Gaddafi: Killed Without Trial?
By Shaun Kenney | Thursday, October 20th, 2011 | PoliticsSo you guys remember way back when Saddam Hussein was executed after a trial of his peers, yes?
The liberals? Hell… they wept for Saddam back then…
Howling Latina wept as she saw a picture of Saddam Hussein next to the rope that would soon end his life, as posted earlier this evening on the Web site of a national newspaper and thankfully taken down.
If the United States is going to go around making sure that every tyrant is brought to justice by the noose, why not start with Castro and have the Miami Cubans try him and execute him?
And what about all those kinds words from media pundits, including the Washington Post on the subject of Pinochet, another bloody tyrant? Why no justice for U.S. client-state tyrants?!?
So… just out of curiosity… where are the tears for Gaddafi?
Oh I get it! It’s OK when an American-led coalition kills a bloodthirsty dictator in 2011… but it’s not OK when an American-led coalition kills a bloodthirsty dictator in 2006. Think the change in leadership in the White House has much to do with the stone-cold silence of liberals today?
Hope you high fived Saddam on your way to hell, Muammar. Sic Semper Tyrannis.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Shaun Kenney is the Chairman of the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors, former Communications Director for the Republican Party of Virginia, and an active blogger since 2002. Shaun lives in Thomas Jefferson's backyard with his wife, six children, and a modest attempt at a farm in Kents Store, Virginia.
Comments
38 Responses to "Gaddafi: Killed Without Trial?"
Let’s all chant together…This is what democracy looks like!
The sad thing is that Gaddafi looked on Obama as his son. Obama happily shook his hand and almost bowed to him for Rev Wright’s sake. How a relationship can sour. I could cry too.
Shaun,
You are overlooking a key difference between Quaddifi and Saddam: Quaddifi oppressed and murdered his own citizens, created regional conflicts, and threatened Americans. Saddam, on the other hand, oppressed and murdered his own citizens, created regional conflicts, and threatened Americans.
Oops. Never mind. Okay, the biggest difference between the two is that you can spell Saddam in English.
I’m glad that Obama is cleaning out all these tyrants and terrorists under cover of the press and his left wing base so the next President has a clean slate and the rest of us won’t have to hear all of the wailing, lamenting and demagoguing by those same people.
As much as it pains me to say it, Obama will coms out smelling like a rose on this one. 1.1B for a dead tyrant is a bargain.
It was another bargain how cheaply he got rid of Mubarak. And better yet he was replaced by peace love and Brotherhood.
Sean,
Not so sure what your point is, unless you’re stretching to try to uncover some sort of liberal hypocrisy. I’m happy whenever a dictator goes. It is, however, a bit ironic when we supported many of the world’s dictators and terrorist regimes for quite a long period of our history.
I’d love to know your definition of “American led” as well.
If you really want to understand a liberal’s preference for the Libyan intervention model you need to actually compare and contrast Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya and the rest of the Arab Spring in the following categories:
Money spent
Iraqi, Afghan, and Libyan support
American support
International support
American boots on the ground
American time commitment
Actions in Libya were much more effective, efficient, and supportive of the local people than in Iraq and Afghanistan. Additionally I don’t believe 1 American soldier was killed in “liberating” Libya. The only thing lacking in Libya was support from Republicans, not because they wouldn’t have supported President Bush doing the same thing but because they wanted to be a hindrance to President Obama.
You might also ask for evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq but that would require too much work.
And, if I’m not mistaken, we tried that in Cuba, didn’t work out so well for us, did it?
ToR,
As Herman Cain would say, you are comparing Apples to Oranges. The situations between Libya, Iraq, and Cuba were all very different. Action in Libya was far from efficient, but your other points may be true. Some Republicans did support intervention in Libya and said so, although the majority of those did not support the means by which that intervention was accomplished. Yes some Republicans did not support involvement in Libya solely for political reasons, but some did not support it based on principles. I am one of the latter and I am no fan of Bush Jr. Don’t paint everyone with a broad brush.
As far as the killing, Saddam was searched for and captured by Americans with the specific intent of putting him on trial. Qaddafi was searched for and captured by Libyans who were more determined to kill him than to place him on trial. Why no liberal tears for Qaddafi? I suppose we can say it is due to Obama being President rather than Bush, but I really don’t care about the reason. You could also ask why it was okay for a liberal President to go to war for oil, but not for a Republican President (not that I agree that Iraq was about oil). I just hope and pray that the result in Libya in the long run is beneficial for both Libya and US. And without additional expenditure of American resources.
It would have been better for him to have been tried but I dont give him any sympathy. He got the same justice he gave to many of his own people
I’m just wondering where you guys are getting your news if you think anti-war liberals are happy with President Obama. They are highly critical of and unhappy with him.
The UN Human Rights Council has called for an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding Qaddafi’s death.
@ToR –
I literally laughed out loud. Well said, sir.
You mean the same UN Human Rights Council that Libya headed up a few years back?
Riiiiight…..
@ToR –
Let’s hypothesize for a moment: how would Libya had gone without the lessons learned in Cuba, Panama, Kuwait, Somalia, Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, etc?
Cookie cutter interventions do not work.
Let’s also consider for a moment what is replacing Gaddafi in Libya for a moment — and elsewhere with regards to the “Arab Spring” movement. The Muslim Brotherhood is doing everything possible to ingratiate itself. Meanwhile, the Turks are extending their influence into former Ottoman-controlled regions such as Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Syria, Iraq, etc.
So let’s add it all up.
Liberals with regards to Bush and Iraq held up one standard. That’s fair…
Why is Obama not being held to a similar standard?
Conservatives are roundly applauding the death of Gaddafi. Liberals, OTOH, openly wept at the “murder” of Saddam Hussein.
Dichotomy? I think we have a new definition for the word…
Shaun,
Let’s add it all up, run the numbers on money spent in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. How many lives have been lost in the 3 countries?
Let’s go over the accomplishments under Commander in Chief Bush vs. the accomplishments under Commander in Chief Obama. I’ll give you Obama’s short list: Osama bin Ladin, bringing troops home from Iraq, and the assistance the US has provided in the Arab Spring. What was on your Bush list?
Cookie cutter “interventions” don’t work. But what has worked well is the assistance we’ve provided in Libya. I think its indisputable that we’ve been less than successful in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There’s plenty of hypocrisy to go around; however, it appears that there is a lot more reason for people to be uncomfortable will the full on invasion of Iraq (less so Afghanistan) than a minimal assistance and air campaign in Libya. The amount spent in Libya chump change compared to that spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. And no American lives have been lost in Libya.
I don’t support the death penalty, but let’s be honest, who can blame a rebel fighter killing Gaddafi given the situation? I think it’d be hard not to. In a perfect world he would have been put on trial and been punished. Would he have been executed? Probably so, from a political perspective, when has a exile (in particular a former dictator in exile or his family) sat idly in another country without trying to intervene?
On a different note, I think its interesting that he hasn’t been buried yet.
JZ,
As Romney would say: now I’ve got to have a bushel of apples and oranges!
But, if I’m understanding you correctly, you didn’t support Iraq (or Afghanistan) or Libya? If you didn’t support any of the 3 then that’s understandable and consistent.
When someone supports Iraq and Afghanistan and doesn’t support Libya, then that’s pure politics and hypocrisy. Those that didn’t support the assistance in Libya, they did so because they didn’t want to see President Obama have another success. It’s that simple.
I also don’t think you can say Libya or Iraq was about oil. Actually, I would say that the actions in Libya have been much more beneficial to American oil companies than Iraq. But, I don’t think we’ll ever know why we went to Iraq until all of the Bush/Cheney documents are released.
LD,
You’re correct.
You know, ToR, one characteristic that liberals of all stripes seem to share, from the Communist Chinese to our own home-grown lefties, is a love for Historical Revisionism. I get quite amused by the assertions that Bush lied about WMD in Iraq, that the Democrats never supported the Iraq invasion, ad nauseaum.
Go back and read the Iraq Resolution as passed by Congress in 2002. The problem was not that we knew for certain that Saddam had WMD, we didn’t, but that the intelligence indicated that he had active programs to develop them and that he had expelled the UN-authorized inspectors to monitor facilities and equipment that might be used to produce them. In reading the resolution, pay close attention to page 4 and who voted in favor of it. 21 Democrats in the Senate, including Hillary Clinton and John Kerry voted Yes. Only after the insurgency began and it got ugly, all the liberals suddenly forgot their vote and claimed that they thought it was a bad idea all along. Of course, Obama wasn’t even in the Senate yet, but with 20-20 hindsight claimed that he would have voted against it if he had been there. Right. Just like he was going to close Gitmo by the end of 2009 and all the other now-broken campaign promises he made to bludgeon Bush and the Republicans.
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/wariniraq/a/jt_resolution.htm
Tor, May I chime in here? Not blaming Obama for what I am about to say.. I breed specialized therapy dogs that often enough become therapy dogs for both autistic kids and wounded vets with the full spectrum of injuries. I work with others who have worked a long time at Walter Reed until it closed and now work at Bethesda with wounded vets.
The demand for services and therapy dogs suitable for working in a hospital environment way outstrips current capacity to provide them.. The number of incoming cases is on the rise and the new hospital wards are filling up with vets in need of specialized physical and mental therapy, mostly from current or recent wars.
Not blaming Obama, Bush or any previous potus but the “price” being paid seems to be rising much faster now. Do a gut check and share your feelings bro.
HisRoc,
I am not engaging in revisionism when I say:
On Afghanistan, I was screaming for blood and revenge.
On Iraq, I argued against it. I feared it was going to be worse then it turned out to be and it turns out the French were correct on that one (the inspections were working). However once we got involved I did consider volunteering to serve over there as a civilian truck driver until I found out I would not pass Haliburton’s physical. I also would have required a death and disability package as good as the troops have and it is my understanding the package then being offered fell far short.
On Libya, I have remained silent, torn a little. I didn’t want high American involvement but was less concerned with the limited use of American power.
We’ll have to wait and see what type of governments all three result in within the long term before I will pass personal judgement on whether any of them were worth it. But thus far:
On Afghanistan, we got revenge and we got Osama under Obama.
On Iraq, thus far a lot of American blood has been shed and a lot treasure expended and I hope it does not end up having been wasted.
On Libya, at least here we did not go it alone, our involvement was limited. If it turns out badly, we will not have to bear the blame alone. If it turns out well, we get partial credit.
Turbo,
I do not dispute anything you wrote. However, I have a slightly different perspective. I work with some Defense consultants who have studied the problem of suicides and PTSD in veterans. The bad news is not that we are diagnosing these problems more, but that they have always been there in past conflicts and went unrecognized. The good news is that we are coming to grips with the human toll that protracted war and conflict causes. Our national cemeteries and VA hospitals have always been full of the dead and broken bodies that war causes. Now we are beginning to understand the mental casualties. That doesn’t mean that war is to be avoided at any and all cost. It means that we are paying a higher price than we ever imagined.
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”
-John Stuart Mill
I get your point and it is ironic isn’t it? He lived by the sword and he died by the sword. So be it.
I spent the entire day at the VA Hospital in Hampton today and once again got a “gut check”. The toll of war is evident across the wars. The toll on the economy and tightening of spending as more critically wounded (physically and emotionally)vets are home and need services is even more evident. One good thing though, they are finally building a facility for women vets. It’s about time. Let’s hope there’s funding to hire more doctors and nurses, they are sorely understaffed.
Kathy,
If equality is demanded, why are special facilities only for women necessary?
I’m only asking. I am open to either way you explain, however whatever explanation you provide leads to a fork in the road for me.
If you have a mom, a girlfriend, wife or daughter, I’m sure you’ve noticed something different about them. Right now to get our “differences” taken care of, we have to somewhere else because the VA doesn’t have the facilities or doctors to take care of us. They are trying to remedy this as there have been women Veterans FOR ALL WARS.
By the way, my grandmother was a Navy nurse in WW11, my father was in the Navy in the Korean war, I was in the Air Force during the Iranian hostage crisis and my son is now in the Navy. It’s about time they took care of all Veteran’s total needs, not just male Veteran’s.
Kathy,
As a man, from the time my mother was more worried about my cold then was my father I noticed the difference. As the hormones took over a little bit later, I noticed even greater differences, but the first impression remained.
I am just troubled that some women seem to want COMPLETE equality while still insisting on the special treatments they deserve. Choose one, you can’t have both.
Whatever.
Nice article, Shaun.
If there’s anything that infuriates me in politics, it’s philosophical inconsistency – and this is a glorious example of such a condition. Perhaps this could be a fine example to those who exhibit the same mentality within our own ranks…?
Kathy,
I understand your point. Ignore Little David. He is one of those unrepentant Navy dinosaurs who think that women on a ship are a curse and that menstruation is God’s punishment for Eve leading Adam into sin.
I almost did ignore Little David but the last time we “spoke” on Bearing Drift he swore he “loved Jesus” so I thought I’d give him a second chance. In my kids language, “my bad”. His question was just another hook into his own problems I can’t help him with.
What do differences have to do with the VA?
Darrell, the VA Medical Hospital takes care of Veterans, all Veterans, male and female. They are trying to now provide all health care for female Veterans like they always have for male Veterans. Again, I say it’s about time as we have always had female Veterans. In wars before WW1, they weren’t recognized but history proves, whether they were nurses, spies or whatever, we had female soldiers.
We have had to go to civilian medical facilities for mammograms and other services at more than likely a higher cost than if it were provided by VA doctors. I am pleased the VA is finally catching up to the 21st century of the need to provide health care for all Veterans.
That’s nice. But they don’t provide health care for all veterans.
@ J. C S
Like those who supported Iraq and Afghanistan but not Libya?
HisRoc,
I’m a dinosaur? I served with women on combat ships and let me say that this did present new problems not encountered before, like the problems with youngsters that can not keep their pants up. There was also the problem of sexual politics occasionally introduced into the chain of command. If you do not agree with me on this, I would say that the only explanation is that your experience is too limited.
With all that in mind, I still support women being allowed to serve in combat units. While I never served in Iraq or Afghanistan, I keep hearing women have been serving there with distinction, and in both theaters, there is no such thing as serving behind the lines.
With that still in mind, I also think young women should be subject to the draft should it ever need be implemented. That is part of complete equality in my mind.
Before, youngsters couldn’t keep their pants up in ports but left those ports and came home to their wives and girlfriends. It does take two so it isn’t just the bad ole girls fault.
While I don’t see the draft coming back I know many active duty women and men who serve proudly. Character is a personal responsibility for every sex.
Good points Kathy. Did you ever serve in the Navy?
But last time I checked, my sons had to sign up for the Selective Service when they reached the age of 18 while my daughter did not. Evidently the idea of the draft is not so outdated that we no longer require our male youngsters to drop their name into the hat.
Israel requires service for both male and female and I don’t have a problem with that. I proudly served in the Air Force as I have said before but starting with my grandmother, father and now son, 3 generations of my family have served in the Navy as I have said before. Personally I think it’s a good thing for everyone to serve, but that’s just my opinion.
So Kathy,
You’ve said you think its good for everyone to serve but you haven’t answered the question:
Should both males and females have to sign up for the selective service?
@TOR,
Obama gave no support to protestors in Iran, a country that really needs to have a government change and is sending people to attack American interest. Also, the Arab Spring would have never happened if Saddam was never moved in Iraq, a free Iraq was the catalyst for everything that happened this spring.
STRATFOR
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20111024-libya-and-iraq-price-success?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20111025&utm_term=gweekly&utm_content=readmore&elq=435a5804214a43d4b20f319597b90190
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.