Desultory Thoughts

“They’re very effective if people don’t wear masks.”

“You mean they will kill thousands?”

“Yes, they will kill thousands,”

No, this is not Michael Moore bragging to Al Franken about his flatulence.

“If you arrest any of them, cut off their heads. Show no mercy. They only joined the security to avoid having to join the army and fight Iran.”

The voice is Saddam Hussein’s. It’s an excerpt from several recently revealed recordings of the former dictator in conversation with his subordinates, in this case telling them to execute internal security officials for “incompetance.”

Oh, there’s more.

“Some commanders who abandoned their positions when they found themselves in an awkward situation, who deserved to have their necks cut, and did.”

The most disturbing dialogue discusses the effectiveness of chemical weapons (from Tuesday’s NY Times):

On one recording, Mr. Hussein presses the merits of chemical weapons on Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, his vice-president, and now, the Americans believe, the fugitive leader of the Sunni insurgency that has tied down thousands of American troops. Mr. Douri, a notorious hard-liner, asks whether chemical attacks will be effective against civilian populations, and suggests that they might stir an international outcry.

“Yes, they’re very effective if people don’t wear masks,” Mr. Hussein replies.

“You mean they will kill thousands?” Mr. Douri asks.

“Yes, they will kill thousands,” Mr. Hussein says.

Mr. Hussein sounds matter of fact as he describes what chemical weapons will do. “They will prevent people eating and drinking the local water, and they won’t be able to sleep in their beds,” he says. “They will force people to leave their homes and make them uninhabitable until they have been decontaminated.”

As for the concern about international reaction, he assures Mr. Douri that only he will order the attacks. “I don’t know if you know this, Comrade Izzat, but chemical weapons are not used unless I personally give the orders,” he says.

The tapes, made a decade ago and played at the continuing trials of his cohorts, reveal Saddam as the calculating, evil incarnate rat bastard that we knew he was.

Well, not all of us, I guess. CNN censored their own reporting of Saddam’s terrors in order to retain access in Baghdad. Leading up to the coalition’s 2003 invasion, foreign media painted Saddam as an enlightened moderate. The UN (including Kofi Anon’s own son) privately sucked millions from the Oil For Food program while publicly turning a blind eye to Saddam’s tyranny. Russia and France were dead set against taking any action against Saddam’s regime that amounted to anything more than empty rhetoric. The Angry Left defended Saddam and and sent human shields to Baghdad to protect him. Jaded politicos still bark that Iraq was better off under Saddam’s rule.

The New York Times, until Tuesday’s article, seemed convinced of Saddam’s innocence, accusing Iran of gassing the Kurds.

In reality, Saddam was a devil that murdered millions of his own people. There were the Kurds (the victims of Saddam’s “very effective” gas), the mass executions following the Shi’ite uprising, the revenge killings, and the random beheadings of his own security forces. I could go on and on.

Say what you want about the Bush. Say what you want about the war. But I admire a country and an administration with the juevos to actually look evil in the eye and send it to hell.

I had mixed feelings about the execution of Saddam Hussein last month, and I wanted to wait to post about it until the dust had settled and I could refine my view of this event.

I wanted Saddam dead, of course. I lamented his escape from that first April bomb. When he was captured I knew his trial would become a spectacle. Indeed, for 15 months Saddam used the trial to spew his fascist propoganda, which the media gleefully echoed around the globe. His execution, in my opinion, couldn’t come soon enough.

But then it came and, much to my surprise, I was bothered by it. Not bothered by his death. Not bothered by the fact that the rope nearly decapitated him with an audible “crack.” Not bothered by the cheering in the streets.

No, I was bothered by the way it went down (or fell through, if you will).

The key to “winning the peace” is to prove to Iraqis (specifically the Sunni minority), the war-weary American public and the world that the invasion of Iraq was justified, that the new Iraqi leadership is legitimate, and that it is dedicated to building a stable democracy.

Much of the sectarian violence stems from the perception that Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki’s government is either unable or unwilling to bring order to his country. An orderly, official-like execution of Saddam by uniformed government officers would have gone far to demonstrate this legitimacy.

Instead, the execution looked more like a mob hit. Street-clothes thugs taunted Saddam as they put the noose around his neck, then danced a jig around his hanging body. Security failed to confiscate cameras and cell phones, resulting in a video leak that crushes any notion of the government’s credibility.

But what bothered me most was the confirmation of a fear I’ve had for a long time- al-Maliki’s ties to Shi’ite radical Moqtada al-Sadr. Al-Sadr is one of the most influential Shi’ite clerics in the region. He commands the largest independant militia in Iraq and is adamantly anti-American. He and his henchmen are responsible for most of the sectarian violence in Iraq. In short, al-Sadr is a huge thorn in our backside.

Since al-Maliki took office, both he and the Bush Administration have desperately attempted to convince the world that he is not beholden to al-Sadr, and that he’s doing everything he can to stop the flow of blood through Baghdad’s streets. The edited video of Saddam’s execution, provided to news outlets by Maliki’s government, is silent and cuts off just before the money shot. Yeah, it looked a little bit 7th century, but it had an aire of legitimacy.

But then the cell phone video popped up on the Internet. It was the whole deal, audio and all. Soon after came translations of the dialogue- specifically the exchanges between Saddam and his executioners:

The room was quiet as everyone began to pray, including Mr. Hussein. “Prayers be upon Mohammed and his holy family.”

Two guards added, “Supporting his son Moktada, Moktada, Moktada.”

Mr. Hussein seemed a bit stunned, swinging his head in their direction.

They were talking about Moktada al-Sadr, the firebrand cleric whose militia is now committing some of the worst violence in the sectarian fighting; he is the son of a revered Shiite cleric, Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr, who many believe Mr. Hussein had murdered.

“Moktada?” he spat out, a mix between sarcasm and disbelief.

Yes, Saddam, Moqtada.

Al-Maliki’s government had to realize the importance of a credible trial and execution for Hussein. They have to realize the importance of pacifying the Sunni minority. Yet somehow the most critical event in this government’s young history was carried out by al-Sadr foot soldiers. And that should bother all of us.

Saddam Hussein was not executed by the democratically elected Iraqi government. He was murdered by the Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army. And that, dear reader, does not bode well for Iraq or the U.S.

Her liberal fan base lovingly refers to her as the “Peace Mom.”  I call Cindy Sheehan a raving lunatic.  Sheehan became the poster child for the Angry Left after her son, a U.S. Army Specialist, was killed in Iraq.  At first she was just another grieving mom.  Americans of all political ideologies treated her tenderly, as we would any grieving mother.  We felt for her and wished her the best. 

But as time went on, Sheehan morphed from all-American mother into a radical Left hate machine.  First came the anti-Bush rhetoric.  Then came the anti-America rhetoric.  Then came her budding career as a professional activist.  For her husband, this was the last straw.  He promptly filed for divorce.  Her family, utterly embarrassed by her antics, publicly denounced her.  Since then she’s buddied up with radical groups like Code Pink and gotten into bed with the likes of Hugo chavez.  She calls Bush a terrorist and praises her son’s killers as “freedom fighters.”  She calls John McCain a liar and Hillary Clinton a closet conservative (now she’s gone and offended me).  Even John “I Have the Hat” Kerry isn’t liberal enough for her.  Google her and you would be hard pressed to find anybody she doesn’t hate.  Unless you are 1) an insurgent terrorist, 2) a tyrannical dictator, or 3) a Communist front organization, chances are Cindy Sheehan hates you.

But skim through a few left wing blogs like daily kos (sorry, no direct link from me) or the New York Times and you’d think she was Mother Teresa.  Kos kids, MoveOn libs, and Big Media swoon over Sheehan like she was Christ incarnate- the very essence of peace and purity in human form.

Now the Kum-ba-yah queen has written a book, in which she admits fantasizing about travelling back in time to murder the infant George W. Bush.

Yet she is against the killing- even the detention of terrorists.  Wouldn’t want to violate any human rights.  “Peace Mom”…”Religion of Peace”…  Seems the word doesn’t mean what it used to.

Here’s an idea, Cindy- instead of going back in time to kill Bush as an infant, go back just a bit further and abort him!  Why face the potential guilt of murder when you can simply abort him and not give it a second thought?

Note to Democrats, liberal activists, and protesters:  Making Cindy Sheehan your icon has not helped you in your quest to convince the American public that you should be taken seriously.

Well, it’s been an eventful week! Our protest coverage generated a variety of responses. Seems we made a lot of people laugh and a lot of people really mad. It’s natural. Politics is a polarizing topic that tends to cause passions to bleed to the surface. A nice political debate is invigorating and good for the soul.

So Today I thought I’d highlight a few of the responses we’ve recieved on the topic of last week’s protests. I will excerpt several notes we’ve recieved and respond to them (some of my responses here will mirror those I’ve posted in the comments section- I apologize for the redundancy). This post is directed to those peace-loving regular every-day folks at the protests last week. Both separate protests, that is. Because heaven knows we wouldn’t ever want to lump Leftists and Israel haters into the same group.

My main argument is that protesting is just plain stupid. There are so many better and more efficient ways of getting your point across than by staging a protest.

Example: You spent time and money making a sign/outfit/bucket, took the day off work (wink, wink), made the pilgrimage to Rocky’s Castle, and spent the day demonstrating. I wrote a 3-paragraph blog on my lunch break. And I pissed off a lot more people than you could have ever dreamed of. Why? Because nobody takes protests seriously. Anybody who gives a rat’s butt what you have to say is already there with you. This includes any kind of protesting, by the way. Conservative protests (though extremely rare) are just as stupid as liberal protests. Please don’t stop though. It’s extremely amusing.

So let’s go down the list. First up is is actually a thoughtful comment from Unbiased Observer, who writes:

I would like to say that some of you seem to have no idea about the atrocities committed by both Muslims and Jews in this region. You seem to have very little awareness of what is going on over there and if you had, you wouldn’t be so glib with the comments you make.

Oh believe me, I am well aware of the atrocities committed by Muslims in this region. What I must be less aware of are those committed by Israel. Pray tell, what atrocious acts has Israel committed against Muslims lately? Sawing people’s heads off? Kidnapping journalists, abusing them, and forcing them to convert to Judaeism at gunpoint? Strapping a bomb to themselves, boarding a crowded bus and blowing everybody to shreds? Hiding weapons caches in civilian homes? Setting up HQ in synagogues?

I didn’t think so. You want glib? Google the Nick Berg beheading or the United Flight 93 cockpit recordings and then come back here and tell me again how evil Israel is.

Seriously, if you can come up with some atrocities committed by Israel that are even in the same ballpark as those committed by their Muslim neighbors, I would love to hear them.

Next up is Tracy, who I must say is the queen of potty smack!

First of all, I love how so many of you right-wing bloggers love to imply that those who were protesting don’t have jobs…the rally was held during lunch and many used their lunch breaks to attend. The place was crawling with business attire and cell phones (Not that you would show your readers pictures of those people, though I have some, if you’d like).

Ok, ok. So some of you have jobs. I guess libraries, Starbucks, and Wild Oats have to get their people from somewhere!

Well Tracy, your lunch break must be longer than mine. I barely had time to pop over and make a few observations. There’s no way I would have had time to don my protest gear, grab my “Bush is a Terrorist” sign, and partcipate in the protest. I’d only be able to chant half a hateful epitaph before I’d have to get back to work. Maybe I should get a job with your employer!

Incidently, The only suits I saw were worn by Rocky Anderson and the paper mache Bush (which, unintentionally I’m sure, actually looks a lot like Rocky Anderson). And quoting Sickboy’s reponse, “The fact that you have a cell phone and own a pair of Dockers does not excluded you from Moonbatism.”

Next up is Elizabeth, who challenges me on my rhetoric:

Where is the “Death to Israel” sign? I don’t see it.

Clever! Since there was no sign at the “Death to Israel” rally that said “Death to Israel,” I shouldn’t be so critical of them. Nice try. If Robert Breeze were to have actually had a sign that read “Death to Israel,” 1) do you think he could have suckered even Utah’s homeless into holding them? 2) Would he not have had the crap kicked out of him?

Do the signs need to say “Death to Israel” to be offensive? Seems to me they were pretty offensive as they were. The permit itself said “Death to Israel.” That’s what the dude wanted his group to be called.

Poking around your blog, I think it’s safe to say you’re not too big a fan of Israel yourself. Too bad you couldn’t have been out here standing with Breeze and his band of bums. It would have definately made things more interesting for Tyler and I.

Rob Banks of guerrillafolkpunx.org chymes in:

hey! i’d just like to say that almost all of us were not with the “death to israel” people. I had no idea that any of that type of thing would be present at this. (I really don’t know much about that whole conflict. I know, I should learn more about current events. I am sorry.)

Yes, you should.

And anybody with half a brain understands that the anti-Bush demonstration you were part of was not affiliated with the lone ranger across the street. I clarified that until I was blue in the face and I’m done.

Your signs were indeed rad. And I think the handkerchief “outlaw” look was very effective. Still not quite sure what you stand for (specifically, how the words ‘anarchy’ and ‘peace’ can be used in the same sentence), but you made an impression. I do have a suggestion for you though- as long as you’re sporting the black outfits, use a different color sidewalk chalk other than pink to scrawl out your messages. Come on, Pink? Black chalk would have been much more effective. Anything but pink!

As a political junkie, I understand the Israel-RestoftheWorld conflict very well. I also understand the reasons behind the anti-Bush protest. Rest assured, I dislike you for the correct reasons;)

Just kidding, man. I checked out your website and while you’re definately jacked up, I’ve seen much worse.

That’s all for this time. We of course welcome any and all comments. For those of you I’ve mentioned today, I would love to hear from you again. If I am wrong on anything, I will happily stand corrected.

[UPDATE: Right Wing Rebel offers further insight on defense attorney Robert Breeze.] 

Rent-a-Protesters, Dueling Demonstrators, and a Heartening Sight

Some quick sidenotes to yesterday’s post:  Turns out Robert Breeze’s posse was composed of rented bums!  That may explain why these guys holding the Death to Israel signs looked so uncomfortable yesterday.  Hey, I’ll give this to them- they saw a job opportunity and jumped on it.  They were probably the only people in Washington Square yesterday besides us and the police that had jobs!

Also, to be clear, the Rocky-fest and the Death to Israel rally were two separate demonstrations.  Rocky Anderson was not affiliated with Mr. Breeze’s demonstration.  I made a clear enough distinction between the two in yesterday’s post, but maybe posting the pictures of both events so close together unintentionally gave the wrong impression.  Ok, now that I re-read yesterday’s post, it really was pretty clear which was which. 

Also, to be fair, Rocky’s buddy Cindy “This-Country-Is-Not-Worth-Dying-For” Sheehan’s anti-Israel statements are well documented and are echoed by many of her cohorts.  If Rocky doesn’t want to be accidentally associated with antisemitism, he should pick better friends.

Back to the protests.

So my curiosity got the better of me and I returned to Washington Square yesterday evening to see how the protests were going.  I didn’t have a lot of time (still at work), but I saw enough idiocy to convince me that protesting (really, of any kind) is just plain dumb.

The crowd there was smaller and consisted of anti-Bush protesters and Bush supporters, or anti-antibush protesters.  Note to self:  Never, never leave home without a camera again!  The anti-Bush group consisted mostly of kids dressed in gothic-style apparel.  The anti-anti group was made of of families with young children, a group of Boy Scouts, and a few regular joes that were clearly new to this protesting thing.

The crowd was bunched together and each group had a “spokesman” who were yelling in each other’s faces at the top of their lungs.  Both were making complete fools of themselves.  After a while, they’d switch out spokespeople and continue the rant/counter-rant.  There were a few times I thought a fistfight would break out.  I think the cops did too, because they looked uneasy.

ANTI-BUSH PROTESTER:  This country is f***ed up!  Stand with us and fight!

ANTI-ANTI-BUSH PROTESTER:  People like you make me worry about the future of America.

ANTI-BUSH PROTESTER:  We are the f***ing future of America!

I sympathized with the poor man countering the anti-Bush protester.  He looked like he was somebody’s dad, like he just got off work.  He wasn’t a proffessional protester.  And he wasn’t making any headway.  But I appreciated his effort.  It all led me to the conclusion that protesting is just plain dumb.

As I was walking away I passed a uniformed Marine on his way to the mosh pit.  Pissed as hell.  I paused to see the crowd’s reaction to this man.  But he was stopped before he got to the main crowd by a young man who shook his hand, and then by a woman who thanked him for his service.  I never got to see him walk into the crowd, but I’m glad some rational people stopped him to shake his hand.  I wish I had done the same.