Saddam Hussein, acccording to the Bush Administration, was a bad enough dude for the world that we were justified in taking him out. Therefore, it only makes sense that we should put him back in power because he knew how to keep the country under control, or so says Michael Savage:
On the September 12 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, Michael Savage asserted that "we should bring back Saddam, a Sunni, because he knows how to control the Shia." Savage added: "You can laugh all you want. He knew how to control them; he knew how to keep these maniacs under control. And he was also a counterbalance to Iran."
Bill O'Reilly had a similar suggestion earlier:
On the June 19 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly declared that if he were the president of Iraq, he would run the country "just like Saddam [Hussein] ran it," by establishing curfews and shooting violators "right between the eyes." On the June 27 edition of his radio program, O'Reilly suggested that "[i]f we wage the war the way Saddam handled Iraq, then we would have already won."
Either scenario would make America seem "off the deep end" even moreso than we already are. How sensible is it to go to the trouble (some understatement there!) of removing the menace who was, according to Bushites, a threat to world security only to do one of two things:
1. Put him back in power, or
2. Mimic the actions of a man we deemed dangerous enough to warrant an invasion to take him out.
Yeah. Really. Ask a question of two whackjobs and there you have it. And these guys have loyal followers?
from MediaMatters
No comments:
Post a Comment