Saddam is not on trial for the reasons we went to war against him?

[MethuenProgressive]

Why the hell not?

[Dangerman]

1. I don't care how "evil" Saddam is...

His trial is nothing more than a political love-fest for BushCo to prove that the immoral invasion of Iraq is just and moral.

Bush makes Saddam look like Pope John Paul II.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. Is this a rhetorical question?

What kind of answers are you expecting - sarcastic, comic, serious?

[MethuenProgressive]

6. Well... yeah.

What kind of answers are you expecting - sarcastic, comic, serious?

When I ran "Saddam will be found guilty as a stunt just before the election" past a friend his rsponse was quick- "Yeah, and that'll prove Bush was right all along". Can it possibly be true that hardly anyone really knows what Saddam is on trial for?

[stepnw1f]

3. Because the US Had No Case to Invade

all bullshit reason thse neo-con fascist don't want under scrutiny. They'd lose...

[Poppyseedman]

4. That may be true, so we just let him go???

[Bobbieo]

5. Why not - Maybe he can unite the country!!!!

[Buck Laser]

7. Sounds good to me...

How could he do worse?

[Jack Rabbit]

8. Of course not

No one would get a conviction for his possession of weapons of mass destruction as of the Autumn of 2002. Or of having ties to al Qaida.

So, we're stuck with what everybody always knew about Saddam, but the Reagan Administration denied because he was aour ally then.

[LynnTheDem]

9. That would be rather difficult, seeing as there were no wmd in Iraq.

Howver, BUSH should be standing trial for the very same war crimes charges the German regime were tried for.

According to the Nuremberg Tribunal chief prosecutor.
http://www.agrnews.org/?section=archives&cat_id=42&article_id=1145

Think bodycount would have made a difference in sentence between bush & Hitler?

[dailykoff]

10. Ironic, isn't it?

Sometimes I think Iran doesn't appreciate what we do for them.