Gay Patriot Header Image




Excellent news. 

Another important milestone in World War III is achieved tonight — the prosecution, conviction and execution of one of humanity’s great mass murderers and terror-supporters. 

GatewayPundit reminds us of Saddam’s cruelty and systematic reign of death.  America liberated the world of this beast.

Captain Ed takes The New York Times to task for its opposition to putting Saddam to death.  I’m sure the Times’ editors and those who follow them would rather see President Bush in the gallows tonight.

The reluctance of the Times to support Saddam’s conviction is puzzling, given that they concede all available evidence paints him as one of the worst monsters in the past few decades. It seems to spring from an objection to his sentence rather than his conviction, as they end with a warning that Saddam’s execution will not create a “new and better Iraq,” but that’s not the purpose of criminal sentencing, either. Sentences serve dual purposes: to protect society and to serve as a deterrent to others, neither of which has anything to do with creating a new and better anything.

Stay close to PajamasMedia for breaking coverage of the Saddam execution.

Mohammed at Iraq The Model is liveblogging the execution and related events on the ground in Baghdad.

**UPDATE** — As I predicted above, the American Lefties are calling on President Bush to be executed instead of recognizing the justice tonight for the hundreds of thousands of nameless Iraqis slaughtered at the hands of Saddam Hussein. (h/t – RedState)

**SATURDAY MOURNING UPDATE** — The American Left across the board are mourning the execution of Saddam Hussein.  Gateway Pundit has the full round-up of disgusting reaction from those who claim to be Americans.


-Bruce (GayPatriot)



  1. I’m against the death penalty, but I won’t be shedding any tears for him. Heck, Since Saddam apparently loved killing humans so much, I’m sure he’ll enjoy his own execution.

    Comment by Pat — December 29, 2006 @ 8:55 pm - December 29, 2006

  2. I think Luther’s prayer of the executioner is most appropriate here:

    “Dear Lord, tonight I kill a man unwillingly, for in your eyes, I am no better than he.”

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 29, 2006 @ 8:57 pm - December 29, 2006

  3. Way to go Pat! Personally, I have doubts about the death penalty as well, as a punishment in a “normal” criminal justice system. But I put history’s murdering tyrants in a special category. They pervert, violate and destroy every moral and civic value needed for justice to exist in the first place.

    Comment by Calarato — December 29, 2006 @ 9:12 pm - December 29, 2006

  4. Lest we forget:
    The Iraqi Holocaust

    Comment by Asher Abrams — December 29, 2006 @ 9:55 pm - December 29, 2006

  5. love how you keep calling this world war 3…nice little bit of conservative propaganda you got going there.

    frankly, I agree with the death penalty for people like Saddam – there are truly evil, despicable murderers who are not redeembable and who deserve to be put to death.

    But my question is – what about some kind of punishment for the people who provided him material support during those years he was commiting crimes against his citizens? How about Reagan and the members of his administration (Rumsfeld comes easily to mind)? Sorry folks, but our government knew that Saddam was a murderous dicatator even as they built him up with weapons and cash simply to use him as our agent against Iran.

    I also notice this site takes to task (and rightly so) the Iranian government for their murder and torture of gays. How about taking to task other Arab governments (like the Saudis) who do the same thing to gays, or does the flow of oil trump human rights?

    Comment by Kevin — December 29, 2006 @ 10:17 pm - December 29, 2006

  6. We could hang Reagan for Saddam but then we need to hang the leaders of every major European country, Arab country and the UN Secretary General as well. Somehow its only the killing of Americans that gets tossed around by the Left. Why is only Americans they want to see punished and killed? Should Clinton hang for Kim? Albright? Carter? Carter for Kim or Arafat – take your pick. How many Leftists should hang for their support of the Soviets? Must be in the tens of thousands.

    Comment by VinceTN — December 29, 2006 @ 11:04 pm - December 29, 2006

  7. Rumsfeld was not a member of the Reagan administration.

    And Saddam got most of his weapons from the soviets, and most of the rest from the French and the Germans.

    But Kevin, thanks for playing!

    Comment by Sean — December 29, 2006 @ 11:09 pm - December 29, 2006

  8. 7: Whew…thanks for clearing that up. To be exact: Rumsfeld was a special envoy to the middle east for Reagan in 83/84. Seems to me that makes him part of Reagan’s bunch in some way, dontcha think? He took credit for restoring relations with Iraq during that time, meeting directly with Saddam himself.

    Saddam did get money and weapons from the US as well; i notice you try to weasel out of our culpability by saying “most” of his weapons came from other sources. error in semantics I guess.

    Comment by Kevin — December 29, 2006 @ 11:32 pm - December 29, 2006

  9. See a sarcastic visual of George Bush playing a round of “Hangman”…here:

    Comment by Daniel DiRito — December 30, 2006 @ 12:43 am - December 30, 2006

  10. Excellent news? That’s about as bad as the Fox News headline saying “HANGED!”.

    It’s wrong to celebrate physical suffering, even if it is that of someone who brought ample suffering to others. Saddam was wrong to derive pleasure from the suffering of others. Therefore, it just wouldn’t be right if we derived pleasure from his own at this time.

    Conversely, the comments on dailykos about Bush are outrageous and indefensible. Bush already got what he deserved, which was to be beaten in last months election. He does not deserve to be physically beaten or harmed in any way.

    Comment by Chase — December 30, 2006 @ 12:50 am - December 30, 2006

  11. Actually, let me clarify. I am not passing judgment on the necessity of Saddam’s death sentence. It may be that in this instance, the death penalty was a necessary evil. I just feel that it is a somber moment, not a “hip hip hooray!” moment.

    Comment by Chase — December 30, 2006 @ 12:59 am - December 30, 2006

  12. Great, Chase – Because in #10, you seemed close to suggesting that comments appreciative of Saddam’s hanging are morally equivalent to comments calling for Bush’s hanging.

    For the record, they’re not even close. Those who appreciate Saddam’s hanging after a basically appropriate trial, quite literally celebrate the triumph of good over evil. By contrast, those who call for Bush’s hanging – or any U.S. President’s hanging; what I am saying here is *not* about Bush per se – are themselves either evil, or at least extremely misguided.

    Comment by Calarato — December 30, 2006 @ 1:11 am - December 30, 2006

  13. As for the death penalty – I thought about this some more while I was out.

    History shows that tyrants really are in a special category. If you don’t kill them, they do bounce back – or, by their mere existence, at least cast a pall of doubt over everyone’s lives. The classic example is Napoleon, who came back and re-opened European ‘world war’. (Hat tip Captain Ed.)

    Moreover: Why should the Iraqis, or the Americans for that matter, have to guard Saddam for the rest of his natural life? Guarding such an infamous, historically important figure is a huge effort, with significant personal and other costs for the people and country that have to do it. Saddam didn’t deserve, frankly, the sheer effort from good people that would be required to simultaneously guard him and keep him alive.

    For those two reasons – not for revenge, or any other motive, not even for justice – I’m pretty sure now that I don’t begrudge the Iraqis Saddam’s execution.

    Comment by Calarato — December 30, 2006 @ 1:44 am - December 30, 2006

  14. […] Gay Patriot notes that some on the left are – predictably – calling for the execution of George W. Bush. […]

    Pingback by The Anchoress » Saddam Dead - Dearborn Dances — December 30, 2006 @ 2:03 am - December 30, 2006

  15. Saddam did get money and weapons from the US as well; i notice you try to weasel out of our culpability by saying “most” of his weapons came from other sources. error in semantics I guess.

    No, we’re just pointing out that you don’t seem to care one whit about punishing anyone BUT the United States.

    That’s why you and your fellow Democrats are pinned as anti-American, Kevin; you make it so painfully obvious that you don’t care what other countries do as long as you can blame the United States for something, ANYTHING.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2006 @ 2:05 am - December 30, 2006

  16. #14. Just because one can (EASILY) see blowback doesn’t mean that one thinks it is good that it is happening. Such small, but important, distinctions elude you. Get over the victim mentality–THEY are attacking US, we are in WWIII because THEY hate US, etc.–and start looking at world affairs as adults and take responsibility for the roles that all players play in these events. And, please stop with the liberals hate America mantra–it is tired, old and a LIE.

    Comment by sean — December 30, 2006 @ 3:08 am - December 30, 2006

  17. “**UPDATE** — As I predicted ”

    Lord, what would we do without him?

    Comment by sean — December 30, 2006 @ 3:10 am - December 30, 2006

  18. Except Sean proves that liberals do hate America, when he characterizes our attempts at self-defense as “victim mentality”.

    Tar, feathers, liberals: some assembly required.

    Comment by SDN — December 30, 2006 @ 8:52 am - December 30, 2006

  19. 14: Excuse me, where do I talk about any other country, one way or another? in addition, conservatives who were engaged i those dealings try to sweep it under the carpet. This site should be re-named the conservative red herring site; everytime someone brings up information to refute to your claims, the standard answer just becomes, “well, others did it” or some other non-sequitur. Both Republicans and Democrats over the years have helped learders from other countries who, like Saddam, wear a military uniform – which is generally a bad thing for everyone. At least I have the honesty to admit that politicos in general have major failings, regardless of their party affiliation.

    Comment by Kevin — December 30, 2006 @ 9:32 am - December 30, 2006

  20. **UPDATE** — As I predicted above, the American Lefties are calling on President Bush to be executed instead of recognizing the justice tonight for the hundreds of thousands of nameless Iraqis slaughtered at the hands of Saddam Hussein. (h/t – RedState).A

    Ain’t the internet grand? You can ink to a single website and automaticallly say “wll, that’s how all of them are”. Guess what, it’s not, just like from reading this site I don’t assum that all conservative gays are a bunch of self-loathing, wanna be aristocrats.

    Comment by Kevin — December 30, 2006 @ 9:35 am - December 30, 2006

  21. Once again, Kevin attacks the messenger instead of criticizing the behavior of his fellow lefties.

    Calarato, I have no problem at all with the death penalty except that it is not used nearly enough. I do not see it as the state “taking” a person’s life. As I see it, an individual who commits a capital crime affirmatively forfeits their life.

    Comment by V the K — December 30, 2006 @ 9:52 am - December 30, 2006

  22. The Government executioners wore ski masks and leather jackets????
    They looked just like terrorists, no uniforms, to afraid to show their faces.
    Uhg what freakin’ mess….

    Comment by keogh — December 30, 2006 @ 10:25 am - December 30, 2006

  23. Already, they are making him a martyr:

    Mowaffak al-Rubaie, Iraq’s national security adviser, described on state television Hussein’s last moments:
    “He was frightened. It was clear in his face, but he turned his face at me and said, ‘Don’t be afraid,’ ” Rubaie said. “It was just like he was talking about himself.”
    He added that Hussein did not resist. “It was unbelievable. He just surrendered himself.”

    God….what a disaster

    Comment by keogh — December 30, 2006 @ 10:28 am - December 30, 2006

  24. Viewing European tv and hearing the leftist leaders speaking out against the execution of Saddam in particular and the death penalty in general never ceases to amaze me. The combination of no capital punishment and gun control have caused increased violent crimes in their major cities. Yet they have no problem with abortion. Maybe consistency is too much to hope for. I support the death penalty and !st trimenster abortions.

    Comment by Roberto — December 30, 2006 @ 10:45 am - December 30, 2006

  25. Statement from the Brits:
    “the British government does not support the use of the death penalty, in Iraq or anywhere else. We advocate an end to the death penalty worldwide, regardless of the individual or the crime. We have made our position very clear to the Iraqi authorities, but we respect their decision as that of a sovereign nation”

    Isn’t that better than juvenile celebrations?

    Comment by keogh — December 30, 2006 @ 10:51 am - December 30, 2006

  26. That said, I take no joy in Saddam Hussein’s execution. But I do feel that justice has been served.

    On the other hand, Yasser Arafat was just as bad as Saddam, and he got a Nobel Peace Prize. Does that seem right to anyone?

    Comment by V the K — December 30, 2006 @ 11:08 am - December 30, 2006

  27. As one gay patriot to another, I say that this post ascends to new heights of absurdity. Many liberals, like myself, Kevin Drum, Josh Marshall, etc. were (and are) fiercely anti-Hussein and were cautiously in favor of the war before we screwed it all up. No one, not one liberal of any standing, is mourning the death of Hussein. Not one. Some may be mourning the death penalty, some may be saying this trophy (Saddam’s corpse) was hardly worth the carnage and despair it generated, some may be saying the pursuit of the trophy led us astray from our true goal, Osama’s capture and punishment. Not one mourns his death or stands up for him. You can try to spin it that way, but it’s an act of desperation and dishonesty. One liberal blogger does not represent “liberals,” any more than do the rantings of Debbie Schlussel or Michelle Malkin represent “conservatives.” Seriously, you should be ashamed of yourself – your post, like Gateway Pundit’s, is built on sand and does not stand the test of even the most basic scrutiny.

    Comment by richard — December 30, 2006 @ 11:09 am - December 30, 2006

  28. Was it really worth it?

    Bombings killed at least 68 people in
    Iraq on Saturday, including one planted on a minibus that exploded in a fish market in a mostly Shiite town south of Baghdad.

    The attacks came hours after Saddam Hussein was hanged in Baghdad for ordering the killings of 148 Shiites in the city of Dujail in 1982. Despite concerns about a spike in unrest, Saturday’s violence was not unusually high and there was no indication it was related to the execution.

    The U.S. military also announced the deaths of three Marines and three soldiers, making December the year’s deadliest month for U.S. troops in Iraq, with 109 service members killed.

    70 killed in a day is just par for the course since our “liberation” of the Iraqis. I mourn for them, not Saddam. Meanwhile, let’s look at who’s cheering with you:

    Iranians have hailed the hanging of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein as deserved punishment for a man they revile for starting a devastating eight-year war against the Islamic republic.

    “With regards to Saddam’s execution, the Iraqi people are the victorious ones, as they were victorious when Saddam fell,” Deputy Foreign Minister Hamid Reza Asefi said, according to the IRNA news agency.

    You see, we’ve delighted our friends in Iran – they are stepping into Saddam’s shoes, and if Iraq was a hotspot before our liberation, it will be like nitroglycerine once it’s under a full Iranian-style theocracy. Saddam deserved death. But the irony here must not be missed: we have given strength, comfort and solace to our more dangerous and well-armed enemy, and we paid for it in the blood of our troops and countless Iraqis. Celebrate Saddam’s execution if it makes you feel good. But make no mistake: Iraq is now more of a threat to us than ever before, and we fought and died to increase Iran’s sphere of influence and to radicalize a people who a mere three years earlier truly were greeting us as liberators. Oh, the sorrow and the pity of it all….

    Comment by richard — December 30, 2006 @ 11:25 am - December 30, 2006

  29. Richard, circa 1946 – “Germany is now more of a threat to us than before”

    Richard, circa 1979 – “The Shah is now more of a threat to us than before”

    Richard, circa 2004 – “President Bush is now more of a threat to us than before”


    Comment by GayPatriot — December 30, 2006 @ 11:37 am - December 30, 2006

  30. “As a noose was tightened around Hussein’s neck, one of the executioners yelled “long live Muqtada al-Sadr,” Haddad said, referring to the powerful anti-American Shiite religious leader.”

    Can you say civil war?

    Comment by Kevin — December 30, 2006 @ 11:48 am - December 30, 2006

  31. Liberals like richard have undermined the war effort every step of the way, and now they crow about its “failure.” Liberals in the media paraded Abu Ghraib photos and hyped up phony torture allegations at GITMO. Liberals at the State Department prop up Arabist regimes against Israel. Liberals at the UN consistently side with jihadists over those who resist them (like Israel and now Ethiopia). Liberal senators go over to Syria and engage on cowboy diplomacy with the very government that’s supplying the terrorists in Iraq. The UN, whom the the liberals think the US should always bow, too, undermines any effort to sanction Iran.

    But somehow, it’s all Bush’s fault that Iraq was not transformed in a peaceful, Scandanavian-style democracy within six months of Saddam’s removal.

    If Bush is to be faulty, it’s because he has conducted this war like the squishy little moderate that he is, and relied on liberal advice too much. Killing Mookie al Sadr in 2003 would have solved a lot of problems, but liberals did not believe it would have been wise or compassionate to do so.

    Comment by V the K — December 30, 2006 @ 11:53 am - December 30, 2006

  32. It is stunning, how the concept of moral responsibility continues to elude Lefties.

    I mourn the deaths of all Iraqis killed in terrorists (or so-called “insurgent”, hah hah) attacks. And I place the responsibility for those deaths where it belongs: with the terrorists who did them.

    I’d like to praise and thank all those who are steadfast in their work to protect the innocent from terrorists.

    Comment by Calarato — December 30, 2006 @ 12:07 pm - December 30, 2006

  33. Back to the death penalty – and something else that eludes Lefties:

    The U.S.-led Coalition abolished the death penalty in Iraq almost immediately, when it took over in 2003. So y’all really can’t blame the U.S. for this.

    The Iraqi people chose to restore the death penalty in 2005, after a democratic election of their government. It was their decision to make, and it’s their country after all. Just don’t forget that information.

    Comment by Calarato — December 30, 2006 @ 12:11 pm - December 30, 2006

  34. Just got back from Gateway pundit. Man, the lefties really are sorrowful about Saddam’s passing. But I think that’s nothing compared to the wails of mourning and the gnashing of teeth that will happen when Castro casts off this mortal coil.

    The left may have liked Saddam because, basically, he hated America as much as they do. But they never really warmed to him. I think it was mainly because of his fashion sense. His military uniforms were always over-accessorized, and his palaces just screamed “McMansion.” It didn’t quite square with what left-wingers thought an Anti-American revolutionary should be, but they were glad to have him along anyway.

    Castro, on the other, may not have had as high a body count as Saddam, but he cut quite a figure in those military fatigues, especially to those left-wingers with a “daddy-bear and cigars” fetish. And he may not have tortured as many dissidents as Saddam, but at least he had the sense to torture people in the name of free health care and literacy, and not because they were just bad at soccer. Properly rationalizing brutality counts for much in left-wing circles.

    And then there was Che, who had such a dashing, Errol Flynn quality to him as he lined up children against the wall for execution because their parents were “counter-revolutionary.” To this day, this brutal, but stylish, mass murderer sets left-wing hearts a flutter. Having Che as an accessory was definitely a boost to Castro, kind of like that other guy in the Pet Shop Boys.

    So, too bad Saddam. Maybe if you’d have gotten those Queer Eye guys to give you a make-over before they pulled you out of that spider-hole, you might not be alive, but maybe Target would at least put your face on a CD case.

    Comment by V the K — December 30, 2006 @ 12:14 pm - December 30, 2006

  35. #30 –
    What unbelievable crap

    You are blaming libs for failures in Iraq? What happened to personal responsibility?

    Conservatives held all levels of gov
    Conservatives appointed know-nothings to the rebuilding effort
    Conservatives funded the war on credit
    Conservatives refused to commit more troops
    Conservatives ridiculed those who called for more troops
    Conservatives thought the war was a PR game
    Conservatives did a piss poor job nation building
    Conservatives succumbed to the pressure of the Iraqi gov in not going after Sadr.
    Conservatives allowed the Iraqi society to breakdown
    Conservatives disbanded their military
    Conservatives blamed the media instead of looking at reality and adjusting strategy
    Conservatives focused on useless pipeline projects instead of basic services
    and on and on and on.

    Face it, conservatives do not know how to win wars.

    And GP – do you think Iraq is less of a threat today than it was preinvasion?

    Comment by keogh — December 30, 2006 @ 12:14 pm - December 30, 2006

  36. keogh: Name one thing American liberals have done, or one good idea they have advocated, to ***HELP AMERICA WIN***. In Iraq. Or in any other theater of the War on Terror.

    The only one I can think of, is Joe Lieberman calling for more troops. As for you and the rest… crickets chirping

    And is Iraq less of a threat today, than pre-invasion? Absolutely.

    For starters, one of the world’s most truly evil dictators (in the class of Hitler, Stalin, Castro, etc.) is dead. As are his WMD programs. And approximately 50,000 committed terrorists, many of whom were in his country, being trained by him, pre-invasion.

    Wake up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Comment by Calarato — December 30, 2006 @ 12:33 pm - December 30, 2006

  37. P.S. Of course, keogh, more terrorists remain to be defeated, and more evil and WMD-proliferating regimes remain to be changed. Of course it’s not over yet.

    So let’s re-focus: What are your (or American liberals’) superior ideas to actually ***HELP AMERICA WIN***?

    Comment by Calarato — December 30, 2006 @ 12:37 pm - December 30, 2006

  38. #35: I’ve kind of decided that Silly Person’s idiotic posts aren’t worth responding to, but, you’re exactly right. With the exception of Joe Lieberman and John McCain, no liberal elected official has proposed a strategy for actually defeating the Islamic terrorists.

    Like Gryph, they mouth general support for the concept of defeating “terrorism,” which is not even the enemy, but merely a tactic used by the enemy. Then, they oppose every effort and every tactic used to fight them.

    Instead of victory, the liberals call for retreat from the battlefield.

    Meanwhile, the liberals also undermine any effort to protect us from terrorism at home. They undermine efforts to gather intelligence on terrorists, and disrupt the financing of terrorist networks. When Islamists complain about security, the liberals first response is to water down security and lecture us on “sensitivity.” The only “strategy” liberals advocate is to hire more “first responders,” so we can more quickly clean up the blood after terrorists have already struck.

    But it will be interesting to see if Silly Person can actually cite a liberal strategy for defeating Islamic Fascism.

    Comment by V the K — December 30, 2006 @ 12:42 pm - December 30, 2006

  39. “The American Left across the board are mourning the execution of Saddam Hussein. Gateway Pundit has the full round-up of disgusting reaction from those who claim to be Americans.”

    Jimbo at Gateway Pundit is lying. Not one of the posts he linked to contains any “mourning” for Saddam. You didn’t bother to follow the links, so you were sucked in by Jimbo’s lie.

    Comment by meatbrain — December 30, 2006 @ 1:43 pm - December 30, 2006

  40. In fairness, the tone of the left-wing bloggers is more bitter than mournful. Rather than discuss the justice of hanging Saddam, it is, of course, just another opportunity to Bush-bash. *Yawn*

    And at least one left-wing blogger at Crooks and Liars is disappointed the the Ethiopians are defeating the Somali Taliban.

    Comment by V the K — December 30, 2006 @ 2:14 pm - December 30, 2006

  41. Actually, now that I have read more of the comments in those left-wing blogs, I should add demented and delusional to bitter. The recurring theme is that Saddam was hanged because he actually did what Bush/Right-wingers want to do.


    Comment by V the K — December 30, 2006 @ 2:38 pm - December 30, 2006

  42. Invading oil-rich Kuwait, launching missiles at Saudi Arabia, launching missiles at Israel, financing and arming terrorists who hit Israel, sheltering al Qaeda members in northern Iraq in 2002, training certain al Qaeda members at the Salman Pak facility in the 1990s, researching various forms of WMD to put on the missiles and give to the terrorists, trying to assassinate President Bush 41, torturing and raping Christians in Iraq, chemically gassing Kurdish allies of the United States and dumping the bodies into mass graves, firing on U.S. planes constantly, withholding oil and blocking Iraqi economic development…

    Yup, all that is just what Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush (43) wanted Saddam to do. (Not)

    Comment by Calarato — December 30, 2006 @ 3:01 pm - December 30, 2006

  43. Or want to do themselves. (Not)

    Comment by Calarato — December 30, 2006 @ 3:03 pm - December 30, 2006

  44. #28, As the article you cite indicates, it appears that Saddam’s hanging did not cause an increase in violence anyway. Bloodthirsty scum don’t need an excuse to continue the slaughter. Further, what Iran says about the hanging is pointless, just like I argued that what terrorists said about our elections was pointless. I have been a critic of the war, but when an evil, hideous piece of scum is no longer alive, the world is better off.

    Comment by Pat — December 30, 2006 @ 3:18 pm - December 30, 2006

  45. #12: No, Calarato, I was not trying to suggest that. I intended the word “conversely” to mean “something opposite or contrary,” which it can be used as.

    Comment by Chase — December 30, 2006 @ 3:32 pm - December 30, 2006

  46. You right wingnuts are really a piece of work. You somehow think that by putting Saddam to death that the war on terror is any closer to victory, or that Iraq is any closer to the success as idealized by Bush???

    The international community did not believe that Saddam had a fair trial. Saddam’s victims are glad, and well they should be. No one is mourning his loss, but the example of Iraqi Justice and due process under a new democracy has a lot more people in the Arab world shaking their heads in disbelief and disgust.

    If the neocon idea of making America safer is to export democracy so that it takes root and have people rise up against their oppressive (islamist?) leaders, then this is another example of how badly the far right can botch things. Way to go!

    You’re not only delusional, you’re condemning yourselves once again, to the dunce chair of history.

    And once again, reading all of these posts above makes the same damn thing clear — you idiots hate liberals far more than you hate anyone who has harmed America – even Osama Bin Laden. How utterly brave of you!

    Comment by Don R — December 30, 2006 @ 6:06 pm - December 30, 2006

  47. Many liberals, like myself, Kevin Drum, Josh Marshall, etc. were (and are) fiercely anti-Hussein and were cautiously in favor of the war before we screwed it all up.

    Or, translated, “I was for the war before I was against it.”

    Get real, Richard.

    Saddam Hussein had been in power for decades. You mean to tell us that someone who you were so “fiercely against” you allowed to be there for that long?

    For God’s sake, your aversion to meaningful action against Saddam was so strong that you tried to elect as President and consider your party’s “conscience” two men who voted AGAINST military action against Saddam when he invaded another country and started figuratively (and literally) raping it. You demanded that we seek the approval of an international body and governments who we knew Saddam was bribing with cheap oil, weapons contracts, and outright cash payments. You and yours buried records of Saddam’s tortures and brutality in the name of “dealing peace” while hyping any mistakes made by US troops. And finally, if it needed to be any clearer, your party head called the removal of Saddam Hussein “unnecessary” and “unjustified”.

    Put bluntly, you expect us to believe that you opposed a regime that the record shows you did everything in your power to protect?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2006 @ 6:52 pm - December 30, 2006

  48. Does anyone believe Don R bothered to read any of the comments preceding his before launching into his ill-informed diatribe in #46?

    His is typical of the comments made at the lefty blogs to which this post links. The left is incapable of commenting on whether or not the execution of Saddam is just, or helpful in the process of moving Iraq forward. Instead, they remained psychotically obssessed with what the right “neo-cons” or “wingnuts” think about the execution, whether it helps Bush or how it can be spun to hurt him. The left is incapable of thinking in terms of problem-solving, their sole fixation is “How do we hurt the right? How do we make sure nothing the right does ever succeeds? What can we bitch about today?”

    The left are a sad and bitter people. I saw a bumper sticker today that summed it up: “Make a liberal miserable: Work hard and be happy.”

    Comment by V the K — December 30, 2006 @ 8:06 pm - December 30, 2006

  49. 36 & 37 Cal –
    Biden has proposed more troops and a solution to Iraq
    Kerry has outlined plans that the right later embraced as their own
    (You can hate and rave against those two if you want, but their plans are much better than maintaining the status quo which is all the right has offered)

    That’s two without even thinking about it…

    Comment by keogh — December 30, 2006 @ 8:24 pm - December 30, 2006

  50. #38
    It must suck for you that I am here to point out your logical fallacies

    Comment by keogh — December 30, 2006 @ 8:25 pm - December 30, 2006

  51. (Like blaming libs for Iraq)

    Happy New Year! To you All

    Comment by keogh — December 30, 2006 @ 8:26 pm - December 30, 2006

  52. LOL….even given Keogh’s usual rantings, this one is a lu-lu.

    Biden has proposed more troops and a solution to Iraq

    Like this headline.

    “Biden Opposes Iraq Troop Surge”

    And what does keogh claim?

    It must suck for you that I am here to point out your logical fallacies


    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 30, 2006 @ 8:38 pm - December 30, 2006

  53. NDT, I agree.

    Kerry didn’t outline plans that “the right” later embraced as their own. Rather, Kerry outlined plans that Bush and the military had already been doing, mixed in with throw-in-the-towel calls for rapid withdrawal.

    And that was back in 2005 and 2004.

    And keogh, dear, sweet, silly keogh, again you need a big wake-up call. Dearie, it is your logical fallacies that are so continuously, richly on display and exposure on GayPatriot. (Thank you, by the way.)

    In this instance, I challenged you to give us superior liberal ideas – meaning that even *ONE* would do – to HELP AMERICA WIN… other than Lieberman’s call to increase troop levels. And implicitly, other than what Bush and our military are already doing.

    And you couldn’t even provide one.

    You mumbled something about Biden’s and Kerry’s plans – but you couldn’t even name one idea or element of those.

    Calarato 1 (or is that 19?) – keogh 0. LOL 🙂

    Well keogh, I’m grateful you at least approve of Senator Lieberman’s ideas. I’m grateful you didn’t openly exhibit a desire, all too common on the Left, for actual American defeat.

    And, whether this is better or worse, in the absence of serious ideas from any Democrats except Lieberman, the nation has no choice but to continue to take President Bush’s. Bye now!

    Comment by Calarato — December 30, 2006 @ 9:06 pm - December 30, 2006

  54. Postscript for the record – Here’s what we should be doing, to win in Iraq:

    1) Ignore liberal PC shrieking and vastly loosen the ROE. (keogh, that means Rules of Engagement) So that our troops can really FIGHT the terrorists, as the Ethiopians are now proving can be done in Somalia.

    2) Give Iran and Syria 48 hours to stop sending IEDs, money and saboteurs / terrorists into Iraq, or else we are going to bomb their facilities, in progressive steps.

    3) Continue, or intensify if possible (it can’t just be done by magic or wishing), efforts to train Iraqi military and police.

    4) Then, if and only if U.S. ground commanders say it would help, increase our overall troop levels in Iraq.

    Here is one of many points where Kerry shows how far out of touch with reality he is: He breezily declared at one point that we should “double our Special Forces” troops. Um… Mr. Kerry… That can’t happen unless you either (1) find and inspire the incredibly dedicated, tough and excellent people needed for Special Forces – something you as President couldn’t possibly hope to do, by the way; or else (2) stuff the SF ranks with morons – which you of course think the military is composed of anyway – but with a resulting giant drop in SF quality, making the SF increase worse than useless.

    Comment by Calarato — December 30, 2006 @ 9:27 pm - December 30, 2006

  55. 31: The war effort against terrorists was undermined the moment we ceased searching for Bin Laden and went into Iraq. 5 years, 3 months and 18 days since 9/11 and we still have yet to capture or kill him. Yeah, our leaders are doing a bang up job in actually catching the guy who masterminded 9/11.

    But, at least now old George can say he’s gotten his revenge on the guy who tried to kill his dad.

    Comment by Kevin — December 30, 2006 @ 10:39 pm - December 30, 2006

  56. […] Gay Patriot has more links of lefties who are seriously messed up in the head (calling for George Bush to be executed?!), and I’ll link them since I can’t bear to put the actual links here on this blog. […]

    Pingback by Infidels Are Cool » Blog Archive » Saddam Bites The Dust — December 31, 2006 @ 4:09 am - December 31, 2006

  57. […] Gay Patriot has more links of lefties who are seriously messed up in the head (calling for George Bush to be executed?!), and I’ll link them since I can’t bear to put the actual links here on this blog. […]

    Pingback by Infidels Are Cool » Blog Archive » Saddam Bites The Dust *UPDATED* — December 31, 2006 @ 12:28 pm - December 31, 2006

  58. I’m just wondering if those MoFo’s at the UN will put the flags at half-staff for Saddam, like they did for Arafat.

    And lest we forget, they did not choose to do so for Ford.


    Remind me again – WHY are we in the UN anyway????

    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — December 31, 2006 @ 2:25 pm - December 31, 2006

  59. WHY are we in the UN anyway????

    Good question. The corruption at the UN makes anything the Republican Congress did look penny ante by comparison. Republican aides took a few thousand in payoffs from lobbyists… how does that compare with billions skimmed off the oil-for-foodpalaces program? Mark Foley sent a few tacky emails to a page, how does that compare with UN peacekeepers running child prostitution rings, and other UN bureaucrats caught with child pr0nography?

    And yet the liberal-left doesn’t give a damn about UN corruption. Indeed, they think the UN has moral authority over everything and everyone.

    Care to defend your party’s hypocrisy, lefties?

    Comment by V the K — December 31, 2006 @ 3:25 pm - December 31, 2006

  60. #59 I hope at the next UN General Session, Pres. Bush makes and emphasizes the points you just made, as well as the apparent France and Russia financial deals with Saddam when resolutions prohibited that. I’m assuming there is proof, so he should bring it along. If not, then it appears that Bush is just as bad as the lefties in this matter.

    Comment by Pat — January 1, 2007 @ 9:11 am - January 1, 2007

  61. Pat, there is extensive proof – just google any of Claudia Rosett’s articles on the the Oil-for-Food scandals; should only take a few minutes…. And… President Bush WILL NOT make any points about it to the U.N.

    As I said… Bush is, and always has been, way too diplomatic about all this. Way too willing to just sweep stuff under the rug. I fault him for it.

    Ambassador Bolton tried to make some headway with these issues… but look where it got him.

    Comment by Calarato — January 1, 2007 @ 6:12 pm - January 1, 2007

  62. Cal, here’s hoping that the new Sec-Gen will clear out Kofi’s mess and bring the UN back to its intended purpose: a place where diplomacy can avert bloodshed. Not a course in America & Israel Bashing 101.

    And the UN was pretty quiet concerning Saddam’s just reward. Maybe they’re contemplating their own precarious situation in the world today.

    As far as the former dictator of Iraq is concerned: say hi to Satan for me, you terrorist muthaf—a. Hope your 70 virgins look like Helen Thomas.

    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — January 2, 2007 @ 3:46 pm - January 2, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.