Saddam may have been evil and a dictator. He may have wanted WMD. That makes him like many other dictators in this world. As for supporting state sponsored terrorism I do not see that. he wanted and was in control of Iraq and would not share control with others. There why no terrorists operated in Iraq like the people that planned 9/11 in under Saddam He was not a danger to the US and that is why we sould not have invaded Iraq.

You are starting to get boring and repetitive. How exactly do you know this? Did you read his mind? Gotta wonder if Saddam had no terrorist connections then why are all these terrorist entering Iraq and fighting the US and Iraqi forces? As usual, all the replies you make are nothing but your thoughts and nothing to back you points up with. Give it a rest already, you already made your point that you are not happy with the war in Iraq. You already said why. Are you gonna post the same stories in every article that has the names Iraq, Saddam and the US?

Moral Relativism. Everything is ok, since somone somewhere believes in it.

I though you were using big words to describe what he was saying. He difinitely misunderstood you Dr. Guy.

here's a perfect example of: a. intentional distortion of the facts or b.) idiocy presented as intelligence. I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.

How can you possibly consider this a lie, kb? First of all, it is plainly stated as a belief, not a fact, distorted or otherwise. Furthermore, many in Iraq did and still do consider themselves having been liberated from Saddam. You just don't hear that from the media because it doesn't fit the media's view of things. You are welcome to consider it meeting condition b.), but that is merely your opinion, one not well-supported by logic I'm afraid.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Saddam may have been evil and a dictator.

Some even say that he might have killed a man!

He may have wanted WMD.

Correction: he had WMDs (chemical such) in the 1980s and never proved that they were destroyed.

That makes him like many other dictators in this world.

Well, that makes it perfectly all right then, I guess.

As for supporting state sponsored terrorism I do not see that.

We know you don't see that. There are many things you don't see. That's probably why you disagree with us.

Even Saddam himself couldn't convince some that he was supporting terrorists. But he did what he could, so I can't blame him for your ignorance. He tried to tell everybody.

he wanted and was in control of Iraq and would not share control with others. There why no terrorists operated in Iraq like the people that planned 9/11 in under Saddam He was not a danger to the US and that is why we sould not have invaded Iraq.

What exactly makes him "no danger to the US"? He hatred of America, the chemical weapons he had which were still not found? His connections with terrorists?

I'd say these things did make him a danger to the US. If you disagree, tell me why he wasn't a danger.

But your ignorance of Saddam's WMDs in the 1980s and the fact that we (and the UN) don't know what happened to them and your insistence, against Saddam's own words, that Saddam didn't support terrorists are NOT good arguments.

BTW no one has answered the question of the article. Is this person a liar? At least I didn' notice anyone answer it.

BTW no one has answered the question of the article. Is this person a liar? At least I didn' notice anyone answer it.

For his comment quoted here, or now?

DJB -

You have a point.

So... No.

Cheers,
Daiwa

To answer the original question......No, he's not a liar.

How can you possibly consider this a lie, kb? First of all, it is plainly stated as a belief, not a fact, distorted or otherwise.

please notice the unusual way it's worded. 'i think' (opinion) 'things have gotten so bad inside iraq from the standpoint of the iraqi people' (do i really have to expend the effort here?) 'my belief' (i didn't miss the 'belief' part ) 'is we will, in fact, '(oh oh...he used the f word) 'be greeted as liberators.'

he was clearly making an effort to appear as knowledgable and persuasive as possible without going over the line...but he failed. greeted as liberators??? you're right bout the msm not giving that part any exposure. not to discredit the president is my guess; much more likely the welcome wagon went the wrong pad.

i might be willing to ease up and qualify that statement as being borderline less than candid, but then i'd be lying too.

kb -

Interesting to see you have to tie yourself into a pretzel to justify your point. Sheesh.

The overwhelming majority of Iraqis consider themselves liberated in some sense of the word, but they have no voice in the media which has no interest in that story. The scales of reporting are so heavily skewed - 95% of the reporting is about 5% of the story and I for one resent that.

Cheers,
Daiwa

The overwhelming majority of Iraqis consider themselves liberated in some sense of the word, but they have no voice in the media which has no interest in that story.

after more than 10 years of being unable to read for all practical purposes--actually unable to read anything not absolutely necessary--i seem to have finally worked my way to the other side. so it's possible what i'm about to describe isn't really as recent a development as it appears to me, but for the past 4-5 months, i've noticed considerably more coverage of the iraqi street. lots of full- or multi-page pieces focusing on a wide spectrum of people from all over the country.

i've yet to come across one which seemed contrived or felt anything but legit. prolly cuz none of them has been presented in an unduly positive or negative way. whether the focus is on sunni, shiite or kurd, the individuals and families portrayed in each story share something with all the others: none of them seem to consider themselves ahead of the game. none really expects or believes things will improve soon or by very much. sadly for us all--and quite unsettling--liberated from saddam doesn't seem to be as important to them as it would us.

having said all that, from whom or what enterprise are you getting that overhelming majority opinion?

but he failed. greeted as liberators???

As much as I value your opinion on some things kingbee, I think I respect this man's more: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007289

having said all that, from whom or what enterprise are you getting that overhelming majority opinion?

Same place as my previous comment. Along with Other Sources.

As much as I value your opinion on some things kingbee, I think I respect this man's more

The author is only a Kurd and an elected official. He is no Sunni Arab and no dictator. You KNOW what his word is worth among the left.

Seriously, this is a problem.

The left have, apparently, a very strict discipline when it comes to trustworthyness.

In general they only believe mass murderers. When in doubt, they prefer certain ethnic groups' words over others.

When in doubt, they prefer certain ethnic groups' words over others.

Sounds kind of racist if you ask me.  Like when people start calling a black an Uncle tom when they do not agree with his politics.

I think I respect this man's more

i've no doubt the overwhelming majority of president talabani considers himself liberated. very likely the overwhelming majority of kurds may well share his sentiment.

neither he--nor they--speak for the overwhelming majority of iraqis or, for that matter, even a consensus of iragis.

by proposing he does so, you've invalidated any claim you had to understanding what's going on in iraq--just as did the warhawks. while talabani may not be as duplicitious and self-serving as chalabi, he surely has his own agenda. you just admitted you're conpletely invested in it.

The author is only a Kurd and an elected official. He is no Sunni Arab and no dictator. You KNOW what his word is worth among the left.

you continue to prove yourself so blind to reason or common sense. of course, he's a kurd and an elected offcial. that's exactly why his opinions are NOT those of the unelected overwhelming majority of non-kurdish iraqis.

claiming otherwise is the equivalent of suggesting your personal opinions represent the overwhelming majority of any group except one--very opinionated and intractable german expatriates living in ireland who's convinced himself he's infallible.

When in doubt, they prefer certain ethnic groups' words over others.

when discussing the opinions of the 'overwhelming' majority of iraqis, one will naturally focus on that group's opinon rather than a minority group. if the topic were 'overwhelming majority of kurdish iraqis' it would be a different story.

exactly the kinda sloppy ideologue thinking described in the previous comment.

i've no doubt the overwhelming majority of president talabani considers himself liberated.

What does that mean?

very likely the overwhelming majority of kurds may well share his sentiment.

Yes.

neither he--nor they--speak for the overwhelming majority of iraqis or, for that matter, even a consensus of iragis.

Actually, he does. That's why he is the elected president. The (elected) national assembly made him president because they felt that he could speak for them. That's what a democracy does.

by proposing he does so, you've invalidated any claim you had to understanding what's going on in iraq--just as did the warhawks.

I guess that statement is consistent with the left's understand of democracy.

while talabani may not be as duplicitious and self-serving as chalabi, he surely has his own agenda. you just admitted you're conpletely invested in it.

Yes, he has his agenda. But in contrast to you Iraqis did believe that his agenda and their views are consistent.

You really have trouble understanding that Iraq is now democratic, haven't you? It will take the left forever to accept any elected official from Iraq as a legitimate representative of the Iraqi people, won't it?

But when the Ba'athists said that Iraqis didn't want the invasion, that was good enough for the left, wasn't it? The left believed that the dictator spoke for the Iraqi people but the left do not believe that their elected president speaks for the Iraqi people.

Typical.

Sounds kind of racist if you ask me. Like when people start calling a black an Uncle tom when they do not agree with his politics.

it's not at all racist because race has nothing to do with it (as opposed to a certain country club in maryland to which only whites strive to join...or is it only whites are able to qualify).

btw i'm gonna nominate you for this decade's harriet beecher stowe 'most frequent use of the term uncle tom by anyone other than ms stowe' award.

it's not at all racist because race has nothing to do with it

I usually understand racism as referring to prejudices based on ANY non-acquired group membership attribute.

That's why he is the elected president. The (elected) national assembly made him president because they felt that he could speak for them. That's what a democracy does.

as best he speaks for a numerical majority of members of the assembly altho that's highly dubious. i'm sure there are members who woulda voted for ariel sharon if they thought it would speed the day when the us pulls outta iraq. the election was seen as one step in that direction and, as such, something that had to be done.

I guess that statement is consistent with the left's understand of democracy.

your response is consistent with your lack of understanding of democracy. as is this one:

Iraqis did believe that his agenda and their views are consistent. You really have trouble understanding that Iraq is now democratic, haven't you? It will take the left forever to accept any elected official from Iraq as a legitimate representative of the Iraqi people, won't it?

if there was a truly democratic election in iraq today, talabani would be put outta office so rapidly your head (and his) wouldn't have stopped spinning by the time the ayatollah sistani was administering the oath of office to himself.

the left do not believe that their elected president speaks for the Iraqi people.

i didn't believe hussein spoke for anyone but hussein. deny it all you want, but talabani wasn't elected by the overwhelming majority of iraqis and doesn't speak for them.

I usually understand racism as referring to prejudices based on ANY non-acquired group membership attribute

well lemme draw your attention to a much more precise and appropriate basis for defining racism. the reason it's not called non-acquired group membership attributism is cuz it's about one racial group persecuting another racial group on the basis that the first racial group believes itself superior because the other racial group is less than human.