
If you don’t know the internal dynamics, BlowJoe, you may want to stick a cork in your cheerleader hole.
Well, Nathan gets to see first hand whether Iraq is screwed up or not.
This is only about three years after Bush declared “mission accomplished.”
Enjoy the paradise Bush created over there, Nathan.
Who are the Bush people going to blame now for everything that goes wrong in Iraq now that their scapegoat is officially dead?
CF
Help me out here, apparently I havent had enough caffein this morning.
Is Zarqawi going tango uniform a good thing or a bad thing?
Actually the Left doesn’t believe those numbers. Saddam was an innocent man in their eyes.
Joe Williams………….do you make a living by making asinine comments about the “left”? Name 1 “left” politician who has publicly stated that Saddam was “innocent”.
Apophis!
There are only very few leftist in office and none have stated that Saddam was innocent because that would be political suicide.
Nice try! But you go to leftist blog sites like Daily Kos, Democrat Underground, and etc. and you have plenty of people who proudly claim to be leftist, say stuff like that.
It’s funny that leftist can make asinine statements about Republicans and President Bush, but when somebody replies with a taste of their own medicine, they get all pissy about it.
How do you like the taste?
“Innocent of what,” Joe?
Apparently, he was innocent enough that Reagan-Bush supported his 8 year war with Iran.
It was only when he fought a war he could win (in Kuwait), that Bush was compelled to step in.
BTW, prove it. Go to DU or Daily KOS and get some quotes.
Nobody should take YOUR word for anything.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2327738&mesg_id=2327740
Read all of them Clueless!
Heckler,
Anything that stops any of the killing in Iraq is a good thing. An unqualifiedly good thing, in fact. Al-Zarkawi was simply a bloodthirsty killer, and the fewer there are of his kind, the better.
That said, it’s a bit ambiguous who this actually helps out. As I posted above, Al Qaeda’s strategic interest is better served with Al Zarkawi out of the picture, since his attacks were mainly against the Shia, and this antagonized large state (Iran) and nonstate (Al Sadr, Al Sistani) actors. But the fact that he was a thorn in Al Qaeda’s side doesn’t mean that it would have been a good thing NOT to take him out, either.
So, on balance probably good thing. Yes. But not one that is likely to have much effect on the civil war in Iraq, and that could, down the road, result in a stronger alliance between Al Qaeda and the Shia, which would not be a good thing.
In this respect, Al Zarkawi served a useful function for the Administration by keeping some distance between Al Qaeda and the Shia.
Final thought: this does count as a big blow to Al Qaeda, at least in the short run, because they lose a high profile, effective, active field operative. They may try to spin that they helped to shoot down a mad dog in the street, but it comes at an awfully high price. I’ll be interested to see how this plays.
Not playin’ so well for Al-Z right about now….
Joe – I don’t see anything there celebrating alZ or Saddam as a good guy or saying he is innocent. I do see skepticism of today’s reports in view of previous similar pronouncements.
“And yet another political hit blog brought to you by our ever so insightful Phillip…”
hehehe. I guess that is as opposed to the political hit piece by values boy today?
Sorry to disappoint Joe, but I do read all those truth speaking blogs daily :) Gotta get the real news somewhere :)
I have NEVER seen anyone on any of those sites say saddam was good or innocent. I do, as Ben noted, see people who question if the war in iraq was the right thing to do.
Have to check the latest poll numbers, but I think those who disapprove of the war in iraq are about 60+ percent of america.
more people disapprove of bush’s iraq war than disapprove of gay marriage
paris hilton has higher approval ratings than dead eye dick, the architect of the iraq war
damned leftist “majority” anyway
heheheh
Is Phelps going to picket Abu Musab al-Zarqawi funeral?
There are 283 posts on that thread, Joe.
I’m not wading through all that . . .
I did take the time to find this link–and an excellent one:
In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanideThe Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.
“Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.
“People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601 /
Bush needed to establish “Al Qaeda” ties in Iraq and a living Zarqawi helped him do that–nevermind that Zarqawi was aided and abetted by our “allies” the Kurds and like all of Al Qaeda vehemently opposed to the secular Saddam Hussein.
Gosh, I found this on Kos:
“CHEERS to finding a really evil needle in a really big haystack. U.S. forces rocked terrorist Abu Musab “Dick” al-Zarqawi’s world last night when they tossed a thousand pounds of explosive whupass down his gullet.
They found his body in the bedroom. And the kitchen. And the den. And the garage. And the neighbor’s apartment. And I think I found an eyebrow in my Cocoa Puffs this morning.
My only regret: he didn’t know what hit him.”
But the libs just LOVE the terrorists, right?
Don’t tell me that Joe wasn’t able to back up his big mouth.
Well, slap my ass and call me Sally!
It appears as if Proudlib…aka…TrueBlue…aka…Crank Price…aka…Jow Clueless…aka…Screw you Hank…
has blown a circuit.
Must you really post under those silly names?
Once again, more reason I think for the WE to require us to log into an account to post here.
The 1991 massacre was partly attributable to Papa Bush inciting an uprising, then ordering our military to stand by while they were put down. Saddam doesn’t get all the credit.