For heaven's sake, we liberated that country...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200888,00.html

SEN. CARL LEVIN, D-MICH

<snip>For heaven's sake, we liberated that country. We got rid of a horrific dictator. We've paid a tremendous price. More than 2,500 Americans have given up their lives. The idea that they should even consider talking about amnesty for people who have killed people who liberated their country is unconscionable.

Is THAT why we invaded, you dimwit Levin???

Thanks for giving Bushco cover.

how could they "ask" to be liberated? Were there any avenues that they could have used as a cry for help? Al-Jazeera doesn't exactly cut it.

And yet, there are still Iraqis who aren't exactly thrilled about their liberation. Saddam Hussein is still alive, and some still live in constant fear and support him because they think that there is a chance he will rule again some day. If he doesn't recieve the death penalty (which is what I think he deserves), then there will always be Hussein-weary Iraqis until the day he dies.

I'm certainly not for the war, I just wanted to add my $.02.

there earlier? LIKE DURING BUSH 41??

I say, invade China! They're Commies; they own us; they now use too much of this and that; and they poach endangered species.

Wait; how about Saudi Arabia? Now there's an oil-igarchy worth toppling, what with being the homeland of the majority of the 9/11 hijackers.

I'm just saying this: AT NO POINT prior to the Invasion did the U.S. claim it was "to liberate" the Iraqis; it was always to find and destroy those elusive WMD's.

It was always about US.

I'll bet having families shot and bombed by U.S. forces doesn't feel a whole helluva lot like liberation----except to have one's soul liberated from one's body.

Why? They certainly have a pro muslim perspective on things, but I don't quite recall that they were subservient to the Iraqi regime.

Had we wanted to support an Iraqi liberation movement inside Iraq run by Iraqis we could certainly have done so. The Bush cabal made no efforts at all to do that. Bush's Dad of course notoriously encouraged and then betrayed efforts to topple the Baath regime in the aftermath of Gulf Farce I, leading directly to the slaughter of large numbers of Iraqis as the regime put down the rebellion with our tacit blessings.

It seems that much of the population doesn't view the occupation of their land by a vast foreign army as liberation.

Senator Levin is deliberately obfuscating when he uses the phrase "amnesty for people who have killed people". Soldiers in the insurgent forces and soldiers in our occupation forces fight each other and kill each other. This is what happens in a war, even when the war is an occupation. The only road to peace in Iraq includes as an absolute prerequisite amnesty for the insurgent forces. The Senator knows this, the criminal bush cabal (for whom there should be no amnesty ever) knows this, and the pathetic Iraqi government of the Green Zone knows this. It seems the Senator thinks that the people of the United States are too stupid to understand the situation.

Look who helped get us to the moon. I am sure the people in in London loved that.

fix those ungrateful Iraqis!

One could hardly kill off a great percent of your pop. because they fought on the wrong side. My God we would wipe out half the world if we did this. Right or wrong I just do not think it could be done.

:grr:

He should have said that the Iraqi "government" doesn't do or say anything it doesn't have the tacit approval from the Bush cabal first. Everyone knows that. So if someone doesn't like the idea of giving amnesty to the Iraqis they should take it up with Bush. Why not just say the truth and leave it there? This kind of crazy talk from Levin is not going to win us any elections.

Don