Saddam's POW Status and Television Appearance

[andyfox]

Only if you define nothing to gain as getting rid of a ruthless tyrant. Which is exactly how the right feels about it; they don't care about it. The right has always suppoted the most brutal peopple it could find, unless they were Communists. Reagan sent biological weapons to Hussein and Bush 41 told him not to worry about going into Kuwait. Because we had something to gain. That's why Bush (W.) and his team said nothing about Hussein as a despot until their other arguments met resistance. And why the right was against the war against Milosevic and for the war against Hussein. That and because the first was a Clinton intervention which, by definition, had to be bad, and the latter a Bush war, which, by definition, has to be good.

The left likes humanitarian wars (or at least wars that they're told are being fought for humanitarian purposes). That's why it supported, for example, the Vietnam War until it found out the good guys weren't too good. That's why it supported the invervention against Milsevic. It would have supported a war against Hussein had the facts of Hussein's regime been presented, instead of the cock-and-bull story the administration offered. Tonight, Bush said "what difference does it make?" when pressed as to whether or not Hussein had WMDs.

What difference? I don't know, maybe it's important to know whether or not he had them; maybe it's important to know if our administration received reliable intelligence; maybe it's important to know whether 200,000 of our fellow Americans were sent to war because they were lied to. It wouldn't be the first time.

[andyfox]

Discerning meaning from Rumsfeld's terminology is a full time job.

The only "liberal" I heard complain about the pictures was some Cardinal. And I don't mean Ozzie Smith.

[adios]

"Discerning meaning from Rumsfeld's terminology is a full time job. "

Rumsfeld left no doubt that he considered Hussein a POW.

"The only "liberal" I heard complain about the pictures was some Cardinal. And I don't mean Ozzie Smith. "

On tonight's Hannity and Colmes, Stanley Weintraub, a historian was criticising the US for the TV pictures of Saddam. He stated that they were in violation of the Geneva convention and that it sent a bad message about the US to the Arab world. Apparently Weintraub wrote a piece in yesterday's USA Today. Also there was a reference to an article in the NY Times. Kofi Annan came out yesterday and stated that he opposed execution of Hussein if Hussein tried and found guilty. Apparently Annan would oppose the execution of other wartime criminals throughout history as well. Other references to possible torture of Hussein by the US have been made. So I think there is concern by some that as reprehensible as Hussein is, that he be treated humanely.

I don't have any sympathy for Hussein and I do understand why the US showed the video they did.

[Cyrus]

"Perhaps no one told you the war ended, ergo no formal POW status."

Can you tell us then, when precisely the war "formally" started ? Thanks in advance.

"Milosevic's arrest was televised as well."

No, just a grimy shot of him being carried through prison yard on his way to the airport to be deported from Serbia. His actual arrest (by the Sebian security police) was not televised.

"Perhaps I missed the liberals complaining when [the arrest of Milosevic] occurred."

You missed it alright, because it just didn't happen! How could it? Perhaps you forget that it was the conservatives who were complaining when a liberal President attacked Milosevic. Perhaps you forget that there were no TV shots of Milosevic being treated badly or in any undignified manner whatsoever.

(Have a cigar while it all comes back.)

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[MMMMMM]

If anyone deserves to be treated in an undignified manner, it's Saddam. It would literally be impossible to treat him anywhere nearly as badly as he has treated others.

[MMMMMM]

I got the impression yesterday listening to Rumsfeld that the reason the video was shown was to verify Saddam's identity prior to DNA test confirmation, because he had so many paid plastic-surgeried doubles and it was considered a priority to get outside recognition and confirmation. Also it was considered important to let the Iraqi people know beyond any doubt that he had indeed been captured.

[MMMMMM]

If the Left would have supported the war for humanitarian reasons they had plenty of reasons and plenty of chance to do so. The humanitarian case was overwhelming. But their disdain for anything that would benefit the US and their hatred of Bush clouded their eyes. The humanitarian case was totally separate and not impacted by anything else. That the Left suspected the WMD case was weak should have made ZERO difference because:

Premise: HumanitarianCase=JustifiesWar(1)

IF WMDCase THEN JustifiesWar(1)=JustifiesWar(1) + JustifiesWar(2)

So you either get a final value of War Is Justified or War Is Justfied Even More So.

[ACPlayer]

I truly enjoy your analysis of the reasons for war.

Humanitarianism with the "benefit to the US" thrown in as an aside.

In actually no one cared in power cared about the humanitarian issue and only the dumb think that the US population is benefiting from this misadventure.

It does make for good TV ratings and a post presidency board seat at Haliburton.

[MMMMMM]

I made this same argument prior to the war. It made sense then as now.

[Wake up CALL]

"Can you tell us then, when precisely the war "formally" started ? Thanks in advance.

I'll indulge you Cyrus, the war began when the big hand was on the 12 and the little hand was on the 5, or to keep it simple when the first bomb dropped on Baghdad.

"No, just a grimy shot of him being carried through prison yard on his way to the airport to be deported from Serbia. His actual arrest (by the Sebian security police) was not televised."

How is this any different than televising Saddam while in custody? I do not believe his arrest was televised either.

"Perhaps you forget that there were no TV shots of Milosevic being treated badly or in any undignified manner whatsoever. "

Perhaps you are delusional and contradicted yourself in the same post Cyrus. You really should seperate your contradictions by at least a few minutes if for no other reason than to give ACPlayer time to come to your defense.

I know just where to stick that cigar Cyrus. Do you mind bending over a bit?