Watch "What's Next for Hussein -- 3:13 CNN.com Video
Now what about Donald Rumsfeld?
On my Iraq webpage, I link to a number of instances of U.S. Support for Saddam Hussein, especially during Saddam's war against Iraq, but now more notably a meeting between Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein over a year after the crime for which Saddam has now been sentenced to death.
Will Rumsfeld fly to Iraq to again shake hands with America's old friend Saddam Hussein as he awaits execution?
Americans continue to support the neoconservative empire which now masquerades as "America," and this support depends entirely on Americans not knowing what the empire is doing, and has been doing for several decades.
Willliam Norman Grigg notes on his blog that American support for the neoconservative empire is not limited to "conservatives," but even "liberals" have supported the neoconservative agenda:
Back in October 21, 2002, The New American Magazine detailed how Rumsfeld, during the 1980's, and with the support of many "liberals," had been "Building the Beast of Baghdad" as part of the broad agenda of "Kissinger Associates and a shadowy network of financial cut-outs."
In 1987, about five years after Saddam presided over the massacre that prompted today's death sentence, The New Republic -- a consistent supporter of military action against Iraq since 1990 -- published an essay entitled "Back Iraq," which urged Washington to offer Baghdad material and strategic support against Iran (which had, in fact, been Washington's policy since the beginning of the decade, although it offered occasional support for Tehran as well).
Like the Bush-Clinton-Bush Administrations, Saddam was a secularist who presided over a secular dictatorship, which occasionally appealed to the religious sentiments of his electoral "base," but really did nothing to move his government toward becoming a "theocracy." (It's amazing how many liberals are as fooled as the religious right is about the Christian commitment of the Dubya Administration.)
Unlike the Bush-Clinton-Bush Administrations, Saddam Hussein did not go around the world stationing Iraqi troops to compel foreign nations to adopt "pro-Iraqi" policies. As Grigg observes:
It is those for whom Saddam acted as a subcontractor -- the architects of the Glorious Global Democratic Revolution -- who lust to re-order the lives of millions through the use of lethal violence.
If Saddam deserves to experience the long drop to the end of the hangman's rope, he should be joined on the scaffold by those who gave him the material means and political support to commit his crimes, as well as those who are exploiting the memory of those atrocities to advance their own murderous designs.
America's Founding Fathers insisted on a non-political foreign policy. That vision, along with the rest of the Constitution, was long ago discarded in favor of "U.S. hegemony." Both Republicans and Democrats are united behind this modern imperialism. Only the Libertarians stand with America's Founding Fathers and their "experiment in liberty."
Your vote on Tuesday is your declaration of whether you stand with America's Founding Fathers and "Liberty Under God." If you vote for a Republican who has voted with the neoconservatives during his time in office, you are choosing to stand with Saddam, Rumsfeld, Kissinger, and all those who have funded murder and dictatorship around the world.