Don't be surprised if I expend more than a few pixels deflating the idiocy of the pseudo-left's continuous droning on and on about that war criminal, George Bush. I expect the crescendo of idiotic blather will rise ever higher until Dubya leaves town on October 22, or so. So here's one.
Over at Celestial Junk
I responded to a comment posted by a Bush-Hitler-bot by referring, among other things, to UN Human Rights Special Rapporteur Max van der Stoel's reference to Saddam Hussein's regime and how Chretien's decision to force Canada to sit on our collective asses during the war to oust that monster cost us a lot of respect and stature on the international stage. As an aside, the Liberal Party's decades long policy of forced chronic starvation with respect to funding our armed forces had something to do with it as well.
Prior to posting the comment at C-Junk's blog, I did a quick Google search on Max van der Stoel and the movement started by Ann Clwyd in Britain to indict Saddam Hussein
and bring him before an international court for crimes against humanity. Anyway, one of the hits retrieved in that search was this site:Why hasn't Saddam Hussein been indicted?
This article draws upon Ms Clwyd's knowledge of human rights abuses and lays out a lot of information revealing the true nature of the Ba'athist regime. For example:
"Twenty-five years ago, while living in Cardiff, she befriended Iraqi and Kurdish students, and found it hard to believe their grim reports of life under Saddam Hussein. Evidence was plentiful for those who wished to find it however, and once elected MP for Cynon Valley (in Wales) in 1984, she also became chair of the Campaign Against Repression and for Democratic Rights in Iraq (CARDRI): ‘Even then, in the mid-1980s, I only knew the first name of CARDRI’s secretary, because people were living in such fear…. Isn’t it amazing that they were so afraid of people knowing their whereabouts and their surnames – people like us who were there to highlight the human rights abuses in their country?’"
"‘A lot of guff is talked about the effect of sanctions. There is a great deal of inaccurate information about it. We took our evidence from a wide range of people, and the conclusion we came to was that Saddam Hussein was primarily responsible for the suffering of his own people. You only have to look at what happened in the north of Iraq, in Kurdistan, where they suffer a double set of sanctions, but with far less disastrous results: the same sanctions apply, and Saddam Hussein’s sanctions apply there as well….’"
But then we learn this:
"Clwyd views the branding of Hussein and his regime as international war criminals as a third way between appeasement and military action. ‘If you want regime change, then do it through using international law, rather than by war,’ she says. ‘(Slobodan) Milosevic was indicted while he was head of state, and nobody thought that two years later, he’d be sitting before the Hague tribunal. It discredited him, and once you discredit their power base, things happen.’
At the time, a lot of people thought that indicting Milosevic was just a sideshow. ‘When Americans talk about regime change – as they do all the time now – they mean post-war. But I’m talking about regime change pre-war. On the evidence of war crimes, crimes against humanity, which we have got against leading members of Hussein’s regime, it is possible to indict them as Milosevic was indicted, which led directly to the crumbling of that regime.’"
I beg your pardon, Ms Clwyd???!! If it were not for the war in the former Yugoslavia, do you really think that Milosevic would have been captured and brought to justice? That war set up the structure of conditions that enabled his arrest. And anyone with even an inkling of knowledge about Saddam Hussein's multi-layered security apparatus would just laugh at you for thinking that someone could just walk up to him, handcuff him and send him off to Europe or somewhere to be tried. Anyone who even talked about attempting such action would have been immediately arrested and treated to one or more of the vast array of human rights violation techniques for which Hussein's layers of security apparatus goons were infamous.
The article also draws parallels between the potential prosecution of Saddam Hussein and that of ex-Chilean dictator, Augusto Pinochet. Well, I beg your pardon, again (eyes rolling). Pinochet was indeed a monster but nowhere close to the degree that Saddam Hussein was. He was also the "ex
-president", ie. no longer in control of the machinery of oppression in his native country, nor, consequently, capable of horrific reprisals against anyone who might have tried to arrest him. What a pathetic joke!!
No, the evidence collected via Ms Clwyd's initiative was useful in as much as it better made the case for war which was already very, very strong, but there is no way on God's green earth that Saddam Hussein would have been brought to justice without a war, the goal of which was to topple him and end the misery of the long suffering Iraqi people. If it hadn't been for the US led war and the courage of one George W. Bush, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, his people would still be piling up in mass graves with bullets in the backs of their heads and their families forced to pay for the bullets, among a full panoply of other atrocities. George Bush is no war criminal. He is a liberator and when the leftist idiocy is finally exposed under the lens of history, we will all know this.