Fact or Fiction?

Friday, November 25, 2005
I woke up at an ungodly hour and decided to look around the blogoshphere and I came across a link at Roger Simon's that made my blood boil. Could this be true?

It makes you wonder if Saddam would really use such a defence.

On one hand it seems to be a hoax, on another it makes a kind of perverse sense and demonstrates to us once again that politics should end at the water's edge.

Contrast that screed with the real live actual authorization to use force that the House voted on before the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. The search facility at the site allows you to access the actual bill voted on and not the spin about the bill we hear today. Please note the emphasis on Saddam's flagrant breaking of the law.

It makes it plain that cease fire violations, the brutal repression of the Iraqi people, support for international terrorism as well as the Iraqi Liberation Act had more to do with the removal of Saddam Hussein from power than weapons stockpiles.

One is fantasy while the other is reality, as if Saddam or the Demcoratic leadership could tell the difference.

10 comments:

Peter UK said...

"And so, my friends, I, Saddam Hussein, throw in with the Democrats in the United States Senate. They are my allies, and until they finish their great and glorious work for Allah in uncovering the truth about the lies and the distortions of the cowboy Bush, I demand these trials of me be postponed and the charges dismissed — and I get my country back".

A spoof,but a Ba'ath,Democrat axis fits the facts...they couldn't be as stupid as they appear.
Seems a goog deal, Iraq for the Whitehouse

Rick Ballard said...

Rush does excellent spoofs from time to time. Close enough to the truth to generate a little steam - until you get to the blow off.

Peter,

A question for you. When government changes hands in the UK are civil service bureaucrats given the heave ho or does the new government have to deal with subversion for a bit? Did Blair have to use Thatcher/Major hires to run foreign policy?

Peter UK said...

Rick,
Prior to this government corrupting the principle,Civil Servants were impartial permanent bureaucrats.They were there to advise governments on the feasibility of, provide information on and enable the logistics of policy.Not for nothing are they called Mandarins.
Obviously they had their own preferences and could stonewall a minister on a project.Ministers being politcians have no comprehension to the ramifications of some of their policies.
Now Blair has politicised the Civil Service and if there is a change of gevernment it is likely that heads will have to roll.The silly, vainglorious little man has destroyed so much in this country,politicising the police,limiting trial by jury,abolishing habeus corpus,filling the House of Lords with his cronies.
All he wanted was fame and money,he would have been better off in a rock group.

Julian Biggs said...

peter - wouldn't a few hours spent with this answer rick's question for him? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes,_Minister

Peter UK said...

Julian,
It would indeed,though I recommend the boxed set.

David Thomson said...

There’s little doubt but that the MSM (especially in Europe) are trying to portray Saddam Hussein as something of a victim. One way or another, much of the fault supposedly belongs to Dick Cheney and Halliburton. They are responsible for helping the former Iraqi leader gain power. We cared only for the oil and didn’t give a damn about the general population. Saddam’s violent actions were merely a “blow back” response to our unjust aggression. Can’t you imagine the enormous pressures placed on him? Any normal person would have cracked. Damn it, if only the United States and Israel had left the elected Iraqi president alone. Who are we to criticize a national leader who received 100% of the vote in the last election? After all, didn’t the U.S. Supreme Court steal the election on behalf of George W. Bush? Isn’t Iraq a sovereign nation? Why are the coalition partners messing in its internal politics?

terrye said...

When one of the parties in question is actively pandering to the enemy it is really no great surprise that the country is "divided". They would be sadly disappointed if it were not.

Peter UK said...

Rick.
For further study, Yes Minister

Peter UK said...

Terrye,
What I find demented is the anti-war liberal left,let us call them "Dodos",uses exactly the same talking pionts as the Ba'athist,al Qaeda,insurgents ,viz the recent white phosphorus campagn.
This kind of thing displays an infantile lack of proportion,as if the argument is taking place outside the realms of reality,all that counts is winning the argument.
I think the lack of any direct consequences for the betrayal of Vietnam immured caused this denial,"Nothing bad happened to us then,nothing bad will happen to us now".
As I have said before this is the Dodo generation,this time, this has followed you home.

terrye said...

peter:

At least some of us grew up.

I think there was a price to pay for Viet Nam and we are paying it now.