portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

imperialism & war

CNN: Saddam's Sons Confirmed Dead; Bush, Blair, Cheney Still At Large

CNN is reporting that Saddam's sons,Qusay and Uday, have been killed by U.S. troops. Meanwhile, war criminals Bush, Blair, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are still at large.
Pentagon: Saddam's sons are dead
'Multiple sources' identified bodies, Army general says

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) --Ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's sons, Qusay and Uday, were killed Tuesday in a gunbattle with U.S. troops in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, the commander of U.S. ground forces in Iraq said.

Their bodies were identified from "multiple sources," Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez told reporters in Baghdad.

"They died in a fierce gunbattle," Sanchez said. "They resisted detention and the effort of coalition forces to apprehend them."

When asked whether the $15 million bounties on both Uday and Qusay will be paid, Sanchez said, "I would expect that it probably will happen."

Uday, 39, and Qusay, 37 -- key members of Saddam's regime -- were among four people killed during the battle.

Sanchez said U.S. forces learned about the whereabouts of the brothers from a walk-in Iraqi tipster Monday night.

Sanchez said the 101st Airborne Division, Special Forces and Air Force assets participated in the six-hour operation on a residence near the northern edge of the city. (Map)

A military task force formed to hunt for Saddam and his top supporters led the raid, supported by extensive armor and air cover, officials said.

Two-hundred members of the 101st Airborne Division also joined the assault, and no one was captured, a U.S. official told CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr.

The military went in and engaged in a "big firefight," the official said. (Gallery: The firefight scene)

A senior Pentagon official said one of the other two bodies appeared to be that of a teenage boy. U.S. officials noted that Qusay has a teenage son. The other body recovered appeared to be that of a bodyguard.

A U.S. official said Saddam was not among them.

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld briefed President Bush about the Mosul operation after it was over, a senior defense official said.

"Part of the reason he discussed this operation in particular was because he knew it would get a lot of attention, and that first reports are often wrong," the official said.

The initial White House reaction was cautious, though one official said confirmation that the two sons were killed would "brighten" spirits after recent criticism that the Bush administration exaggerated the former Iraqi regime's threat.
Both in deck of cards

Saddam and his sons have been fugitives since their government collapsed after a U.S.-led invasion in March. (Profiles: Qusay Hussein, Uday Hussein)

Mosul is a Kurd-controlled city about 110 miles [176 kilometers] from both Syria and Iran. Intelligence officials said they are investigating whether Uday and Qusay were attempting to find a way out of Iraq.

Retired Army Brig. Gen. David Grange said the deaths of Uday and Qusay would deal a psychological blow to Saddam loyalists attacking U.S. troops.

The hunt for Saddam in Iraq is led by a U.S. Special Operations team -- code-named Task Force 20 -- with support from the CIA. The task force, which also took part in the rescue of Army Pfc. Jessica Lynch, includes covert special operations forces from the various U.S. military services. (Lynch homecoming)

Qusay and Uday are the second- and third-most-wanted Iraqi leaders, and both are in the card deck of most-wanted Iraqis issued to U.S. troops in Iraq. Uday is the ace of hearts and Qusay the ace of clubs. (Flash interactive: Iraq's most-wanted)

Qusay has been the son widely perceived as most likely to have succeeded Saddam.

With Iraq preparing its defenses in the run-up to the war, Qusay was put in charge of four key areas, including Baghdad and Tikrit -- his family's tribal home.

When the war began, he was in charge of the country's intelligence network, the 80,000-strong Republican Guard and 15,000-member Special Republican Guard, which was responsible for protecting Saddam and his family.

Uday has a reputation for violence that included torturing Iraqi athletes who did not meet expectations. He ran the dreaded Saddam Fedayeen security force.

He was also in charge of the nation's Olympic committee, edited a leading newspaper, Babel, and was head of Youth TV, the country's most popular channel.

Just before the war, Uday warned that Iraqi troops would make the mothers of U.S. soldiers "weep blood instead of tears."

Correspondents Rym Brahimi, David Ensor, Jamie McIntyre, John King, Barbara Starr and Harris Whitbeck, and producers Pam Benson and Kevin Flower, contributed to this report.


homepage: homepage: http://www.votetoimpeach.org/

Still Unconfirmed... 22.Jul.2003 13:53

Bin Lyin'

Still unconfirmed is whether the Pentagon is lying again.

axiom. 22.Jul.2003 13:54

this thing here

the most meaningless and least important events get the most hype.

is it just me?!? 22.Jul.2003 14:06

republic of cascadia citizen

maybe i am "old-fashioned", maybe it is because i was born in "old europe", but it really bothers me that the corporate whore press has reached a new low as it openly celebrates the murder of foreign nationals. cnn's web headline shouts "trumped" in huge bold letters in between the "iraqi most-wanted" deck of cards. it all feeds so nicely into american's sick desire for revenge after 9/11. regardless of what sadam's sons did or did not do, our legal system is designed to put suspected criminals before a "rational" judge and jury, not just murder them outright. i thought the methods of the wild west died out long ago. silly me. the blood of all murdered iraqis is on our hands, while the REAL CRIMINALS celebrate their latest conquest.

Screencapture of CNN's Death Cheerleading 22.Jul.2003 14:15


$15 million to make Bush look good, paid for by your tax dollars.
Iraq war: $1 billion per week.
CNN must be mugging for some extra cash.

Yup 22.Jul.2003 14:16


I was slightly disgusted with the celebratory tone of the articles. Still, the point about a judge and jury may be unfair, since according to these reports Odai and Qusai had no intentions of surrendering. Then again, the chances that these men would ever have seen a trial even if they hadn't resisted are slim to none.

All that being said, I won't shed a tear for them.

hello, testing, testing.... 22.Jul.2003 14:18

this thing here

why the hell do my comments take all afternoon to appear? it's working for some people, why not for all...

never let reality get in the way of a nice, distracting media day 22.Jul.2003 14:27

we got the sons?

don't doubt for a minute that the bush regime will run with a good media lie any day in order to switch the topic back to their agenda rather than having idle media hands start digging up some of the truth that is right in front of them.

blair's got blood on his hands from the 'mysterious' death of a top critic and weapons expert, and he's being called on it by, er, the foreign press. bush got's the trouble because his 'victory' in iraq is collapsing like a house of most-wanted cards.

what does it take to cool off the news of your dismal failure as a resident? why, drag out, literally, the corpses of uday and qusay hussein. or drag out jessica lynch (but don't let her say nothin' for chrissakes!).

whatcha wanna bet that, after days of speculation about the identities of four iraqis killed by 200 american troops, we learn that it probably was not them. (viola! the magic gun of media manipulation, distortion, and deception is reloaded for use on another day!)

god, i guess it's days like these i should be glad he hasn't dragged out 911 v. 2.


's working for me... 22.Jul.2003 14:49

that thing over there

my comment appeared almost immediately. can't say what the trouble UR having is...

why should they surrender? 22.Jul.2003 15:03


The US is waging an illegal invasion and occupation, so why should they have surrendered? Last I heard, murder could not be justified on the basis of the victims' beliefs (police murders notwithstanding) and to dehumanize murder victims by saying that their lives meant nothing or that the world would be a better place without them is surely an affront to god. It is amazing that some people believe that by acting in an unjust way one can bring about justice, and that by acting in a vengeful way one can bring about peace, and that by acting in an inhumane and inhuman way one can find their lost humanity.

sorry for the interruption... 22.Jul.2003 15:16

this thing here

testing, mic, mic 1,2,3, check, mic check...

carry on...

Usually a comment appears right away 22.Jul.2003 15:18


Sometime it takes a while. Sometimes they don't appear at all. Probably a technical glitch.

Yes, this new thing of political assasination has me wondering too.

If some terrorist killed Bush and appeared on TV celebrating and boasting about it they would say he was the lowest filth of the earth. But when we do the same thing it's different.

It's not so much the raids and shootouts as the hellfire missiles and the bombs . When they hit the target it's a red letter moment and when they kill innocent bystanders it's "Oppps".

What if Bin Laden killed a thouand people and said:

"I missed. I was aiming for that one over there. Can't make an omlete without breaking some eggs. Sorry about that."

the "Hussein on the run" dog-and-pony show 22.Jul.2003 15:24


The only problem is that the whole thing is probably a confabulation, because other evidence strongly suggests that Hussein cut a deal with the Americans in return for surrendering, and he is probably now in Uzbekistan or someplace. The rest is a big dog-and-pony show. "Hussein on the run! Whereabouts unknown!" Give me a friggin' break.

let's have the habeas corpuses 22.Jul.2003 15:29

mutiple, multiple, multiple

"Experts conducted DNA tests after the bodies were flown from Mosul to another location, officials said. Sanchez would not answer whether DNA tests were positive for Saddam's sons, saying 'we've used multiple, multiple sources to identify the individuals.'"


What does "multiple, multiple sources" mean? Chalabi said so?

"'This will contribute significantly to reducing attacks on coalition soldiers,' said Ahmad Chalabi, a delegate from Iraq's Governing Council, speaking at the United Nations.

Sanchez said he thought the security situation now would improve.

'I believe very firmly this will have an effect. This will prove to the Iraqi people that these two members of the Iraqi regime will never come to power again, the general said."

Wow. Sanchez nearly sounds like Chalabi. OF COURSE Chalabi says this, it means that he will have to compete with Udai and Quasai for the "throne" that Bremer's sitting in. Why does Sanchez want to hint as if the effect will be good? Maybe this will bring a firestorm of revenge like we haven't seen yet, on our troops and who knows who or what else? Saddam is still at large (as are the fabled WMD, put 2 and 2 together even if you are a sheeple), and he is not happy, I'm sure. Maybe they should have saved this for when they had him in the bag as well?

But I want to see the evidence. The Bush administration is STILL a pack of oil-sucking liars who can't be taken at their word, and Bush clearly leads that unbelievably charmed life that nearly anything that may help his sagging popularity can obviously be... arranged...

Are we celebrating Mustapha's death too? 22.Jul.2003 15:35


other casualties included a teenage boy possibly Qusai's 14-year-old son, Mustapha, who was known to travel with him.

CNN Alters Offensive Banner 22.Jul.2003 16:25

2 hours later

CNN has changed its "Trumped" banner, which made light of the murders of Saddam Hussein's sons by the U.S. occupation army. The new banner headline states simply "Sons Dead," along with pictures of U.S. propaganda playing cards which remain an insult to the Iraqi people, who have suffered under the war spawned by Republican lies.

But if... 22.Jul.2003 16:29


"If some terrorist killed Bush and appeared on TV celebrating and boasting about it they would say he was the lowest filth of the earth. But when we do the same thing it's different. "

No, if this happened, you people would be beside yourselves with giddiness. What hypocrites.

does anyone have the "trumped" ARCHIVED? 22.Jul.2003 16:59

this takes the cake

This really takes the cake. Does anyone have the webpage with the "trumped" banner archived? If this is the sort of over-the-top rhetoric that now passes for news reporting with CNN, then you KNOW we can't trust ANYTHING these bastards say. They've voluntarily and shamelessly turned themselves into mouthpieces of gov't propaganda. And I thought this sort of thing was limited to Faux!

This is right up there with the shit about passports miraculously flying through the air and landing on the streets next to the World Trade Center, and whole computers full of detailed terrorist plans miraculously captured perfectly intact in Kabul. I'm sure I'm just gonna buy this thing hook-line-and-sinker.

snaggle trips over his ASSumptions 22.Jul.2003 17:30


Talk about a straw man, tell people how you think they would react and call them hypocrites because of it. Straw man arguing at its finest. If Iraqi soldiers killed Bush's daughters I suspect I would feel the same way I do about Hussein's sons. People shouldn't be murdered for the crimes of their relatives. That's just disgusting and immoral, and does nothing but promote more violence and injustice. Instead of making assumptions, maybe next time you should just ask how people would feel. The difference between the reality inside your head, and the one outside of it may surprise you.

It was obvious that CNN would change the headline; they must make even themselves sick with their bloodlust. As for republicans, they've gotten used to thinking of themselves as having the moral high ground. They must have to struggle quite a bit with the cognitive dissonance surrounding unjustified murder. Hence, the quite predictable comments of "you would do the same thing or feel the same way if the situation was reversed." Therefore taking the stand of, "at some level I know this is wrong, but everyone else would do the same thing." Of course, the reality is that many of us just think and feel differently about murder, vengeance, and injustice than people who spend their lives in front of a television.

"People shouldn't be murdered for the crimes of their relatives." 22.Jul.2003 17:48


We are all Israelis now.

Please look at the facts 22.Jul.2003 18:14



Odai and Qusay are criminals of the highest order. They were raised with infinite wealth and power, but with zero accountability. They were feared above most in Iraq because of how violent they were. (Odai once beat a man to death in full view of hundreds of people assembled in a ballroom. He was never punished for that act, just asked to leave Iraq for a while.)

They are not the simple, innocent offspring of Mr. Hussein.

This was not murder. Arresting people for crimes against humanity is a natural right of all people. If you are fired upon when you attempt to arrest them, and you kill them in a resulting firefight, that's called self-defense, and is also a natural right.

It's nothing to celebrate. CNN and the like are sick to be posting such triumphant banners about this. But it's also nothing to be ashamed of, nor is it morally wrong.

I'd just repeat again what I've said in the past: Don't let Bush and his band of ideologues radicalize you beyond reason. These men brutalized the Iraqi people and needed to be held to account. Noone has the right to kill political dissidents for though crimes. Noone has the right to rape women. Society has a right to seperate itself from such brutes.

That doesn't excuse the war. It doesn't mean Mr. Bush and others in his government are not every bit as guilty as these men. It just means this is nothing to cry over. We don' have to choose between one or the other. We can despise both -- the Bush Regime and the Hussein Regime -- at the same time. If you feel differently, I think that's pretty sad.

Please Look At the Facts 22.Jul.2003 18:27

Fact Checker


George Sr. and George Jr. are criminals of the highest order. They were raised with infinite wealth and power, but with zero accountability. They were feared above most in Amerika because of how violent they were. (George once blew up frogs with firecrackers, his father blew up countries and tore up the Constitution in full view of hundreds of people assembled in Amerika. He was never punished for that act, just elected to lead for a while.)

They are not the simple, innocent offspring of Grampa Bush.

This was not America. Arresting people for crimes against humanity is a natural right of all people. If you are fired upon when you attempt to arrest them, and you kill them in a resulting firefight, that's called self-defense, and is also a natural right.

It's nothing to celebrate. CNN and the like are sick to be posting such triumphant banners about this. But it's also something to be ashamed of, as it is morally wrong.

I'd just repeat again what I've said in the past: Don't let Bush and his band of liars radicalize your country beyond reason. These men brutalized the Iraqi people and needed to be held to account. Noone has the right to kill political dissidents for thought crimes. Noone has the right to rape America of her Bill of Rights. Society has a right to seperate itself from such brutes.

That doesn't excuse the war. It doesn't mean the Bushes and others in his government are not every bit as guilty as these men. It just means this is nothing to cry over. We don' have to choose between one or the other. We can despise both -- the Bush Regime and the Hussein Regime -- at the same time. If you feel differently, I think that's pretty sad.

Capitalism Applauds Death (Again) 22.Jul.2003 18:32

Disgusted Patriot

"Sluggish morning trade turned into an early afternoon rally after reports surfaced that a firefight in the Iraqi town of Mosul likely resulted in the death of two of Hussein's sons, confirmed later by U.S. officials. Although the market has not been too focused on the aftermath of the Iraqi war, the confirmation of the deaths seemed to provide a psychological boost, or at least an excuse to find some bargains."


Yes, it is a sick country...

UNconcerned 22.Jul.2003 19:08


"The difference between the reality inside your head, and the one outside of it may surprise you."

I'm assuming you're looking into a mirror when you say that.

I said what I said based on my experience. You people are never happy with anything. Nothing is ever good enough. It's always somebody else's "fault." My god, most of you don't even have a sense of humor! I've NEVER heard anybody here say, "I was wrong," or "Despite our faults we're the best country there is," or "This (fill in the blank) about America makes me happy." You're like whining children rebelling against Mommy and Daddy.

This is the Blame America First crowd and you have no loyalty and no moral commitment and you should be ashamed of yourselves. No, this country is not perfect. Yes, this country has made mistakes. I'm not perfect; are you? I've made mistakes; haven't you? Aren't we supposed to be united, like a family?

Please don't think that the Administration does not listen to you. All views expressed here are listened to seriously. Some of your points are valid. Dissent is necessary and helpful. Unfortunately, most of the views expressed here are the views of the minority, and you don't have the character to admit that, or if you can admit it, you use it to promote yourself as a victim of some vague conspiracy.

Can You Say Martyrdom? 22.Jul.2003 19:19

A Friend of the Neon Orange Monkey

Great. Now the troops will be even bigger targets. Real slick, Don.

I rest my case 22.Jul.2003 20:17


What in the hell happened to my response to "concerned?"

See what I mean?

"This is the Blame America First crowd..." 22.Jul.2003 21:24


Snaggle is snagged in his denial again. As a citizen I only hold my country to the same standards it purports to hold up.

That said, and as the Republicans held Clinton to: impeachment is for liars.

struck a nerve 22.Jul.2003 21:33


Interesting, in my opinion it is hearing an uncomfortable truth that makes people the most angry. But please, can you actually respond to what I said, not to what you wanted me to have said?

It is sad that people still believe that killing others is an acceptable solution to a problem. Despite all the evidence to the contrary people still think that the problems would just vanish if only certain people were killed. The truth is that murder will never lead to peace or justice. I did not claim that Hussein's sons were innocent, and you will never hear me argue that people should not be held accountable for their actions. Alas, it is my belief that killing someone is not actually holding them accountable, for what has been accomplished? How does ending a life achieve accountability? Death is the end of the process, accountability is the beginning of one.

James, you don't really believe that the US was attempting to arrest them do you? From what I've read here I would expect you to be smarter than that. The US is not interested in trying Hussein, or anyone else for that matter. We are not part of the ICC, not subject to its rules, and we're certainly not going to support it by utilizing it.

I can despise the Bush and Hussein families, although I generally don't because despising is to close to hate for my taste. But I wouldn't wish any of them to be killed, and what's more, I know that none of their deaths will bring us to a better place. Some people may not realize that yet, but they may understand as the death toll mounts and we witness how much farther we are from peace and justice than we were before.

Snaggle, you're still looking for what you want to see. I have never been a whiner (thanks to some superb parenting) and I am happy about a great many things. I also can admit to my own mistakes. But I do not agree that this is the greatest country, the very notion of nationalism strikes me as nothing more than racist posturing and I find it repellent. But our last revolution was amazing, and incredibly important, and it may yet happen again. Remember, although people who share these views may be in the minority, so were the founding fathers, and their revolution was successful, for a time.

As for the administration listening... With calls against the war numbering on average 10 to 1 and as high as several hundred to 1, with protests larger than any since the vietnam war, with mor eand more people becoming aware and disillusioned what exactly has the administration listened to? Republicans and democrats both do not listen, they merely try to seize political opportunities for their own gain and distort the truth or outright lie to make themselves look good. You may feel that you are listened to, but don't think that the administration has a mind even as open as yours. They made their plans a long time ago, and they're not going to change them simply because the majority of people disagree with them. Don't worry, you will see this as everything plays out.

People are so angry that the united states actually does have to accept blame for all of the evils of Hussein's regime. But if the CIA supported Hussein's coup, and our shipments of weapons, oil deals, and political maneuvering kept him in power for 35 years, how could it be otherwise? Should we disregard the role the united states has played in this? No one is saying Hussein shouldn't be blamed for his actions, and the actions of those under him. But to absolve the united states, well, I would suggest looking within to find out why people have so much difficulty with these simple notions. I mean, if I sell a gun to a person that I know has a history of using guns to kill people, and is presently using guns to kill people, shouldn't I be held accountable. Shouldn't the US be held accountable for selling Iraq chemical weapons when it knew Iraq was using them on others? Or is that too much for the republicans to accept, since it is the great republican presidents that were behind that. It can be quite difficult to come to grips when you've built your identity around a notion that you later find is contradictory to your beliefs. This is called cognitive dissonance, and it is quite prevalent these days.

"Aren't we supposed to be united, like a family?"
And if my father is beating you my brother, am I supposed to look the other way? What if our father is killing transients off the street? Shouldn't we put an end to it, or do we remain dysfunctional in order to "keep the family together." James, something to think about if you do read A Language Older Than Words, as I saw in another post. Maybe snaggle should pick it up to.

it's funny 22.Jul.2003 22:23


Snaggle, James, a question for you: what were you doing in the 80's and 90's when I was fighting to have the u.s. government stop supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein in Iraq? Because, I don't want to make any assumptions, but you sound just like the republicans at the time, accusing people of hating america because we didn't support reagan's freedom fighters and our allies in iraq. In 10 years what are you going to say about the atrocities of the northern alliance and whatever dictator we place in power in iraq? Are you going to get mad at those that remind you that the u.s. put them in power the way we put the taliban and hussein into power? Are you going to forget all the arms shipments, the business contracts (for weapons, oil, natural gas, and reconstruction), the people who have suffered as a direct result of our policies? Are you going to forget the rhetoric about how how we replaced the "bad guys" with the "good guys" despite the continual switch back and forth between the groups? Are you ever going to read Orwell's 1984 and see that it describes people in this country perfectly, never remembering who were our allies or enemies at different times?

Or are you going to see the patterns that have been staring us in the face for years, decades, even centuries. We will not win this war through killing, no matter how evil we think the people we are killing are. We are only going to arouse the resentment, anger, hatred, and vengeance of many.

If loyalty and moral commitment means sacrificing my memory and my integrity than feel free to call me disloyal and not morally committed. My loyalty will be to truth, peace, justice, liberty, knowledge, happiness, freedom, love and I will continue oppose the enemies of these ideals even if those enemies are in power in the country in which I happen to reside.

Not so funny :P 23.Jul.2003 01:58


Someone, in the 80's I was a bit too young to be thinking about such things. In the early 90's I was largely ignorant. But I don't think that should disqualify me from supporting or criticizing the government today. Whether or not I was effecting change before, I simply call it like I see it.

I was hardly accusing anyone of hating America, nor do I care much one way or the other if they do. I was accusing some of not hating Odai and Qusay Hussein, as I believe they well should. As I said in my post, I don't feel like I have to pick a side.

You know as well as any here how critical I've been of this war, its origins and the mistakes of our government -- spanning numerous presidencies. I don't really understand the connection between ambivalence towards the deaths of Odai and Qusay, and America's material support to the Hussein regime. (Or any other tyrannical regime).

I've read all of Orwell and 1984 a few times, thank you. He does not love Big Brother.

Killing Odai and Qusay is somewhat regrettable. But it would have been much more regrettable had they gone free. Such men, having demonstrated their danger to society, no longer deserve freedom. (Neither do they deserve death, but it seems they chose that path themselves, if the reporting is accurate).

This may be yet another fundamental difference of opinion between us, but I absolutely believe society has the right to seperate dangerous men from itself.

I'm not at all sure what the effects of our prolonged military campaign will be, but I seriously doubt killing Odai and Qusay will evoke the hatred of "many."

Concerned -- I have my doubts about the mission of the soldiers. (As I said a bit above). We'll probably never know for sure. So what can I say? If the mission was assasination, that's reprehensible. If it wasn't, it's a regrettable outcome to a positive mission.

my apologies 23.Jul.2003 21:48


James, you're right, it was unfair of me to lump you with snaggle. It's all to easy to make generalizations when rushed. Allow me to try to respond in a more direct manner.

First of all, we agree that societies, communities have the right to provide for their safety. A community that does not provide for the common good is one that ultimately will not last. So I guess our disagreement is the motivation of the u.s. soldiers in this case. For me, I've been opposed to the sanctions and followed our military involvement in Iraq since the end of the gulf war. And that more than anything else caused me to view the military as lacking in any credibility when it comes to reporting their actions. We had 12 years of bombing iraq every other day, and every time the excuse was that they fired on the u.s. planes first. For 12 years, every other day, as we bombed everything in the country, repeatedly. They honestly believe that our racist beliefs will suspend our disbelief; that we will believe that the iraqis were so stupid that they would take shots at planes that they couldn't hope to shoot down despite immediate, severe, devastating bombing. I have never bought that, and I don't think anyone who thinks about it for a minute will either. Following the first gulf war, and as recently as within the last year, soldiers came forward talking about their missions in the first gulf war to blow up oil refineries as the republican guard retreated to pin those attacks on them. I'd say our military has a serious issue with credibility, and now I'm told that we were just trying to "apprehend" Hussein's sons. Sorry, I don't buy it. The administration is sinking fast and they need to rally people behind them, and distract them from the media, who is beginning to turn on them, and give the media alternative stories to sell people for a while.

The other issue, which I'm not sure either of us are confident in our beliefs enough to call a disagreement, is whether this killing was "a good thing." I think it will do more damage than good. There is no love lost between most Iraqi's and Hussein's regime, but it seems like the more we exact killings as a form of justice the more we will not have the respect of the iraqi people who will see us as just another group of murderous thugs. I think concerned nailed it though, because I think everyone here would agree that it would have been better to bring them to trial. But the question is where? The ICC? Never going to happen as long as the u.s. (and israel) refuse to recognize its authority. So what would the u.s. have done if the Hussein's had been apprehended, put them in guantanamo bay, that's not nearly so spectacular? I think the administration had no choice, and plenty of desire to have them killed. And like any political assassination, there is always blowback of one form or another. I think we may not have to wait long to see those effects.

Obviously, I would never disqualify anyone from criticizing or supporting this government or any government. My point was just that some of what is being said is just so damn familiar. Our enemies of today are our allies of yesterday; and our allies of today are no better in any moral sense than our enemies of today (the chief difference seems to be which group is more sympathetic to the business interests of u.s. and multinational corporations, for plenty of examples review the histories of afghanistan, iran, and iraq).