Saddam Hussein - Not Bush Or Cheney - Was Telling The Truth

[RLENT]

..... so he was lynched .....

How "Curveball" Made Fools of Official Washington
By Eric Margolis

"The black comedy of the Iraqi defector codenamed "Curveball" has just resurfaced. It tells us much about how the US has made such a mess in the Mideast and why Washington can't understand or deal with the historic revolution now flaring across the Muslim world.

Take equal parts of ignorance and arrogance, the standard recipe for US policy in the Muslim world, shake well, and you get a frothy ****tail of stupidity and blundering that offers a perfect growth medium for conmen, special interest promoters, and disinformation.

In 2000, an Iraqi, Ahmed al-Janabi, defected to Germany. To bolster his refugee status, he offered Germany's intelligence service, BND, a bunch of laughable lies about Iraqi chemical and biological weapons. The most notorious: the claim that President Saddam Hussein had mobile biological weapons units that threatened the world.

The Germans didn't believe "Curveball." None of his claims checked out. But, being dutiful US allies, and knowing the Bush administration was hungering for alarming reports about Iraq, no matter how dubious, Germany passed on "Curveball's" claims to CIA.

CIA's able European chief, Tyler Drumheller, warned Langley that Curveball's claims were patently false. But CIA's sycophantic director, George Tenet, knowing President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, were determined to invade Iraq, sent "Curveball's" phony tale to the White House without, it seems, any reservations. Another "slam dunk."

This is hardly the first time fakers have made monkeys of US intelligence. For good example, back in the 1980's, a shady Iranian arms dealer and Israeli agent, Manucher Ghorbanifar, sent President Reagan's Washington into hysteria with phony tales of nonexistent Libyan hit-men.

In 2001, an Israeli agent of influence in the US government and other neocon officials resurfaced fraudster Ghorbanifar in Rome to offer false claims and forged documents about Iraq's supposed nuclear ambitions.

The deputy CIA director later admitted "Curveball's" tall story was the only "evidence" he had for claims that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.

On 5 Feb., 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell went before the UN and gravely warned of nefarious Iraqi germ weapons that threatened the entire world, complete with fanciful drawings of bio-warfare vans.

Powell even fingered a little phial of white powder that everyone took to be anthrax. This was a clear reminder of the 2001 anthrax panic in the US that was falsely blamed on Muslim extremists or Iraq.

Secretary Powell's performance was a tour de force. He was one of the most trusted figures in America. Behind Powell sat CIA chief Tenet, and US UN chief John Negroponte, their eyes downcast and hooded, looking like high churchmen at mass.

How Powell, a decent if hardly brilliant man, allowed himself to be made a fool and liar, remains a mystery. Powell now blames CIA and the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency for misleading him. But Gen. Powell, the Bush White House, and Congress were either arrant fools for swallowing all the lies about Iraq or knew it was all a big lie.

The Bush administration's standard excuse after the 2003 war was: "well, all our allies also thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction." Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld repeated this canard last week.

In fact, the false intelligence that came from France, Germany, Italy had originally been provided to their intelligence agencies by CIA under long-standing intelligence sharing agreements. Garbage in, garbage out. Some of the original US intelligence on Iraq, which was fake, also came from Iraq's bitter enemies, Israel, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. We must suspect that much of the Obama administration's data on Iran's supposed nuclear weapons is coming from agents of influence, phony Iranian sources, and disinformation similar to "Curveball."

The US Congress and media bayed for action against Iraq. As war fever swept over the United States, this writer, an old Iraq hand and war correspondent, warned Powell's claims were absurd and that Iraq had neither weapons of mass destruction nor delivery systems.

Other veteran Mideast observers were brushed aside or ignored. Journalists like me who were "not with the program" were silenced, sometimes at the direct demand of the White House Oval office. George Orwell's famous line about how telling the truth in a time of mass lies becomes an act of sedition was never truer.

A final apogee of absurdity and lying was reached when President George W. Bush warned of Iraq's "drones of death" based on freighters lurking in the Atlantic Ocean, ready to shower unspeakable germs on sleeping America.

Bush must have gotten this idea from watching the 1940's serial, Flash Gordon, in which the fiendish Ming the Merciless planned to shower his lethal "Purple Death" powder on America.

I take little pleasure in being vindicated. I'd have much preferred the US had never invade Iraq, an unnecessary war that killed hundreds of thousands, ravaged Iraq, and cost US taxpayers close to $1 trillion – so far.

Ironically, it was Saddam Hussein, not Bush or Cheney, who was telling the truth. He was lynched after the 2003 US invasion in good part to prevent him from revealing the full extent of deep US-Iraqi collaboration prior to 1991.

The US media played a major role promoting the Iraq war. It trumpeted White House war propaganda, headlined false stories, and kept the American public in a state of constant fear and confusion.

Thanks to collusion between the Bush White House and the media, over 80% of Americans wrongly believed Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks.

Nearly all the media's commentators, think tanks, and Mideast "experts" who beat the war drums over Iraq remain in place today, continuing to misinform Americans about the Muslim world.

WikiLeaks showed US diplomats to be capable and often well informed, but handcuffed in their reporting by the party line set by Washington. The same applies to CIA, where heretical voices were silenced.

In 2009, this writer produced a book about America's pervasive influence over the Mideast, American Raj, subtitled, "Liberation or Domination," It predicted much of the political and social turmoil now sweeping the Mideast, and proposed ways the United States could practice what it preaches by promoting real democracy and social progress in the Muslim world.

My book was coldly received. Americans, as with most people, like to be told only what they already believe. The US corporate media often acts as a megaphone for government or special interests rather than performing its key role in a democracy – keeping government honest.

That, by default, became the job of WikiLeaks."

Link to original article:

How "Curveball" Made Fools of Official Washington

 

[Turtle]

..... so he was lynched .....

He was lynched after admitting and later being found guilty of the murder of 148 Iraqi Shi'ite Muslims in the town of Dulail in 1982, in retaliation for an assassination attempt against him.

The above story, while a mostly accurate opinion piece, is still a little skewed, especially with regard to Germany. Germany had to backpedal quite a bit to get to where they said they didn't believe Curveball. Germany was a large contributor to the UN report that stated Hussein had biological and chemical weapons. Germany knows Hussein had 'em, one because he had already used them, and two because Germany in particular raised quite a stink with the US when we sold the weapons to Hussein in the first place. The Germans weren't so sure about Curveball, especially with regard to the mobile units, but passed along his information to the US anyway, knowing full well how the US would treat it. The Germans passed the information along as if it were credible, but never actually said it was credible when they passed it along, which allowed them to later state they didn't believe it in the first place. And since it coincided with the UN report, that the Germans were a big part of, they felt it was up to the US to figure out how credible it was. The US simply took it at face value is all. The Germans' hands aren't exactly clean in all of this, certainly not as clean as they maintain.

 

[Pilgrim]

There's probably not a lot of people that frequent this forum that are familiar with Eric Margolis - the author of this "mostly accurate" opinion piece. However, those that are familiar with the LewRockwell website certainly know the name and are familiar with his anti-American and anti-Semitic rants. To put this article in perspective, it might help to revisit an article he wrote in Sept. of 2001:

"...the Bush administration's neocons shamelessly used 9/11 to promote the invasion of Iraq. Just before the attack, polls showed 80% of Americans erroneously believed Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. Dr. Goebbels would have been proud. So what, in the end, can we conclude? 1. We still do not know the real story about 9/11. 2. The official version is not credible. 3. 9/11 was used to justify invading strategic Afghanistan and oil-rich Iraq. 4. The attacks plunged America into wars against the Muslim world and enriched the US arms industry. 5. 9/11 boosted pro-Israel neoconservatives, formerly a fringe group, into power, and with them America's totalitarian far right. 6. Bush's unprovoked war against Iraq destroyed one of Israel's two main enemies. 7. 9/11 put America in what may turn out to be a permanent state of war with the Muslim world - a key goal of the neoconservatives."

The above is the summary of a colossal amalgam of hogwash that makes up the entire article. Almost every sentence is an outright lie or a conclusion based on false assumptions. However, just to cover his bases he provides this clever qualification in the final paragraph:

"But I've seen no hard evidence to date that 9/11 was a plot by America's far right or by Israel or a giant cover-up. Just, perhaps, the Mother of All Coincidences. In the end, it may just have been 19 angry Arabs and a bumbling Bush administration looking for someone else to blame."

Eric Margolis: WILL WE EVER LEARN THE TRUTH ABOUT 9/11? | GoodPorkBadPork.com

 

[RLENT]

There's probably not a lot of people that frequent this forum that are familiar with Eric Margolis - the author of this "mostly accurate" opinion piece.

What - specifically - about it was inaccurate ?

You have any specific disagreement beyond the issue that Turtle raised ?

However, those that are familiar with the LewRockwell website certainly know the name and are familiar with his anti-American and anti-Semitic rants.

It's easy to understand how some might become delusional with respect to what would actually constitute being anti-American or anti-Semitic. Blind Loyalty, Nationalism and Endocrine Patriotism (loved that one) are certainly powerful forces on human nature.

Apparently for these individuals, any disagreement - or even just the mere questioning - of the actions of the USG (except, of course, when it's individuals or an administration that you don't care for) ..... or anything other than absolute, unqualified and unwavering support for the State of Israel - regardless of whether or not it's actually in our national interest = anti-American/anti-Semite.

While there might be many things that he and I would have disagreed about, I do largely agree with what historian Howard Zinn said, when, in a 2002 interview (short, and a good read) with TomPaine.com, he stated:

"While some people think that dissent is unpatriotic, I would argue that dissent is the highest form of patriotism. In fact, if patriotism means being true to the principles for which your country is supposed to stand, then certainly the right to dissent is one of those principles. And if we're exercising that right to dissent, it's a patriotic act.

One of the great mistakes made in discussing patriotism -- a very common mistake -- is to think that patriotism means support for your government. And that view of patriotism ignores the founding principles of the country expressed in the Declaration of Independence. That is: the Declaration of Independence makes it clear that governments are artificial creations set up to achieve certain ends -- equality, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness -- and when governments become destructive of those ends it is the right of the people in the words of the Declaration, to alter or abolish the government.

In other words, obedience to government certainly is not a form of patriotism. Governments are the instruments to achieve certain ends. And if the government goes against those ends, if the government is not defending our liberties, but is diminishing our liberties, if the government is sending young people into war or making war which is unjustified, well then the government is not following the principles of caring about life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. When the government is taking huge sums of money from education and health, and using that money for military purposes, that's a violation of the principles of the Declaration of Independence. And a government like that cannot be obeyed. To obey a government like that is not being patriotic. At that point, when a government behaves like that, it is the most patriotic thing to disobey the government."

Dissent In Pursuit Of Equality, Life, Liberty And Happiness

Sadly, for some, the only thing that they appear to capable of conceiving as being patriotic is some sort of unquestioning, slavish devotion to government-approved dogma.

That such is how slaves are made, seems to have escaped their notice.

To put this article in perspective, it might help to revisit an article he wrote in Sept. of 2001:

"...the Bush administration's neocons shamelessly used 9/11 to promote the invasion of Iraq.

..... uhm .... yeah ?

Just before the attack, polls showed 80% of Americans erroneously believed Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.

Is there something incorrect in that statement ?

Was the percentage higher .... or lower ?

Dr. Goebbels would have been proud.

Dunno for sure .... but considering Goebbels was a master of propaganda, it seems at least somewhat likely.

So what, in the end, can we conclude?

1. We still do not know the real story about 9/11.

That's one way of saying it - another would be:

We still do not know the entire story behind, and all significant facts relating to, 9/11 (...... and probably never will ....)

Anyone who watched the 9/11 hearings - as I did, nearly in their entirety - and anyone who has followed the discussion of the matter since, is well aware that there many things that the Commission purposely chose not to explore.

Recognizing and saying the above, in no way whatsoever automagically qualifies anyone as part of the "Bush-and-Cheney-musta-done-it" camp .... it simply means that some folks, recognizing that US government has a rather distasteful habit and repeated history of being less than forthcoming with it's citizens (IOW: it frequently lies like a $2 dollar ), would like to see certain issues which the Commission failed to address dealt with, with some degree of candor and honesty.

2. The official version is not credible.

See No. 1 above - when one fails to pursue, or purposely avoids, certain matters and issues, credibility has a way of suffering.

3. 9/11 was used to justify invading strategic Afghanistan and oil-rich Iraq.

What part of this is inaccurate exactly ?

The invasions never happened ?

4. The attacks plunged America into wars against the Muslim world and enriched the US arms industry.

..... yup, exactly ....

.... Afghanistan .... Iraq .... Pakistan .... Yemen .... and jus' twitchin' to go to Iran ...

.... and wars or military actions against the Palestinians, and in Lebanon, Syria, and Somalia by proxy states (Israel and Ethiopia ...)

BTW - just for the record - are there any armed conflicts in which we are currently participating in that don't involve the Muslim world ?

As to enrichment issue:

Defense CEOs doing well since 9/11, study says

Corporate Profiteering in the Wake of 9/11/01

Military Contractors and Security Firms Reap Huge Profits

Inside The Secret World of the Carlyle Group

Probably alot more that I could dig up if I wanted to dignify the effort with my time - which I don't. Perhaps you have some info that you'd care to share regarding how the US arms industry is becoming poorer as a consequence of 911 ?

5. 9/11 boosted pro-Israel neoconservatives, formerly a fringe group, into power, and with them America's totalitarian far right.

..... Paul Wolfowitz ... Douglas Feith .... Richard Perle .... Michael Ledeen .... Scooter Libby ..... Charles Krauthammer .... Stephen Bryen .... David Frum ... Robert Kagan .... David Wurmser ... Dov Zakheim .... Henry Kissenger .... Norman Podhoretz ... John Podhoretz .... Elliot Abrams ...... Frederick Kagan .... Donald Kagan ... Alan Dershowtiz ... Daniel Pipes ..... Eliot Cohen ... Bill Kristol ... Irving Kristol ... Max Boot ... James Schlesinger .... Marc Grossman ... Joshua Bolten ... (apologies to anyone I missed)

The above individuals share at least three characteristics that I'm aware of .... one is that they are all neocons ... another is that they are all very pro-Israel ... the third characteristic I'll leave to others to discern ...

BTW, I invite anyone to plug any of the above names, or the following acronyms: PNAC, JINSA, ZOA, AEI, CSP, MEMRI, or AIPAC into Wikipedia (or Google) and see what you find with a little research.

Of course, even my mere mentioning any of the above will be sure to get me branded as a bona-fide anti-Semite by those who I referred to previously ....

6. Bush's unprovoked war against Iraq destroyed one of Israel's two main enemies.

Had Israel and Iraq kissed and made up ?

If so, I must have missed it .....

Or is it that Iraq is not now a US puppet state ?

7. 9/11 put America in what may turn out to be a permanent state of war with the Muslim world - a key goal of the neoconservatives."

Yeah ..... ongoing US-backed military conflicts in 7 Muslim nations .... it's not like that little matter might not cause a permanent state of war .....

For the neocon outlook, let us consider Mr. Micheal Ledeen, founder of JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) and prominent neo-con, on war generally:

"the level of casualties (in Iraq) is secondary" [Rlent Editorial Comment: It's always nice to see someone with a deep regard for the lives of America's sons and daughters, and human life generally]

“we are a warlike people (Americans)...we love war”

"The purpose of total war is to permanently force your will onto another people"

"Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business”

IMHO, the statement immediately above qualifies Mr. Ledeen as a bona-fide psychopath .... and if not in the dock on trial for his life, he - at the very least - belongs incarcerated in a mental institution for the remainder of his natural life. Certainly, such sentiments play very well with the "Kill-them-all-and-let-Allah-sort-them-out" crowd ....

Of course, Mr. Ledeen appears to be a chickenhawk, apparently never having actually served in the military near as I can tell - a fairly common trait for number of his ilk.

The above is the summary of a colossal amalgam of hogwash that makes up the entire article.

No, what it actually is a bunch of statements - pulled out of their context, in an (apparent ?) effort to mislead - a fact that is relatively easy to discern - if one bothers to read the entire article (perhaps you were counting on the fact that most won't ?)

Almost every sentence is an outright lie or a conclusion based on false assumptions.

WHOA !

OUTRIGHT LIES !!!! .... you mean kinda like that "there's-WMD's-in-Iraq" thing ?

And FALSE ASSUMPTIONS !!!! .... you mean like the "We'll-be-welcomed-as-liberators" thing ?

Wowee-zowee !!!

Now, that's really bad ......

Of course, it's very easy to emphatically assert it - but not bothering to make the slightest effort to show how they are outright lies or conclusions based on false assumptions I must say really does quite a bit to strengthen your statement and shore up your credibility ....

Yeah, I think you've really convinced me now ....

However, just to cover his bases he provides this clever qualification in the final paragraph:

It's easy enough to portray a thing as something other than what it actually is (the raising of valid questions) - but if one bothers to read the entire piece, in context, it's quite easy to see what is - and it ain't as you're portraying it ...... so congrats, you get:

EPIC FAIL

 

[simdog20]

well does anybody believe we are better off with sadam still being here. the mistake was not finishing it the first time around. we left after the first war and watched the people get slaughtered so he could keep power. As far as his weapons of mass destruction we will never know what got shiped to syria or else were. Or what is lost there.

Remember the planes that were buried in the sand while looking for chemical and biological weapons. Planes that were from after the first war while Iraq was under weapons sanctions. We never knew they had them. We dont know how they got other than it was one of the soviet unions best planes.

Look at how long we did the troop build up. Look at how much time they had to get rid of move and hide things. Would sadam really want us to find chemical weapons. If he had them would he want us to find them or would he more than likely give them to someone that hated us just as much.

 

[RLENT]

The above story, while a mostly accurate opinion piece, is still a little skewed, especially with regard to Germany. ..... The Germans weren't so sure about Curveball, especially with regard to the mobile units, but passed along his information to the US anyway, knowing full well how the US would treat it. The Germans passed the information along as if it were credible, but never actually said it was credible when they passed it along, which allowed them to later state they didn't believe it in the first place. And since it coincided with the UN report, that the Germans were a big part of, they felt it was up to the US to figure out how credible it was. The US simply took it at face value is all.

Yup - no disagreement there .... although an even more precise statement would be:

"Some in the US took it at face value is all."

And we all know who that "some" were ....

There's a very good piece in Der Spiegel on the entire history of it that I found interesting:

The Real Story of 'Curveball'

and some very interesting stuff from the declassified US docs at The National Security Archive:

THE RECORD ON CURVEBALL

It appears we (US intel) had doubts about the guy even prior to 9/11 - since we were flying spy sats over Iraq in an attempt to verify what "Curveball" was saying - an attempt which failed ...... and set off the first doubts that there might be a problem.

Certainly, the German intel service (BND) bears a huge responsibility for their actions, and lack of candor.

 

[RLENT]

As far as his weapons of mass destruction we will never know what got shiped to syria or else were. Or what is lost there.

Really ?

Why is that ? (assuming, of course, that they actually exist)

Having them there (Syria) - in close proximity with a number of terrorist groups - would seem to pose a far greater threat than Saddam would have ever likely been .....

If such weapons were real, were there, and not just someone's pipe dream - and we truly believed that they had been shipped to Syria - why would the US not take military action to neutralize the threat ?

Look at how long we did the troop build up. Look at how much time they had to get rid of move and hide things.

And of course, no one else there in Iraq was aware of that fact - Saddam personally hid them all by himself, and took it to the grave.

Would sadam really want us to find chemical weapons. If he had them would he want us to find them or would he more than likely give them to someone that hated us just as much.

Yeah .... that makes sense .... give 'em to your neighbor .... not like that might ever come back to haunt ya .....

Face it - there were no WMD's:

"On June 21, 2006 the U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released key points from a classified report from the National Ground Intelligence Center on the recovery of chemical munitions in Iraq. The report stated that "Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent." However, all are thought to be pre-Gulf War munitions."

National Ground Intelligence Center Report Key Points on the Recovery of Chemical Munitions in Iraq

It was a lie - we got suckered - by a two-bit liar and a thief .....

..... and by Bush & Company. (apologies for any confusion to those who mistakenly thought I might have been referring to Bush & Cheney in the sentence immediately above ....)

 

[Pilgrim]

well does anybody believe we are better off with sadam still being here. the mistake was not finishing it the first time around. we left after the first war and watched the people get slaughtered so he could keep power. As far as his weapons of mass destruction we will never know what got shiped to syria or else were. Or what is lost there.

Remember the planes that were buried in the sand while looking for chemical and biological weapons. Planes that were from after the first war while Iraq was under weapons sanctions. We never knew they had them. We dont know how they got other than it was one of the soviet unions best planes.

Look at how long we did the troop build up. Look at how much time they had to get rid of move and hide things. Would sadam really want us to find chemical weapons. If he had them would he want us to find them or would he more than likely give them to someone that hated us just as much.

The US took 14 months to complete the buildup - more than ample time for Saddam to unload anything he didn't want found. With that in mind, he could have also allowed the UN inspectors to come in and confirm the absence of WMDs, thus defusing the whole situation. But you're exactly right - H.W. Bush could have and should have completed the job with the first Gulf War. Saddam was ripe for overthrow at that point in time, but that's what sometimes happens when politicians manage wars.

 

[aristotle]

Can any US citizen be so twisted as to attempt establishing moral equivalency between a madman such as Saddam Hussein and a US president? Saddam Hussein had live human beings fed into a wood chipper feet first. Saddam Hussein had dissidents thrown off the roofs of tall buildings. Saddam Hussein used poison gas against his own people. Saddam Hussein used public executions as entertainment. It really staggers the rational mind how any American citizen can so despise his/her own country. Maybe a few of the far-out Ron Paul supporters can muster such hatred. Drawing any comparisons between a barbarian such as Saddam Hussein and a US president is ridiculous and desperate.

 

[purgoose10]

What I don't understand is why everybody is bashing Bush two years after he's gone. He did keep us safe if everything else might have screwed up. Everything's all better now that we have a couple of NUMB NUT'S running things. Man I sure do sleep better now.

 

[simdog20]

well Rlent my idea of hiding something if i knew i was gonna get invaded again and allready lost once and had some stuff i wanted nobody to know about i would have a group of people hide it than kill them and everybody that knew about it. people and entire families had a way of disapering. sadam probaly was not sure were everything was and the people that did prob got killed.

 

[chefdennis]

simdog wrote:

well Rlent....

Sim, you are talking to the wall...Rlent has been "banned" yet again....

 

[greg334]

Aristotle,
as for hatred, you don't need to look any farther than the democratic party and those who support it to see the hateful rhetoric.

Madman?

I think we have a number of them here in this country, some of the people our president surrounds himself with qualify on the same level as Saddam did.

 

[dieseldiva]

Aristotle,
as for hatred, you don't need to look any farther than the democratic party and those who support it to see the hateful rhetoric.

Madman?

I think we have a number of them here in this country, some of the people our president surrounds himself with qualify on the same level as Saddam did.

I don't agree with much that the current administration does either but you're gonna have to name some names for me to consider before you'll get me to agree with this one.......on Saddam's level?? Really??

 

[Dreamer]

Dad to stoner son: feb 1st "Hey.....son, in 4 weeks I'm gonna check your room for drugs"


Feb 14 "hey son, in 2 weeks I'm gonna check your room for drugs."


Feb 21 "hey son, Remember, next week. I'm gonna check your room for drugs.. you better let me in"

Mar 1...."hey Son, I'm comin in for a surprise inspection!"



March 2... family is mad at dad for even thinkin there were drugs in stoner's bedroom. He's an angel, unfairly accused.




Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

 

[witness23]

Saddam Hussein had live human beings fed into a wood chipper feet first. Saddam Hussein had dissidents thrown off the roofs of tall buildings. Saddam Hussein used poison gas against his own people. Saddam Hussein used public executions as entertainment.

Wow.....the above sounds like what a few here in EO would be all for, here in the States.

 

[dieseldiva]

Wow.....the above sounds like what a few here in EO would be all for, here in the States.

Just as comparing Obama's cohorts with Saddam, your comment is equally uncalled for. I don't know anyone here that qualifies for that, not even you.......

 

[greg334]

I don't agree with much that the current administration does either but you're gonna have to name some names for me to consider before you'll get me to agree with this one.......on Saddam's level?? Really??

Bill Ayers.

 

[dieseldiva]

Bill Ayers.

Touche'

 

[BillChaffey]

Apparently few were paying attention to what were supposed to show Mr. Hussein's last moments on earth. He removed his hood to cover the neck brace he was wearing. So in reality Mr. Hussein is actually a Chicken rancher in northern Arkansas.