Saddam is captured.

Really?

I wasn't aware of the conservative editorial bias. However, it is still one of the best sources on the web for analysis of Middle Eastern issues. I make good use of the search button on the upper right hand of the page. You can access literally thousands of articles on a wide range of topics related to the Middle East.

The articles - like the articles in any good publication - represent both liberal and conservative points of view. For example, both Bernard Lewis and John Esposito have articles in there - and they are considered some of the most renowned experts on that region. I have been able to find opinions from both sides on basically every major issue.

Furthermore, even if the site does lean a little towards the right, I hardly think that is cause to dismiss it. It is important for both liberals and conservatives to get a grasp of each others arguments. How else can you competantly refute an argument. Limiting yourself to reading liberal sources is like burrying your head in the sand.

The articles are there for anybody to read - it is up to you to decide which arguments have merit and which do not. So I will continue reading the MEQ. It is a great source of information.

the problem comes from the allegations that MEMRI, which is an affiliate, has mis-translated news articles. As someone who reads Arabic, I would have to say that the allegations are correct. This maes it exceptionally difficult for me to consider anything the organization produces as a valid article.

What do you mean by affiliate? That term is too broad.

If MEMRI is another branch of MEQ, then maybe I would rethink my positon. However, if it is an independednt company that is somehow linked to MEQ I don't see how that is relevent.

Kudos on reading Arabic, by the way. I am considering learning Arabic myself.

MEMRI is run by MEQ.
HEre is much more valid and accurate source! Saddam Raisiert!

...and much more aesthetically pleasing.

Can I get an 'oy vey' all round?

'oy vey'

I can't comment until they are done looking in his mouth. Maybe they'll find the WMD's in there. I noticed they checked his hair real good too ;-)

The more I think about it, the less I like the idea of Hussien being tried in the Haugue. First of all, the Hague can only prosecute people for crimes commited after the year 2000. This means an independent tribunal will have to be set up by the UN security council - which would take literally years. Secondly, as has already been mentioned, it will project the image that it was an American victory rather than an Iraqi victory.

Another thought...... If Saddam was tried at the Hague he would be given a platform to give his opinions. He would also undoubtedly have access to the best lawyers money can buy. Him and his lawyers would have the perfect platform to wax poetically about how his 'atrocities' and 'crimes against humanity' were perpetrated with the support or apathy of other nations, including the United States. Saddams remarks would be embarrassing to America and many of its allies. He will mention companies, individuals, and governments, etc. Should be veeeeerrrrry interesting, me thinks.

Montana, Somebody on the news channel said that they can find traces of chemical in the hair. Not so far-fetched.

Hobbit:

I actually trust CommonDreams more than I do most CEO-Controlled sources!

I read commondreams, but I always double check their stories.

IronLionZion
IronLionZion, I agree with your points. Many in the Arab world are glad that Saddam was captured, but not in the manner he was captured without a fight. I'm concerned that the photos shown all over the world will be considered another humiliation to the Arab world, a population already infuriated by their sense of religious and cultural humiliation that is the under-pinning of much of the terrorist support activity. Never mind that the underlying cause of their humiliation is the lack of mass education to prepare them to participate in the new world economy and raise their status, relying instead on purely religious education.

I congratulate the troops that found and made the capture---and I enjoyed seeing Saddam for the coward he is---except for my concern about one more humiliation for the Arab peoples.

BBB

The big bad boogy man hiding in a hole in the ground, and giving up without a fight may not be a flattering image, but hey, that's where he was. Should we maybe move him to a fortified bunker?

Michael Moore: We Finally Got Our Frankenstein
We Finally Got Our Frankenstein... and He Was In a Spider Hole!
by Michael Moore
December 14, 2003

Thank God Saddam is finally back in American hands! He must have really missed us. Man, he sure looked bad! But, at least he got a free dental exam today. That's something most Americans can't get.

America used to like Saddam. We LOVED Saddam. We funded him. We armed him. We helped him gas Iranian troops.

But then he screwed up. He invaded the dictatorship of Kuwait and, in doing so, did the worst thing imaginable -- he threatened an even BETTER friend of ours: the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia, and its vast oil reserves. The Bushes and the Saudi royal family were and are close business partners, and Saddam, back in 1990, committed a royal blunder by getting a little too close to their wealthy holdings. Things went downhill for Saddam from there.

But it wasn't always that way. Saddam was our good friend and ally. We supported his regime. It wasn't the first time we had helped a murderer. We liked playing Dr. Frankenstein. We created a lot of monsters -- the Shah of Iran, Somoza of Nicaragua, Pinochet of Chile -- and then we expressed ignorance or shock when they ran amok and massacred people. We liked Saddam because he was willing to fight the Ayatollah. So we made sure that he got billions of dollars to purchase weapons. Weapons of mass destruction. That's right, he had them. We should know -- we gave them to him!

We allowed and encouraged American corporations to do business with Saddam in the 1980s. That's how he got chemical and biological agents so he could use them in chemical and biological weapons. Here's the list of some of the stuff we sent him (according to a 1994 U.S. Senate report):

* Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax.

* Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.

* Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart.

* Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.

* Clostridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.

* Clostridium tetani, a highly toxigenic substance.

And here are some of the American corporations who helped to prop Saddam up by doing business with him: AT&T, Bechtel, Caterpillar, Dow Chemical, Dupont, Kodak, Hewlett-Packard, and IBM (for a full list of companies and descriptions of how they helped Saddam, go here): http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/23/news-crogan.php

We were so cozy with dear old Saddam that we decided to feed him satellite images so he could locate where the Iranian troops were. We pretty much knew how he would use the information, and sure enough, as soon as we sent him the spy photos, he gassed those troops. And we kept quiet. Because he was our friend, and the Iranians were the "enemy." A year after he first gassed the Iranians, we reestablished full diplomatic relations with him!

Later he gassed his own people, the Kurds. You would think that would force us to disassociate ourselves from him. Congress tried to impose economic sanctions on Saddam, but the Reagan White House quickly rejected that idea -- they wouldn't let anything derail their good buddy Saddam. We had a virtual love fest with this Frankenstein whom we (in part) created.

And, just like the mythical Frankenstein, Saddam eventually spun out of control. He would no longer do what he was told by his master. Saddam had to be caught. And now that he has been brought back from the wilderness, perhaps he will have something to say about his creators. Maybe we can learn something... interesting. Maybe Don Rumsfeld could smile and shake Saddam's hand again. Just like he did when he went to see him in 1983 (see the photo here).

Maybe we never would have been in the situation we're in if Rumsfeld, Bush, Sr., and company hadn't been so excited back in the 80s about their friendly monster in the desert.

Meanwhile, anybody know where the guy is who killed 3,000 people on 9/11? Our other Frankenstein?? Maybe he's in a mouse hole.

So many of our little monsters, so little time before the next election.

Stay strong, Democratic candidates. Quit sounding like a bunch of wusses. These bastards sent us to war on a lie, the killing will not stop, the Arab world hates us with a passion, and we will pay for this out of our pockets for years to come. Nothing that happened today (or in the past 9 months) has made us ONE BIT safer in our post-9/11 world. Saddam was never a threat to our national security.

Only our desire to play Dr. Frankenstein dooms us all.

Yours,
Michael Moore
[email protected]
www.michaelmoore.com

For a look back to the better times of our relationship with Saddam Hussein, see the following:

Patrick E. Tyler, "Officers say U.S. aided Iraqin war despite use of gas, New York Times, August 18, 2002.

"U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their possible impact on health consequences of the Gulf War," 1994 Report by the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affiars.

William Blum's cover story in the April 1998 issue of The Progressive, "Anthrax for Export."

Jim Crogan's April 25-May 1, 2003 report in the LA Weekly, "Made in the USA, Part III: The Dishonor Roll."

"Iraq: U.S. military items exported or transferred to Iraqin the 1980s," United States General Accounting Office, released February 7, 1994.

"U.S. had key role in Iraqbuildup; trade in chemical arms allowed despite their use on Iranians and Kurds," Washington Post, December 30, 2002.

"Iraqgate: Saddam Hussein, U.S.policy and the prelude to the Persian Gulf War, 1980-1994," The National Security Archive, 2003

Saddam removed from Iraq
BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. troops captured a haggard Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) in a cramped hole near one of his sumptuous palaces Sunday, a humiliating fate for one of history's most brutal dictators. A U.S. official later said Saddam had been moved to another country, and the Dubai-based Arab TV station Al-Arabiya said he was taken to Qatar.

And the chase only cost 200 billion dollars and 8000 lives. The attacks won't stop because they're not all being carried out by "insurgents". Many I suspect are being carried out by terrorists created when their friends and families were obliterated by US bombs. A fact that the media and the coalition refuse to acknowledge.

Two Photos
I notice that most of the media chose to show the most degrading one. Wonder why?

Saddam had $750K with him. think that will help him with Attorney fees and the eventual outcome if he is tried by the Iraqies?

I can imagine, but it looked to me like they were checking for lice.

Hmm... my whole feeling about the war and Saddam's capture is summed up in wondering whether the end justifies the means.