6 ms·

Hmm... it is unfortunate. I always remember him for pushing super hard for the invasion of Iraq and thus partially responsible for the deaths of 100,000s at lea

Hmm... it is unfortunate. I always remember him for pushing super hard for the invasion of Iraq and thus partially responsible for the deaths of 100,000s at least and also more than $T of funds used for that war: "Time is running short. Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. He is working on nuclear weapons. And he has every incentive to pass them on to terrorists who will use them against us." From: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2002/04/19/we-cant-blow-it-again/79cca890-0bea-4e2d-ba8b-3787989d87cf/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.79f457320126 https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2002/04/19/w...

Nimitz14 8y ago
It's really astonishing how many liberals in the west will defend the middle-east's version of Hitler. Go and tell an Iraqi Kurd it would have been better to leave Iraq under Saddam's rule. Also so convenient to absolve any of the half dozen other actors involved in the conflict of any blame. The deaths are all Bush, Wolfowitz's and so on fault (now also Krauthammer's according to you). Things are definitely not as simple as that.
- IOT_Apprentice 8y ago
  How many liberals? Convenient that the US propped Saddam up and provided him with chemical weapons for use against Iran and his own people. When it was no longer in Bush's interest he was toppled and then the provisional regime bungled the rebuilding of the infrastructure that the coalition destroyed, by putting in incompetent political cronies and party loyalists in charge of reconstruction. Conservatives invaded and destroyed the country and were so outrageously ignorant of the society, and breathtakingly stupid about fixing what they broke. Go and tell ANY Kurd how Turkey, Syria and Iran want no Kurdish state and will grind the Kurds down to prevent it. Then answer for how well the US will support the Kurds given Trump's love affair with Erdogan.
- bhouston 8y ago
  If the war was promoted based on facts and logic, it would have been different. I was not against the first Iraq war nor against the Afghanistan war -- those were straight forward and not based on lies. The Afghanistan war didn't go much better than the Iraq war either, thus it isn't about the after effects. The Iraq war was sold to the public based on lies and Charles Krauthammer was one of those key promoters pushing those lies. For a good segment of the population at the time it was very obvious this was being done.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > It's really astonishing how many liberals in the west will defend the middle-east's version of Hitler. Opposing the war of aggression waged immorally, illegally (under international law and arguably— given the bad faith in the application of the conditional authorization by Congress—under US law as well), and incompetently by the Bush Administration isn't the same thing as defending Saddam Hussein (who is no more the Middle East version of Hitler than many other past or current leaders in the Middle East, many of whom—including Saddam, at the peak of his most Hitler-like actions—have or had the direct backing of the U.S. government, including—again, also specifically in the case of Saddam Hussein—the particular individuals most responsible for military and defense policy in the Bush 43 Administration. )
leephillips 8y ago
Also the opinion and justification, at the time, of much of the U.S. Congress, both Democratic and Republican.
- atomical 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument, which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.
- atomical 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
mychael 8y ago
Democrats and Republicans alike pushed for it based on the intelligence available at the time [0]. To call him partially responsible for 100,000s of deaths is very unfair and not very classy considering he's dying soon. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War
- dnomad 8y ago
  He was absolutely responsible. He worked diligently to push America into a wholly unnecessary and absolutely evil war that destroyed a million human beings. He was a proud member of the conservative operation to deceive the whole world to justify the war. He repeatedly lied, over and over, before, during and after the war to enable the greatest crime of the 21st century. But -- oh, I forgot, he's American. He's a white guy. He's part of the elite. He gets to wash away his mistakes. We all know that the only people in America who are accountable for their mistakes are the poor minorities. So now we have to be kind to a man who engendered enormous suffering. Anything else is "rude." All is forgiven. Everybody makes mistakes.
  - mychael 8y ago
    It sounds like you have an axe to grind against Americans, and in particular, white men. We try to have reasoned discussion in this forum so perhaps Hacker News is not the best fit for you. Have you tried r/politics on Reddit?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - iron0013 8y ago
      It's disappointing to read this kind of curt dismissal here, and I feel that it goes very much against the spirit of the Hacker News forum. Instead of directing people to other venues, please take responsibility for your own actions and do your level best to elevate the conversation.
    - cloakandswagger 8y ago
tempaccnt123 8y ago
Across his entire career, he was a tireless advocate and apologist for brutality and extreme violence; in Iraq and in Israel especially. Needless to say, he's far from the only one, but there's very little worth celebrating in a public life that was dedicated to causes that inflicted such immense human suffering.
jessaustin 8y ago
It would be easier to feel sympathy for him, if he had ever apologized for his mistake...

Nimitz14 8y ago

It's really astonishing how many liberals in the west will defend the middle-east's version of Hitler. Go and tell an Iraqi Kurd it would have been better to leave Iraq under Saddam's rule. Also so convenient to absolve any of the half dozen other actors involved in the conflict of any blame. The deaths are all Bush, Wolfowitz's and so on fault (now also Krauthammer's according to you). Things are definitely not as simple as that.

IOT_Apprentice 8y ago
How many liberals? Convenient that the US propped Saddam up and provided him with chemical weapons for use against Iran and his own people. When it was no longer in Bush's interest he was toppled and then the provisional regime bungled the rebuilding of the infrastructure that the coalition destroyed, by putting in incompetent political cronies and party loyalists in charge of reconstruction. Conservatives invaded and destroyed the country and were so outrageously ignorant of the society, and breathtakingly stupid about fixing what they broke. Go and tell ANY Kurd how Turkey, Syria and Iran want no Kurdish state and will grind the Kurds down to prevent it. Then answer for how well the US will support the Kurds given Trump's love affair with Erdogan.
bhouston 8y ago
If the war was promoted based on facts and logic, it would have been different. I was not against the first Iraq war nor against the Afghanistan war -- those were straight forward and not based on lies. The Afghanistan war didn't go much better than the Iraq war either, thus it isn't about the after effects. The Iraq war was sold to the public based on lies and Charles Krauthammer was one of those key promoters pushing those lies. For a good segment of the population at the time it was very obvious this was being done.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> It's really astonishing how many liberals in the west will defend the middle-east's version of Hitler. Opposing the war of aggression waged immorally, illegally (under international law and arguably— given the bad faith in the application of the conditional authorization by Congress—under US law as well), and incompetently by the Bush Administration isn't the same thing as defending Saddam Hussein (who is no more the Middle East version of Hitler than many other past or current leaders in the Middle East, many of whom—including Saddam, at the peak of his most Hitler-like actions—have or had the direct backing of the U.S. government, including—again, also specifically in the case of Saddam Hussein—the particular individuals most responsible for military and defense policy in the Bush 43 Administration. )

leephillips 8y ago

Also the opinion and justification, at the time, of much of the U.S. Congress, both Democratic and Republican.

atomical 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument, which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.
atomical 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

mychael 8y ago

Democrats and Republicans alike pushed for it based on the intelligence available at the time [0]. To call him partially responsible for 100,000s of deaths is very unfair and not very classy considering he's dying soon. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War

dnomad 8y ago
He was absolutely responsible. He worked diligently to push America into a wholly unnecessary and absolutely evil war that destroyed a million human beings. He was a proud member of the conservative operation to deceive the whole world to justify the war. He repeatedly lied, over and over, before, during and after the war to enable the greatest crime of the 21st century. But -- oh, I forgot, he's American. He's a white guy. He's part of the elite. He gets to wash away his mistakes. We all know that the only people in America who are accountable for their mistakes are the poor minorities. So now we have to be kind to a man who engendered enormous suffering. Anything else is "rude." All is forgiven. Everybody makes mistakes.
- mychael 8y ago
  It sounds like you have an axe to grind against Americans, and in particular, white men. We try to have reasoned discussion in this forum so perhaps Hacker News is not the best fit for you. Have you tried r/politics on Reddit?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - iron0013 8y ago
    It's disappointing to read this kind of curt dismissal here, and I feel that it goes very much against the spirit of the Hacker News forum. Instead of directing people to other venues, please take responsibility for your own actions and do your level best to elevate the conversation.
  - cloakandswagger 8y ago

tempaccnt123 8y ago

Across his entire career, he was a tireless advocate and apologist for brutality and extreme violence; in Iraq and in Israel especially. Needless to say, he's far from the only one, but there's very little worth celebrating in a public life that was dedicated to causes that inflicted such immense human suffering.

jessaustin 8y ago

It would be easier to feel sympathy for him, if he had ever apologized for his mistake...