Saddam's Capture: The new 'Bush Conspiracy'

[wallie_x]

Let the Spin begin!!!

Rep. Jim McDermott (search), D-Wash., told a Seattle radio station Monday the U.S. military could have found Saddam "a long time ago if they wanted." Asked if he thought the weekend capture was timed to help Bush, McDermott chuckled and said: "Yeah. Oh, yeah."
The Democratic congressman went on to say, "There's too much by happenstance for it to be just a coincidental thing."

The counter punch:

"Once again McDermott has embarrassed this state with his irresponsible ranting," GOP state Chairman Chris Vance said in a news release. "Calling on him to apologize is useless, but I call on other Democrats to let the public know if they agree with McDermott -- and Howard Dean who recently said he thought it was possible that President Bush had advance knowledge about 9/11. The voters deserve to know if the entire Democratic Party believes in these sorts of bitter, paranoid conspiracy theories.

The truly sad thing is that they must think quite a few people are stupid enough to believe such unadulterated tripe or they wouldn't try to pass such crud off as truth.

HERE!
(Edited for spelling early morning [for me] no coffee)

[Bill in SD, CA]

Actually the Dems are now saying Bush may have captured the wrong guy.



(From Letterman)



Bill

[Droppyale]

[J-Excel]

Hows this?... Saddam is a POW and showing him in the news is a violation of the Geneva Convention.

The far left will attack this great news any way they can. That is the only thing they are good at.

[osprey4]

Ok, guys, I'm sorry but I'm going to have to blow the lid off this entire conspiracy. The guy they captured was really....






Elvis.

[Target]

The far left will attack this great news any way they can. That is the only thing they are good at.

And evidently, the only thing the far right is good at is attacking the far left.

If, IF, Saddam is classified as a POW, then showing him on television is a violation of Geneva Convention. Right, wrong, or indifferent, the Geneva Convention and its stipulations are what they are. Its not like they are open to subjective interpretation.

Do I think Saddam should be classified as a POW? Nope, not at all. Do I think he should have been shown on TV? Absolutely. Should he be tried for crimes against humanity, murder, as a war criminal (Iran/Iraq and Kuwait), and anything else they can prove? Without a doubt.......