Woman's torture (by Saddam) in Iraq prison questioned

[Monkie]

ie she lied about,just like during the previous gulf war when the story about kuwaiti babies being killed when evil iraqi's where stealing the hospital equipment came at a crucial time for the un/coalition

"An Iraqi woman who was granted refugee status in the United States after telling the Washington Post and U.S. officials that she had been imprisoned, tortured and sexually assaulted in Iraq during the 1990s appears to have made false claims about her past, according to a fresh examination of her statements"

"Her testimony led to the arrest of several Iraqi security officials. Based on her testimony, U.S. officials took her into protective custody in Baghdad, and then to the United States"

"In recent interviews in Baghdad, Hanna's in-laws - including her husband's brother, uncle and cousin - all said the husband, Haitam Jamil Anwar, was alive and had left Iraq several months ago."

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0120iraq-woman20.html
edit:forgot link..slaps self

[Career Prole]

1. Also all the Saddam horror which came to the press

courtesy of Chalabi and the INC should be considered bullshit until proven otherwise, AFAIC. Chalabi and the boys lied about WMD's to Judith Miller and others who breathlessly and irresponsibly reported them as fact and got away with it, so I'm discounting all their Saddam "cruelty" stories as well.

[Poppyseedman]

18. No doubt that this women

is lying, but to discount all of "Saddam horror" as bullshit is quite myopic.

The videos of prisoner being beaten and tortured.

The men sitting in the white house with new prosthetic hands and limbs courtesy of US doctors because Saddam's henchmen hacked them off as punishment against their children.

The soccer players beaten for losing by his sons.

The pictures of Kurdish women and children lying dead in the streets after being gased.

I could go on, it is pretty evident that WMD were in fact not found, Chalabi is a scam artist, but lets not discount real actual evidence because some woman used the system to her advantage.

Saddam was an evil person and regardless of why he is no longer in power, it's a good thing he is gone.

[Career Prole]

19. If you ask me it's pretty myopic to say

"regardless of why he is no longer in power, it's a good thing he is gone". Actually it smacks more of ignorance than myopia but I'm not your optometrist so how would I know?

"The men sitting in the white house with new prosthetic hands and limbs courtesy of US doctors because Saddam's henchmen hacked them off as punishment against their children."

Actually, the reason those White House photo-op one-handed Iraqis you refer to had a hand removed was over money-changing and not children, but regardless...no one would argue that isn't hideous but has
anybody in the administration (or yourself, for that matter) ventured a guess yet on how many limbs and lives we've cost the Iraqi people? Hmmm?

And dude...don't even bring up "torture videos" as an argument for what it has cost to oust Saddam. That's ridiculous.

[Poppyseedman]

20. So, based on your logic

and my unbelievable ignorance, It's "not a good thing Saddam is gone" ?

Dude, you can't have it both ways. Either it's a good or bad thing Saddam is no longer terrorizing his people. Make up you mind.

Amazingly, the Iraqi people don't seem to miss him. The people we are fighting are the ones who want to control the country for political / religious reasons, not reinstate Saddam.

As for myself, I don't fall in lockstep with the prevailing ideologue genuflect of the moment. I actually think for myself.

Nobody, including myself is making an argument that "torture videos" is a valid reason to oust the thug. It's the overall evidence.

History will validate overthrowing him was a good or bad decision.

[Career Prole]

21. Do you know what a false dichotomy is?

Just so you'll know in future debates, you've just used a dilly.

"So, based on your logic and my unbelievable ignorance, It's "not a good thing Saddam is gone" ?
Dude, you can't have it both ways. Either it's a good or bad thing Saddam is no longer terrorizing his people. Make up you mind."

Between best and worst lies a whole range of possibilities. The choices aren't limited to "good thing" or "bad thing", just as they aren't limited to the Chimp's "you're either with us or against us".
Saddam could've had a stroke and died. His people could've risen up against him. He could've found religion, for that matter. Not a thing would have been lost by waiting. Much was lost by acting.

"Nobody, including myself is making an argument that "torture videos" is a valid reason to oust the thug. It's the overall evidence."

Nor did I...nor did I. The "overall evidence" which you feel made this misadventure worthwhile is weak when the doubtful gain is weighed against the definite cost.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

31. I enjoyed that little parlay...

Thanks for the grins, CP.

:toast:

[Career Prole]

32. No prob! Thanks for the beer!

TGIFF!
:toast:

[genieroze]

22. Saddam is no longer terrorizing his people?

No he isn't, we took his job.

[Twenty3]

26. Bingo.

Torture chambers "under new management."

[VegasWolf]

38. Exactly, we gave that job to the sovereign Allawi. n/t

[iamjoy]

39. The U.S. Has No Right To Claim Moral Superiority

Saddam was a monster, so we did a good thing taking him out...

We have installed and tolerated brutal dictators when it suited our purposes, and we justified it as being in the best interests of the USA. At one time, we supported Hussein, I can't believe we didn't then have inkling of what he was doing. And we installed Pinochet in Chile in the early 1970s. We tolerated the Taliban before 9-11, only after did Dubya start talking about their treatment of women.

Taking out a brutal dictator was not the reason Dubya gave for first taking us into Iraq, and rightly so. Because then we would have to ask how he could ignore what was happening in much of Africa (Congo, Sudan, etc). And, I remember during the 2000 debates, he said he AGREED with the decision not to send troops to Rwanda.

Nope, all this stuff Dubya is now saying about Hussein is just trying to justify his actions by saying that the ends justifies the means. Doubtless Hussein thought this as he tortured people - that because of it Iraq was not in a civil war, that the country was secure...

[NickB79]

35. Hands being cut off? Where have I heard that before?

Sounds like just another day at the courthouses of our good friend Saudi Arabia. Oh wait, they're our allies and oil pimps, so we turn our heads when they do it.

[Trajan]

36. Given that Chalabi and his ilk were pathological liars ...

Your point is valid ...

Yet: There is NO DOUBT that that Saddam Hussein was a fascist, megalomanic tyrant who repressed the freedoms of his fellow citizens as he spent THEIR treasury on his own family ....

I dont heed the lies of the Neocons, but history speaks volumes about the likes of Saddam Hussein, he is no friend of progressivism or individual freedom ....

He is an extremist, fascist, authoritarian, kleptocratic, dynastic stalinistic dictator of the first degree ....

Even if EVERYTHING said by the WH/Likudnik Neocons are flat out lies: We still know THAT much about Hussein .... He deserves nothing but contempt from liberals and progressives ....

[LynnTheDem]

42. And yet he won humanitarian awards.

And yet he was spending Iraq's oil revenues on improvements for ordinary Iraqis' lives.

And yet he managed to keep a country together for 30 years.

And yet he managed to rebuild Iraq even under draconian sanctions, within months after the US forces bombed Iraq's infrastructure (war crimes.)

And yet he kept Iraq secular while allowing Iraqis to practise their religions.

And yet he allowed Iraqi women greater freedom and equality than most countries in the entire region.

And yet it was UP TO THE IRAQI PEOPLE to decide what they did or didn't want for THEIR government of THEIR country.

[Trajan]

46. Sorry .....

But call me a sucker for a Jeffersonian democracy ....

The Enlightenment brought an end to the serfdom 'enjoyed' by most of humanity at the hands of dynastic tyrants .... It was established by the eradication of monarchial forms of government, and replaced by liberal notions of consent, freedom and liberty as expressed by Locke, Rousseau, Paine, Jefferson, et al ...

To think that somehow, the sullying of a nation's reputation, like as a George Bush has done in the US, would suddenly make 'successful dictatorships' a preferred mode of government over a liberal democracy, is a ludicrous assertion ... Hitler made the trains run on time, but he did so by imprisoning the late train engineers (I presume) .... Saddam's good works are hardly meritorious enough to wipe away his stain of fascist repression ...

You are hand selecting a number of 'good points', whilst purposely ignoring the many bad facts of a Hussein Regime ....

Saddam Hussein was NO 'benevolent dictator' ....

I OF COURSE did not support making war against Iraq to throw down his rule .... so I certainly did NOT think it right to intervene in Iraq, but that doesnt mean he deserves our respect as liberal progressives ....

NO liberal could respect such a vicious fascist and greedy prince like Saddam was ....

[LynnTheDem]

47. We DON'T KNOW the "bad points", thanks to all the bushCartel LIES.

And in fact, I would say that YES Hussein WAS a "benevolent dictator" inasmuch as the 2 words can ever go together.

There is much to respect Hussein for, especially in the area of women's rights, and there is much to abhor Hussein for. But IGNORING and DENIGRATING the "good points", especially as each "bad point" turns out to have been nothing but bullshit propaganda pushed by bush & Cartel, is NOT A PROGRESSIVE TRAIT.

[Trajan]

48. This is naivete ....

Saddam's penchant for fascism was well known when Fratboy was still shooting beers and snorting coke in dorm rooms .... His murderous internal purges should be enough to make your blood curdle, and this news was available LONG before Bush took office ....

You are trying to use ANTIBush rhetoric against a dedicated liberal, progessive Democrat .... I am not buying it ... I will not justify invading Iraq, but I SURELY will not praise that murderous thug ....

It is abhorrent for a pacifist, freedom-loving liberal to 'recognize' a vicious fascist maniac like Hussein as 'good' .... It is laughable to praise Hussein for promoting 'women's rights' when he had recently (AGAIN before Bush took office) killed his own daughter's husbands .... personally ..... by his own hand .....

This is hardly a heroic figure .... and hardly worthy of praise or adoration .....

You cannot be serious ....

[LynnTheDem]

49. Was it really??? Says who?

What has always been well-known is the FACT that Hussein was using Iraq's oil revenues to improve the lives of ordinary Iraqis. What has always been well-known is the FACT that Hussein tried very hard to keep the peace between all the factions in Iraq.

And IN FACT the NGOs such as the Human Rights Watch have themselves said bush cannot declare his invasion a "humanitarian intervention" because there were NO ONGOING OR IMMINENT ATROCITIES happening in Iraq, that "Saddam's worst excesses" happened TWENTY YEARS AGO.

NEVER have I said I had "ADORATION" for Hussein and NEVER have I called him a "HERO". So please, KNOCK OFF THE RIGHTWINGNUT TECHNIQUE, it won't work on me. I am perfectly capable of posting my own words; I don't require YOU to post words for me.

Hussein did MANY GOOD THINGS for Iraq and that is JUST FACT. You can't face that FACT, that's YOUR problem, not mine, and it DOES NOT make me "adore" Hussein or think him a "hero".

PS: WTF has Hussein's orders of execution for their husbands have to do with WOMEN'S RIGHTS???

[Trajan]

50. This doesnt wash ....

Molesters dont get brownie points for giving their victims candy ....

There is NO DOUBT that Saddam Hussein murdered hundreds of possible suitors during his regime ....

Cold blooded political murder .....

It is absurd to TRY to offer a 'but he gave them candy' mea culpa ...

Murder is amoral: Hussein's guilt in those purges, as well as that of the murder of his own son-in-laws, is unimpeachable ....

I swear: what someone might say in order to justify their own foibles ...

Here you are, praising a known mass murderer because he bought someone goodies ... This is absurd .....

There is no statute of limitations for cold blooded murder: Saddam Hussein was a cold blooded murderer .... this is absolute, self-admitted fact ....

[LynnTheDem]

51. Oh GROW UP.

The world is NOT black-white, with us-against us.

Hussein DID GOOD THINGS FOR IRAQ AND THE IRAQI PEOPLE.

That is JUST A FACT.

He did some things worth praising. That is JUST A FACT.

Hussein DID BAD THINGS TOO.

That is also JUST A FACT.

But YOU REFUSE to look at ALL SIDES, GOOD AND BAD.

Unlike you, I prefer to look at ALL SIDES, GOOD AND BAD. I have no problem whatsoever at praising what he did right, just as I have no problem whatsoever at denouncing him for what he did wrong.

Please point out any posts of mine where I said Hussein should go free. Please point out any posts of mine where I said he should not be tried for any crimes he DID actually commit.

"Justify their own foibles"??? WTF??? End of this convo; it's far too much like dealing with a rightwingnut moran.

[Trajan]

52. Sheeesh ... this is silly ....

Some still praise Hitler for running the trains on time ... as if this 'wonderful' fact erases the stain of immoral mass murder from his 'soul' ...

NOW you will attempt to insinuate my arguments are 'childish' by telling me to 'grow up' .... again absurdity .....

Listen up: When a man murder's another man, he is usually considered a criminal for his entire life, marked with the stain of felony, of blood taken wrongly ... Nothing ever changes that mark of ignomy ... Even the serving of sentence and restitution doesnt remove the amoral stain ....

Hussein has publically admitted that he has killed, many times personally, hiw own ranks of generals and other possible suiters for his seat of power .... He expressed his guilt publically as a warning to others that they may meet the same fate ....

Therefore: Hussein is stained, by personal admission, to the murder of hundreds, if not thousands, of his own citizens ....

Such criminals do NOT get a pass because they bought someone some soup .... Morality IS, or SHOULD BE, more important than a nice meal or fancy clothes ....

Hussein was a mass murderer long BEFORE Bush came to power .... Dont let your strident disagreement with Dubya and the Neocon GOP (which I agree with) cloud your overall judgement ....

Mass Murderers do NOT receive praise ... they are immoral and deserve justice from those who were harmed by their vicious acts .... NOT kudos for pressing the shirts nightly ...

I dont care HOW many burritos and beer he bought for the masses: none of that matters .... The stain of murder does not disappear when you buy someone goodies ....

You arent saying he was 'heroic' ? ... I didnt say you did ... I said he wasnt worth it .... But you are praising him .... that in itself is absurd ....

[ElectroPrincess]

45. I saw Chalabi's Iranian (political philosophy) twin on CSPAN

this morning touting the glorious DICK Cheney and begging us to invade Iran.

Yikes! Second verse, same as the first? Just substitute N for a Q and a woman Neo-con Iranian ex-patriot. Charge!

[uppityperson]

2. More "bad intellegence"? Dang, gotta clean that up.

[UL_Approved]

3. What does this mean?

Did the reporters check to see if the family members were telling the truth? What about the husband, did they find him?

Things like this make the world messed up and complicated. If this article is correct about the woman lying, then how much of the rest of the horror stories are true?

Neither side of this argument is great, and neither side has been nailed down. This is a mess.

[Ms. Clio]

12. The husband is fine--the woman is a stone-cold pathological liar

She fooled many people, but this excellent Esquire article makes it absolutely clear that not a single word she said about rape and torture can be believed.

http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2004/041222_mfe_dream_1.html

[Kurovski]

4. There was also a woman

prior to the invasion who "told" of the persecution of Christians under Hussein.

But the truth is Christians were not persecuted by Hussein.

Christians are indeed now being persecuted in Iraq thanks to Bush's holy war for oil.

[Monkie]

5. iraqi resistance denies deliberately targeting (iraqi) christians

they do ofcourse target the invading american "crusaders" and their "puppets" but have issued statements in the past denying it.

"Earlier, the Iraqi Resistance in Mosul had issued a statement that was distributed to mosques and four churches in which they declared that they were not behind the attacks on churches that had taken place in the city, accusing the Zionist Mossad and the US forces of being behind bombings that have targeted those Iraqi Christian establishments. The Resistance statements said that the aim of such sabotage was to sow sectarian discord and conflict between Iraqi Muslims and Christians. The statement did warn, however, that if the Resistance sensed that local Christians were sympathizing with or growing close to the occupation, that would wind up with their turning into lackeys of the aggressors."
http://www.freearabvoice.org/Iraq/Report/report176.htm
(this site translates arab language reports into english)

the recently kidnapped archbishop was released within days by the resistance.. the archbishop is alleged to have had this to say about his abduction according to the article

"In an interview with MisNA (Missionary Service News Agency), Jurjis was quoted as saying, “I was treated with huge respect,” and added that he thought his abduction was “a case of mistaken identity.”"

[Kurovski]

28. Are there really this many attacks in one day?

This adds more confusion to the situation. That's a remarkable amount of attacks in one day, or at least it seems remarkable , as the US press is reporting only a fraction of them each day.

As for the attacks on Christian targets, I'm not yet ready to make any conclusions, but that is an eye-opener.

[Psephos]

6. I can't go along with trying to sanitize Saddam

Yuck. It seems a lot like the sanitizing of the equally sociopathic Stalin fifty or six years ago.

As this story may show, there are always some data that don't fit, but the overwhelming body of evidence is that Saddam's regime did many horrifying things to many people for many years.

Here is a site put up by Iraqis as a testament to Saddam's beneficence: http://massgraves.info/

Whether war was justified is an entirely different question, but trying to clean up Saddam does not do the antiwar effort any favors.

Ultimately, politics is about persuading others of different views that your view is worth supporting. Prettifying Saddam makes the job of those who oppose the war harder, by making it easier for those of other politics to dismiss everything we say or do with one broad sweep of the hand.

[Cooley Hurd]

7. I don't think anyone is trying to sanitize anything...

...but there is a body of evidence that shows much of what Saddam supposedly did was fiction - made up by those who wanted to usurp him. For example: the gassing of the Kurds - the US Army War College determined that it was Iranian gas that killed them, not Iraqi gas. Yet the BFEE and its minions would lead you to believe the opposite.

Saddam was no saint. But, his ouster was not worth the loss of almost 1400 US lives and over 100,000 Iraqi lives.

[geek tragedy]

24. Saddam DID gas those people. The US Army War College study

was REAGAN'S propaganda. Progressive groups at the time all condemned his atrocities, and the fact that Reagan supported him while committing those atrocities.

Now, some lefties are regurgitating Reaganite propaganda. Sad.

[LynnTheDem]

43. You're late. Expected you to show up with your rhetoric long ago.

Yes and the CIA report is just regurgitated Reaganite propaganda...and the DIA report is just regurgitated Reaganite propaganda...and the US Marine Corps report is just regurgitated Reaganite propaganda...and the US State Dept report is just regurgitated Reaganite propaganda etc etc etc ad nauseum.

Too bad REAGAN WASN'T IN OFFICE at the time of the above reports.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wellst0nev0ter]

25. You Mean These Mass Graves?

The Iraqi death toll was much higher, perhaps more than 500. Marine engineers patrolling near Ramadi on Wednesday reported coming across a mass grave containing up to 350 bodies of Iraqis who appeared to have been killed in the fighting. It wasn't clear whether the bodies belonged to combatants, civilians or both.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/8378962.htm

[spotbird]

9. After he supposedly gassed the Kurds

the US worked to normalize relations.

What you miss is that as bad as Saddam was we are no longer morally superior. We imprison potentially forever without trial, we torture (Condi and Al both said it's policy)and we are killing innocents.

Why is the way we abuse human rights superior to the way Saddam abused human rights, because we have a better reason? Saddam thought he was preserving his power also.

[KC21304]

10. Whether the war was justified is EXACTLY the question.

Those mass graves were from the 80s and 90s and everyone knows it. Saddam was a monster but we helped him do his most dastardly deeds.

Just as we, with the help of Kuwait, made up stories to justify the first Gulf War, we did it again, only more so for this one. Lying about Saddam's WMDs, his putting people through shredders etc, did the pro-war effort huge favors.

[Psephos]

13. I live near Detroit, which has the biggest Iraqi population in the US

My Iraqi friends universally condemn Saddam. Each of their families lost relatives to his regime. We who read internet news or pass information around on websites have considerably less grip on the facts than those whose people disappeared.

If you read my post, I said that trying to soften Saddam's image is a disservice to antiwar efforts. In this analysis, it doesn't matter whether it's "true" or not. It also does not matter whether Saddam was bad all by himself or with American or Russian or assistance. What matters is what effect this Saddam P.R. effort has. What it does is give other people who aren't sure about whether or not to support the war a blanket excuse to dismiss all arguments of the antiwar movement.

That makes my job a lot harder. I don't appreciate it one bit. If your goal is score political pundit points or preach to the converted, then by all means turn Saddam into Santa. But if your goal is to smother war, then your victory is Pyrrhic indeed.

[LynnTheDem]

14. The goal is to simply state FACTS and the TRUTH.

And if you don't like that, oh well too bad.

[Ms. Clio]

30. It's also important that Wolfowitz et al. did not care that she was lying

As long as her lies furthered their goals.

From the Esquire article:

"I don't think the U. S. did much to verify her story," Judge Campbell told me in September, when I called him to discuss what I was learning. "Once the Washington Post article came out, we treated it as gospel. We were skeptical; as lawyers, we are always skeptical. But once the investigators looked me in the eye and said they believed her story, I accepted it. Nevertheless, they were young men, not seasoned investigators."

Family members told me that Hanna had gone to prison but that the real reason bore no resemblance to what she told authorities, the Post, or even what she wrote on her application for asylum. She had been jailed, she said, for marrying an Indian, violating an Iraqi law that forbade marriage to a non-national without government permission. In fact, there was never any such law. While intermarriage may have been discouraged, it did not require special approval, a point confirmed for me by a specialist at the Library of Congress.

I asked Judge Campbell, who had a staff of twenty American lawyers and fifty Iraqi lawyers during his six-month tenure in Baghdad, if anyone had ever checked this detail. It was, after all, central to Hanna's story. No, he said, nobody had done so.

(snip)

In California, Hanna's claims turned brazen. She seemed compelled to tell her story over and over, brandishing copies of the Post article to strangers on the street, during shopping visits to Costco, and at her children's elementary school. Mostly she used it to ask people for money. "Read it!" she urged. "This is my story."

She told one therapist that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and his wife, Maria Shriver, met her plane on the tarmac and presented her with a $20,000 check—which Catholic Charities, her initial sponsor in California, promptly confiscated. As always, she was so compelling that the therapist called the governor's office to confirm the story. It was pure fiction."

Read the rest here, it's a great piece of writing.

http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2004/041222_mfe_dream_1.html

[LynnTheDem]

34. Yep exactly. Just like BUSH HIMSELF did re Hussein's son-in-law

bush quoted ALL of Kamil's testimony about the WMD & programs Iraq had...but bush DELIBERATELY DID NOT MENTION the FACT that Kamil also stated ALL WMD & PROGRAMS had been DESTROYED by 1994.

CHERRY-PICKING; rightwingnuts cherry-pick EVERYTHING.

[Ms. Clio]

37. Perfect example--and the cherry-picking for the next war against Iran

is already well underway.

[LynnTheDem]

44. has bush found the Key to the City Detroit gave to Saddam Hussein?

Make sure bush doesn't just keep it for himself!

[Cocoa]

40. so you HAVE TO believe stories that are false?

you REQUIRE yourself to believe every story that Paul Wolfowitz tells you, even after they are shown to be false?

Why?

If we can figure out why YOU insist on believing lies, then maybe we can figure out why so many people voted for Bush.

[LynnTheDem]

11. If you have to LIE and MAKE SHIT UP about someone, then you have no case

And bushCartel have been LYING and MAKING SHIT UP about Saddam Hussein & his government for a long time now.

And they sure do LOVE them Iraqi con artists, don't they! Chalabi, Anwar, "curveball", Allawi.

It ain't "sanitizing" Hussein; it's just telling the TRUTH AND FACTS. For those who don't like FACTS that don't make Hussein look like a monster, TOO BAD.

[cambie]

15. According to Wolfowitz:

“That is the same tree behind the police academy that was described in such gruesome detail in the Washington Post on July 23rd. That article focused on the sad story of one Assyrian Christian woman who was tied to that tree and made to endure unspeakable torture. Her husband was executed at the academy, and his body was passed through the steel gate to her, as the article described it, "like a piece of butcher's meat" -- all because the couple had not received state approval for their marriage.
There is a positive aspect in the distressing story of Jumana Michael Hanna, that is her courage in coming forward to offer U.S. officials what is very likely credible information, information that is helping us to root out Ba'athist policemen who routinely tortured and killed prisoners.
Mr. Chairman, as I said, that is the same police academy that you and Senator Biden and Senator Hagel visited. But as I said, our understanding of the academy's former role in the regime has evolved since your trip. That is due to Mrs. Hanna's brave testimony about crimes committed against her. And that one step in the evolution of our understanding of what went on in the old regime is -- points to one of the most formidable challenges facing us today. The people of Iraq have much valuable information that can help us root out Ba'athists and help them find justice, but their willingness to tell us what they know will continue to take significant investments on our part; investments of time, of resources, of efforts to build trust among the Iraqi people.”


http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2003/sp20030729-depsecdef0385.html

[Ms. Clio]

29. Exactly--the Esquire article also makes it clear that the neocons used her

lies upon lies to bolster their arguments, even though the most rudimentary fact-checking (such calling Oxford to see if she actually ever attended classes there) would have revealed her for the sociopathic schemer that she is. But they either didn't bother to check, or they didn't want to know, or they knew, and used her lies as more war propaganda.

That's why the truth about her lies is critical--because it was just another in a whole sordid series of lies that led to this war.

[diamond14]

33. gawwwdddd...a CHRISTIAN...tied to a tree, tortured and RAPED..

PERFECT right-wing fundie propaganda to justify the bush* crusades.....as 'compassionate conservatives', this compelling CHRISTIAN story required AERIAL BOMBARDMENT of millions of innocent Iraqis in mass punishment...all in the Biblical Lands of Babylon....PERFECT fundie campaign-money raising scheme...PERFECT excuse for a WAR....CRUSADES !!!!!

[Straight Shooter]

16. The lies of one person should not cast doubt on the truths told by others.

Saddam is an evil man, by his words and by his deeds. I cannot judge his heart, but it is probably poisonous and as close to godlessness as a heart can be. Good riddance to him.

Whenever I think of Saddam and how bush has handled the situation, I am reminded of Nietzsche's famous quotation, wherein he warned us that in seeking to destroy monsters, we must take care not to become monsters ourselves.

[Psephos]

17. Well said, Straight Shooter

The strongest antiwar argument of all is that we must avoid becoming that which we oppose.

[Bridget Burke]

23. How true are those "truths"?

Let's find out at Saddam's trial.

And Bush's handling of the "situation" has already turned us into monsters.

[IndianaGreen]

41. Not in US courts! If a witness is caught in a lie, that impugns....

Not in US courts! If a witness is caught in a lie, that impugns the entire testimony.

Saddam was bad, but it is to the Iraqis to try him not the US. America has her own collection of war criminals and human rights abusers in our list of clients and allies, from the psychopathic leader of Kyrgyzstan, the torturer Mubarek of Egypt, and the war criminal Sharon of Israel.

[daleo]

27. Give him a fair trial, with the usual rules of evidence and representation

Let's see how that plays out in regard to the various accusations against him. Then, let's put Bush's actions in Iraq to the same test and see how that goes. What could be fairer?