The famous line of Tom Hanks, in the movie "Apollo 13," needs revisiting. To whom do we turn when in a crisis? If you're an astronaut, in a capsule in outer space, under the control of a NASA center, you call NASA. "Houston, we have a problem."
But who do we the people call, now, when our country is so bewildered and benumbed by the Legacy of Lies bequeathed by the Clintons? The destroying duo has succeeded in creating such a contaminated communication environment that no one believe anything anyone is saying. Words are only sporting tools, as in some Medieval joust. The best we can do is accuse the liar of lying. Attorneys and judges, and now juries, let the criminal go free (unless it's a successful white business woman like Martha Stewart), and the therefore the truth is at its lowest value in American history.
In such profoundly confused environments, horrible monsters can thrive. In Konrad Heiden's introduction to Ralph Manheim's translation of Mein Kampf (1971), Heiden says,
For years Mein Kampf stood as proof of the blindness and complacency of the world. for int its pages Hitler announced--long before he came to power--a program of blood and terror in a self-revelation of such overshelming frankness that few among its readers had the courage to believe it. Once again it was demonstrated that there was no more effective method of concealment than the broadest publicity. p.xv.
Indeed, such a phenomenon give new meaning to Edgar Allan Poe's story, The Perloined Letter," about that simple but criminal piece of paper evidence effectively hidden from the otherwise famously astute French police by its obvious presence in a carefully search room.
Richard Poe (a modern detective par excellence, if not prophet as well) has already exposed the devious, diabolical designs of one George Soros. Poe as already outline the documented plans of Soros to subvert the American political process, and to change America in to a mad, atheistic, socialist fantasy. Poe's article in the NewsMax May edition (hard copy), and now this three essays posted on his own site, leave little to be misunderstood. It's all presented very clearly: Soros plans to do here in America, on a the largest scale, what he's already done on a smaller scale in other East European countries.
George Soros
Poe said, "The political machine Soros is building reaches far beyond the ordinary realm of the America's two-party system."
Behold, it's more than true. The wealthiest, most progressive financiers of the Democratic Party appear to be handing the reins over to George Soros. According to the New York Times Magazine, they already met in March (2004) to lay much needed "long range plans" for the Democratic Party. Soros and another financier Peter Lewis, have already contribued some $150 million to shadow groups within the party. This is what Richard Poe is talking about when he reveals how Soros works. The shadow government is the first of seven steps Soros took when he removed Sobodan Milosovic from Yugoslavia. Remember, Soros thinks George Bush is another Adolf Hitler! It will be a grand rallying call, soon enough. Soros has vowed to remove Bush, at all costs.
Adolf Hitler, George Soros' idea of President Bush!
Soro's idea of the messiah must be Hillary Clinton. There
are many other Jewish people who do not liken Bush unto
Hitler, nor do they support Hillary. Being Jewish doesn't
validate Soros' political ideas. He makes a cheap shot of it.
Matt Bai's NYTMagazine article tries to downplay Soros' effects on the Democratic Party, and points out that most of his contributions have gone to small groups of activists. Thus Bai reveals his ignorance of Soros, (failure to read Poe, in this case!), and ends up trying to defend Soros by downplaying him. Bai seems blissfully and dangerously unaware of the machinations of Soros.
But this is probably a lie. The NYT obviously welcomes the likes of Soros, and minimizing him is a cheap cover, creating an illusion of "fair and balanced" news. They're no doubt behind him 100%, and will cover for him at every opportunity.
Just curious how this artcle comes out just after Poe's explicit expose of all that Soros is about!
Ah, Poe is only one man. Poe isn't a billionaire. Poe doesn't control an army. Poe wields only the truth. Can the truth triumph over the forces of the almighty dollar? Can the truth alone, with but one voice behind it, turn a world tide of misdirected wealth? Will the voice of one man silence America's most serious threat since the appearance of Bill and Hillary Clinton?
Rally, all ye would-be patriots! All ye helpless voters! At least stay tuned to Poe. At least read. And for once, yea, for twice, let we Americans prove historicans wrong! Remember the Revolution! Remember 1776. Post Poe on every blog in America. We can do that much. The information is heavy, stunning, and unwelcome, but so is castor oil. So is any medicine which heals. So is any treatment which restores. So be it. Swallow!
The Democratic Convention is the object of extreme security measures this week. You'd think they had real enemies! How they must glory in the thought that they represent real America values, and that therefore they are the target of international terrorists.
"Helicopters were buzzing over Boston on Monday morning as delegates gathered for the Democratic National Convention. There were many more signs of increased security, including camouflaged soldiers near train lines, bomb-sniffing dogs and a tall barricade around the FleetCenter, the site of the gathering," says Matt Apuzzo, of Associate Press.
But everyone knows, the liberal Democratic leaders are the the strongest allies of the America's enemies, at home and aborad. This security front is a ludicrous and expensive masque for them. The 2000 Democratic Convention in California cost well over $4 million, more like $10, $15 or more, and that was before 9-11.
The very presidential Kerry, "protected" by police in Boston.
Protected from whom?
Congress allocated $25 million for this year's convention in Boston. Of course, they allocated the same for the Republican Convention in NYC in NYC at the end of August. The point is, the Republicans are the ones with real enemies. Their security cost ought to reflect that fact. Never mind the "equality" of Congressional hand outs. Ah, but reality seldom occurs to the fine Congressmen.
The only enemies Democrats have are their own kind, especially when some Democrat dares step out with true American values, or just plain and simple honest. (The Clinton "body count" was at 63 as of August, 2000). Most Democrats I know vote from the heart, on a romantic notion from the past, that the Democrats care for the people, the working man.
Marx cared for the working man. Lenin cared. They cared that the working man fall in line and shut up. Big Brother would take care of him, one way or another.
No, the liberal leaders in the Democratic Party are not patriots at all, but more often avowed treasonists, as Ann Coulter calls them. They work against American constitutional definition and original moral values. They want to make America into a different country. Add to this the political manipulations of George Soros, and we have a real formula for catastrophy.
Military police at the FleetCenter in Boston, Sunday, July 25, 2004, for the Democratic National Convention. (AP Photo/Joe Cavaretta)
I think it's obvious. When Americans have to be patrolled by armed forces in order to excercize their most basic rights, it is clear that liberal leaders have succeeded. America is now a police state. That is the fact that speaks louder than any "security" jargon.
Appropriate that the Boston Democratic Convention represent the pith of irony and deceit. Security, indeed.
"It is a massive undertaking and we're trying to do it way that has the least impact on commuters," said Mariellen Burns, spokeswoman for the group coordinating security and transportation for the event. "But there's definitely going to be inconveniences. We know that."
Inconveniences? Let's call it what it is: the surrender of freedoms--in historic Boston, due to the liberal leadership which allows the enemy free access to America.
But Arab Muslim murderers need not attack the Democratic convention. The liberal leaders are doing their work for them, destroying American freedom. Everyone's happy. No need to waste suicide bombers in Boston.
A critical expose of George Soros is now readily available. Richard Poe has now presented three essays which clearly identify George Soros' dark agenda for America. It is alarming, and it must be made known.
"Soros is a man without roots, faith or tradition, a lonely eccentric who fills his empty soul with what he calls "messianic fantasies." He dreams of using his wealth to transform our world into a godless, joyless superstate in which the very concepts of family, freedom, love of country and community will be watered down beyond recognition." Thus says Richard Poe.
Poe, in his interview with Bill O'Reilly, already expressed concerns that people would not be informed of the crisis, and thus Soros might be successful in subverting America as never before.
From the interview, May 18, 2004:
POE: ... I don't know if people are going to find out the types of things about George Soros we're discussing.
O'REILLY: Well, 10 million of them are tonight.
POE: Yes, but, you know, Bill, a lot of things have been on your show, such as Jayna Davis and her theories about the Oklahoma bombing, that never went farther than your show, even though a lot of people saw it.
Poe is offering precious information to the public about one of the most serious threats to the American identity since Bill and Hillary Clinton. Can we respond? Can we believe it? Are we even willing to know about it?
Soros is maniacally anti-Bush, and is determined to throw the election to Kerry. Soros is an international financier, and has already changed certain governments in Europe, like Croatia, Slovakia, Yugoslavia and the Republic of Georgia. Soros is a multi-billionaire, and has the influece to make things happen.
Poe says, "Soros has no intention of playing by the rules this November. On the contrary, the Democrat strategy shaping up under Soros' guidance strongly resembles one of his trademark Velvet Revolutions in the making."
Poe's remarkable essays are:
1) The Velvet Revolution, telling the history of Soros' outrageous international political adventures.
2) The Democrats' Digital Brownshirts, about the Democrats' efforts to control, manipulate, and otherwise usurp the internet with professional cyber terrorists.
3) The Lies of George Soros, showing how Soros tries to cover up his own deep involvement in trying to subvert the American election process.
This is all terribly disconcerting information. Poe is particularly adroit in managing such volatile data, and presenting it in a simple, understandable manner. I suggest that everyone quickly visit Poe's site, and read these essays. This is perhaps the most critical subject matter of the day. It will effect forever the American election process. The Clintons are very much united with Soros, and, as Hillary has said, the election is in the balance: "It will be outside forces -- something unforeseen that suddenly happens --that tilts the election one way or the other." She's in a position to know, Soros being a profound financier of the Democratic Party. Says Poe, "Few Americans realize that it was George Soros who bankrolled the seven-year lobbying effort without which McCain-Feingold never would have seen the light of day." In other words, Soros has already been deeply involved in American politics, since 1994, in fact.
Nothing could be more serious than this matter. Poe is humbly pronouncing the issue, and doing the kind of work that provides a foundation for resistance. Knowing the facts, knowing the truth, knowing your enemy, is rudimentary in the effort to resist, to stand firmly, and to be victorious. I'm not sure how to thank Poe for his efforts, but the least we can do is avail ourselves of them. The information is now public, readily available to all.
Let's hope Poe's prophetic concerns on Bill O'Reilly's show, about people not being informed, do not find fulfillment. Let's hope people inform themselves.
[FLASH] Poe's new book, Hillary's Secret War just got a splendorous review by Chris Ruddy on PittsburghLive.com. The 'summer thriller' he calls it.
The media hype, the law, the gender issue, and the race issue, have made mockery of the American legal system. The system is a terrible blight on American society, and a dark chapter in American history.
The media hype now wants to say Scott Peterson may get off "scot free" because a prosecution witness has lied. Imagine such a thought.
Then realize that Martha Stewart won't get a new trial after a black male jurist was found to have lied during the selection process, and after a prosecution witness committed perjury.
A little complex? A little ironic? Martha's an 'easy' woman, in the reprocussion sense, and there will be no consequences for jerking her around, no matter what. She holds no threats, and the system can get by with its self-righteousness in her case, and even congratulate itself on the success of the system. But maybe that's the east coast.
On the west cost, they let double homicide criminals free, with the right race-based, gender-based jury selection. And in OJ's case, there were riots to worry about. No such problem in Martha's case. White folks will never rally around one of their own. Why, they're all equal. No need to show it.
And in Peterson's case, as in OJ's, there has been no pursuit of any other suspect. If the 'killer' get's off, there is no hope of justice for the victim. And after all, the dead victim is of secondary importance in the courtroom drama. The play is in action, but the dead are never players, only a motivators.
So, a black man can lie as a jurist, but it doesn't count in favor of a convicted white woman (Stewart), nor win her a mistrial. Yet, a white man's testimony can be contradicted by another white man, and the accused white man (Peterson) is to be considered exonerated. (Never mind the death of his hispanic wife and child.)
This is worse than blind justice. This is blind prejudice and liberal self-righteousness. It is pseudo-moral solipsism. It is the personal bias of the few being paraded as exemplary before the many.
This is the American legal system, as it stands. It is a free-enterprise, competitive business, and truth is placed in competition with falsehood. Both are only tools, and neither is valued above the other. Our legal system has allowed the denigration of the meaning and function of truth.
The media? Just the local whore. Just the local gossip monger. Cheap thrills.
In the case of law and media, capitalism does have it's drawbacks. Without strong moral people involved, capitalism quickly corrupts the weak. The reporter wants a story. The lawyer wants a case. The people want justice, but that's only offered them in the form of a sport. The courtroom is like a playing field, or a gambling table. Try it. You might win. Big.
Alas, the court thinks the public expects more from a white female homemaker than a black male athlete, or a white male nobody. Courts apparently go by polls, like Clintonian politicians. Jury selection, they call it. In the appropriate community, free of prejudice and media slanting. No manipulation there.
What's wrong with a wall? Israel is building a wall of separation, a barrier that will help prevent cowardly terrorists murderers from continually slipping over the borders to slaughter Israeli civilians. The International Court of Justice thinks this is a crime? It "inconveniences" Palestinian people?
Sharon's Wall in Israel
Well, never mind then about the Israelis who are 'inconvenienced' by being blown to bits, or having family blown to bits. This is an egregious expression on the part of the ICJ, and discredits them before the sensible world. But it unfortunately resembles the American governments soft position on illegal Mexicans crossing America's southern borders, and also on the whole idea of deporting Arab Muslims from America. We mustn't "inconvenience" anyone. Terrorists must be allowed therefore their free hits. We'll just have to take it on the chin, because we'd rather inconvenience the whole nation, the whole world, rather than inconvenience the race and religion of the terrorists. We'd rather the terrorists have their chance at the whole country, rather than inconvenience a few million Arabs in America by deporting them all.
It seems to me Sharon is quite logical on his own situation in Israel. He has a nation to protect, which is under daily threat of indiscriminate slaughter.
But there is another parallel between the border issue in Israel and the border issue in America. Mexcans are here in America because no one else will plant the onions. (Not at 35 cents an hour.) Americans hire them. Israeli's hire Palestinian workers--for very much the same reasons. If Mrs. Rubenstein would work her own garden, clean her own floors, I think there would be less border issues in Israel. If Mr. Jones could find some American workers, who wouldn't demand $15 dollars an hour, paid vacation, and health insurance, we wouldn't have the Mexican immigration problem.
Interestingly, in 1939, the Germans in Poland built a wall around the Jewish ghetto in Warsaw. But today, Israel builds a wall around itself. Walls can be very telling. The American poet Robert Frost once wrote, "Good fences make good neighbors." Maybe its true. A wall of defense is certainly not the same as a wall of alienation, prejudice, or bigotry. China once built a great wall of defense. Not a lot of criticism about that.
But every wall has two sides, psychologically. Sharon said, '"They [the ICJ] know full well that the completion of the fence will make it very difficult for them [terrorists] to continue perpetrating acts of murder." That's the explanation for this fence. Any other "side" of it is of secondary importance. Simple as that. Anyone feeling offended or insulted is a very primitive egotist, instinctively manipulating his cause through feigned pleas for justice. Such connivance represence the rodent mind of the world. Sometimes the "other side" just isn't worth hearing.
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge is warning everyone about the probability of new Al-Qaeda attacks in the weeks between now and the presidential elections in Novemeber. Though the level of security is not being raised, the message from Ridge is clear: intelligence says that Al-Qaeda is planning large scale disruptions of American society in the immediate furture.
Homeland Security offends me in this report. I want to hear that Arab Muslims are being deported from the United States. That would convince me that my government is concerned about protecting America.
What good does it do to tell me I'm going to be attacked? What am I supposed to do? What difference does it make to me whether or not I know ahead of time it's going to happen? Will that help me stop it from happening?
This is the same kind of "intelligence" which the anti-war, anti-Bush people say is responsible for 9-11. Foreknowledge seems to have no effect, unless you act on it. The Patriot Act is supposed to give the government agencies power to act.
But I still see no signs of deportations. Instead, I see the Arab immigrant 'community' flexing their political muscle through liberal media. The Arab immigrant population has nearly doubled in the last 20 years, and these are Muslims, from Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon. Their numbers are over 2 million now. Right up there with American Indians!
Yet the Arab American Institute Foundation reports just over 15,000 visas were issued to immigrants from Arab countries in 2002, compared with more than 21,000 in 2001. So who's lying? Or, is it Muslims coming from European countries, making America their final stop in a series of immigrations? There are supposedly over 6 millions muslims in America, but they're not all from Arab countries. Therefore, Arab Muslims are a mollified threat? There are 300,000 Iraqi-Americans alone!
Warning me of an attack does nothing more than keep Homeland Security off the hook afterwards. They did their job. They warned me. I can't sue them. They're innocent. It's not their fault. No more 9-11 style pay-outs to victims, either. Not with Homeland Security constantly warning everyone--with the same vague message, month after month.
Deportation is the only answer that addresses the threat. Anything short of this is political, theoritical, idealistic, and weak. I'm glad there haven't been any terrorist acts in America since 9-11. There have been elsewhere in the world. When the next one occurs in America, I'll be the first to once again call for deportations of Arab Muslims living in America.
Never mind the "citizenship" issue. Being an American citizen, legally, is nothing but legal fodder for liberal attorneys and judges, and opportunity for politicians. It no longer carries honor, dignity, or guarantees of anything but the opportunity to attack America.
Everyone's talking about John Edwards as another exemplary version of the American dream: poor boy makes good. It's another attempt to validate, to authenticate, to justify every thought in his head, every notion he has. Politics is all about validation. Why, nothing validates more than "former" poverty. What a gulible notion.
Edwards with Kerry, a perfect contradiction? Or just book-ends?
I don't think it will fly. Bill Clinton was a poor boy from Arkansas. He made it big. What does this prove? What does this exemplify about American society? That there are a lot of poor boys who want to make it rich? Is that all we are then, hedonists? Is this what our purposes is, to become rich?
I think not. I think the Democrats are denigrating, devaluating, and destroying everything that would otherwise be valid. They are insulting poverty. In their hands, the gold becomes dirt. With their anti-magic, anti-American touch, the gold they espouse becomes filthy rags. Morally and spiritually, it seems they trash what they're trying to use as validation. Kerry's trashed the military uniform, as have other liberals and ani-Americans. We can't depend on the man wearing it anymore.
And now success itself is being trashed as an idea. Class war, poor against rich. What a cheap shot. What a classic ploy. If Edwards beat the rich, by becoming rich himself, then you can do it, too! Sure, the best thing you can do for the poor is 'don't be one of 'em!'
Such a concept as class struggle, rich against poor, may have been useful in England, in the 17th and 18th centuries. But Communists have long taken over that manoeuver. Communists, liberals, leftists, these are who make that move work in this country. Take from the rich, give to the poor. What a righteous cause. And how much more righteous when a former poor now rich boy pushes that cause.
Problem is, all the Democratic leaders are just as deep into money as any Republican leaders they accuse. So what if George Bush was born in oil money. What exactly does that invalidate? Kerry's into big money, too. Why doesn't money invalidate him? Does ketchup leave no stains? John and Teresa Kerry may be the wealthiest couple ever to live in the White House. And just because Edwards was born with less, and earned his way upward (through the most questionable profession in America, law), why should his former lowliness validate anything he has to say about issues in the country?
The logic is not there. Only some subliminal, or nearer the surface emotion. "I want to be rich and successful, too!" That is the feeling Edwards appeals to with his story. Bill Clinton did the same thing in 1992 campaign speeches. And he paraded his dysfunctional childhood as well, and continues to aggrandize his failures as successes, and his confessionals as justifications. What did this accomplish for him, or for anyone else? At most, in encouraged other dysfunctionals to embolden themselves in their dysfunction.
Sell the man, not the ticket? But you get the ticket with the man. Vice-presidents can't do too much, anyway. But they can be be crooked, like Al Gore. They can be involved in all kinds of covered-up oil money, but, if they're Democrat, that's okay. Oil money only stains Republicans, because we all know Democrats want to protect the environment (wherever such an image will win them some votes, anyway).
The Kerry-Edwards match is a disjointed, mis-matched, and dysfunctional as anything the Democrats could conceive. It reflects the contraditictions, the convolutions, and the constipations of the "progressive" agenda. They'll enjoy a little life, for a while, but the Democratic convention is not till the end of the month. Again, anything can happen then. I'm not sure Bush knows who his opponents really are yet.
John Edwards as just made the biggest mistake of his political career: he has associated himself with John Kerry. Kerry has announced his selection of Edwards as his vice-presidential running mate for the 2004 election in November. Assuming Edwards accepts the position, Edwards will thereby forever mar his own political character and public image. He will never recover form the stain.
A better choice would have been for Edwards to leave the Democratic Party and run as George Bush's vice-presidential candidate. Of course, as a typically manipulative attorney, Edwards would have brought really nothing significant to the Bush campaign, but, at least it would have been a step up.
Maybe Edwards doesn't really want a step up. Maybe he's happy with the sewer party's great moral achievements like Bill and Hillary Clinton, and now the renowned ambiguity and side-winding slob John Kerry. It seems a shame, because Edwards seems to have had a chance, running on his own. Kerry has no chance of winning at all. Edwards might help him make a little bit of a show, but, Kerry won't come close to winning against Bush. Edwards then will have forever scarred himself with the Kerry association. But maybe it doesn't make any difference. Maybe Edwards is just another snake, after all.
Sure, Kerry kept his decision for Edwards a tight secret until the announcement. But that's only grounds for more revelations, more surprises at the Democratic Convention later this month. What else will happen? How will the Clintons play into the show? Is everything set in stone? I doubt it. There may be some real fireworks set off, wholly unexpected. It's the makings of a grand, 19th century-style Democratic convention. Anything can happen.
Let's hope Edwards has enough sense to turn down the offer. Let's hope the Clintons disrupt the show in a cataclysmic manner, and let the world know what a snake pit the party really is.
Don Feder just gave us a great assessment of the political situation in Massachusetts--home of the 'depraved,' site of all anti-American sentiments, focus of evil in the American world.
I'd say friends of Edwards ought to shout out to him, "Step down!" If they care about him at all, they should advise him to break all association with Kerry. This choice of Edwards as running mate is pathetic attempt give definition to Kerry, which he is otherwise without, and simply does not deserve. Being vice-president, or even the exposure of running as the candidate, will not achieve for Edwards what he wants, and will result in a shadow which will mark him the rest of whatever political career he may have, if any.
A man who truly loved America.
Ronald Reagan, 1911-2004
O beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!
O beautiful for pilgrim feet
Whose stern impassioned stress
A thoroughfare of freedom beat
Across the wilderness!
America! America!
God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law!
O beautiful for heroes proved
In liberating strife.
Who more than self their country loved
And mercy more than life!
America! America!
May God thy gold refine
Till all success be nobleness
And every gain divine!
O beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!
Katherine Lee Bates (1859-1929)
A woman who truly loved America
In a terrific example to the world of the unchangability of the Arab mind, Saddam Hussein is demonstrating complete defiance of all objectivity, all propriety, and all balance of thought. He remains exactly the same man he was when he came out of his hole. There is no humiliating him, no shame in him, and little hope for the Arab world--which reflects him. He mocks anyone who questions anything about him.
Saddam Hussein in a courtroom at Camp Victory, a former
Saddam palace on the outskirts of Baghdad, Thursday, July 1,
2004. (AP Photo/Pool)
It is completely clear that, as once predicted on BadEagle.com, Hussein will finally be honored. He is a hero to vast numbers of Arab people, enough so that he will no doubt survive, with laurels.
He has questioned every right of the present coalition-supported regime in Iraq. He accuses them all of being traitors, and says United States President Bush is the real criminal. This kind of statement is the most fertile fodder the Leftists of the world will ever find. This is a perfect forumla. Satan is a victim. Satan has been wronged. God is at fault. It's all God's fault.
This is the psychological arhetype at play in this story. The worst criminal, the despicable, is seen blaming the good (at least the better), and justifying his every thought, move, and action as Iraqi President. Saddam Hussein is guilty of no wrong, goes the story. Everyone else is guilty, and much more horribly, outrageously guilty than he.
Hussein is insulted that he should be accused. Hussein is offended that any Iraqi, or anyone else the world, should question his authority, his right, or his decisions.
This, from the man who put living human beings through shredding machines, who buried thousands of people alive, who mutilated, tortured and otherwise eliminated untold numbers of human beings--defying all outside investigation, who used deadly, crippling nerve gass on thousands of civilian Kurds in northern Iraq.
Is it just circumstancial, or cultural? Is this how he felt he had to deal with whom he considered his enemies? His own words condemn him, therefore, as a murderer, nothing other or less, for they show that he has no people, and that his country was a make-shift, artificial creation, much like Palestine, and other Arab countries. His regime was completely self-made. Whatever sense of pride his tyranny gave the few Iraqi people whom he used as his agents, it was completely fake.
Will the new Iraq survive this resurrection of the devil? Already some true colors are showing. Some question the trial, and feel defensive of Hussein, and some even want him back as president! Of course, our faithless allies, France and Germany, certainly don't want to see him executed, and demand that he be assured a "fair trial." Imagine, using the word "fair" in the same sentence with Saddam Hussein. This is the blindness of liberal idealism, this idolizing of the idea, and denying the realities before the world.
This is the advantage the Left always has in a culturally diverse setting, which is why the Left seeks to balkanize America through racial agitation. It's the Communist way.
It is a perilous time, and there is real uncertainty whether Hussein's resurrection will have a good or bad effect on the future of Iraq. One could question, Is justice really involved here, on an international level? Who exactly [i]are[/i] the Iraqi people, anyway? Do they even know, themselves? Hussein tried to unite an incredibly diverse body of people, and did so only through terror. Now there is a central group who wants to try the rule of law instead. What kind of people would refuse such a change? Herein is the nature of the Arab mind. Herein is the revelation of a people which may or may not be suited to objectivity. So far, they have never shown such inclination.
Indeed, it's more than Saddam Hussein being tried in Baghdad. Observe carefully, all. The world is on trial.