Newsweek to Give Cover to Ford and Not Saddam
 

Newsweek Magazine has decided to put fomer President Ford on the cover of the magazine rather than Saddam. In this article, they explain their decision.


http://drudgereport.com/flash.htm

Very fitting decision. I agree with it 100%...

ALostTexan

I will be interested to read what they have to say about him when the article comes out. They will give you a fair and balanced view about his life and his legacy. They will give you both the good and the bad.

makes sense to me, to have on the cover a former president who died of old age, rather than a rotten, murdering dictator who didn't...
i didn't feel much of anything about saddam and being put to death. shoulda happened many, many years ago. would have saved a lot of lives.

ford disagreed with our involvement in iraq...saddam is a current event...is the usa a tool for the zionists ?

How friggen drunk were you when you posted that? One sicko..

Ez

I expected such nonsense in a response. I simply put forth a point of view to ponder what the heck is going on over there. Don't waste our time with your brainwashed drivel. If you don't have a legitimate response, why respond ?

IMO I support the State of Israel. But Bush's foreign policy based on lies is over the edge for me.

Not sure when the topic changed from Ford to Bush??? In any event, I agree that Ford's place in history will be of greater significance and his passing deserves the cover.

Just two leaders doing what they thought was best for their countries.
Each felt they did what was right.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1980988,00.html

omg, you're kidding, right?! right????
saddamm did things for many reasons, but i seriously doubt he considered what was best for his country. only what was best for HIMSELF.
not quite sure the point about saddam feeding some birds. showed more compassion to animals than to his fellow man.

hell, hitler was good to his dog too. well, til he poisoned one to make sure that stuff worked before he and wifey committed suicide.

also, dts, i have to say you continue to amaze. post a feel good story about saddam--why, you feel more compassion, and show more, to a confirmed monster than to your own president. i guess saddam was a liberal...oh, wait, an independant.

Danzig,
I did not intend to offend you or anyone else with my statement that both leaders did what they felt was in the best interests of their countries.

It is difficult for many to see beyond personal bias and the propaganda that is fed to all of us. They lead to opinions, strongly held, however, not factual history. Facts are proven by time.
I will not present facts concerning dictatorships: Manarchos-Phillipines, Mobutu-Zaire, Pinochet-Chile, Suharto-Indonesia. If you need information on them, "google" will educate as to the administration that supported them.
Here is some historical information regarding Saddam Hussein. Note item #5.
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/20...804&frame=true

Again, let's debate facts. Please refrain from attacks based on whatever "political party" your speculation construes. This doesn't address the topic.
Yes, I agree that Saddam Hussein and Hitler were very bad dictators.

As a liberal, I find comparing liberalism to Hussein really offensive. But I guess I should expect that kind of malicious, mindless discourse from a conservative. Oh wait, an independent.

(wink)

It's pretty clear this course of action in Iraq has made things worse than ever there. There might be a link between our action and the funding of the suicide bombers in Israel at the beginning of this war. This was a serious problem and it has since lessened. Saddam funded many families of the volunteer bombers. Those internal attacks in Israel have almost stopped since this war began. I mean, I really don't know why we are there. At first I supported the WMD thing. It turned out to be a lie and the UN was doing their job.

We want the future Iraq to be an ally in the war on terror. Iran was an ally, Iraq was an ally. Somewhere things went wrong for the USA.

Danzig,
I find that Yogi Berra's words might make a bit of sense, "The future ain't what it used to be."
Then again, maybe your mention of Hitler sparked a historical fact, a despotic leader seeking to unleash a fantasy on those whose minds he's gained control over by telling them that they were the best, entitled, and needed to follow his imperialistic agenda. Doing less would question the wisdom of his actions and be seen as "unpatriotic". Britain stood alone against the insanity of his actions, despite their failed attempt to negotiate a reasonable outcome with a madman.
http://www.johndclare.net/RoadtoWWII5.htm

Is it any wonder that many people see similar cause for alarm by the actions of another despot on March 20, 2003? Are the motives seen differently?
One was to find land for Arian farmers, one to find oil for an addicted populace, and sources for well connected energy brokers.

Yes, my guess like yogi's is that the future ain't what it used to be, but then again, maybe it is.

Don't insult me. :p

I'm a conservative and I didn't compare liberalism to Hussein.

LOL! I think DTS carries the self-flagulation a bit too far, US has made many mistakes but we'll keep trying! The world is better off without Saddam and I fail to see how any rational person would say he was doing what he felt was best for his country...whether the Iraqi people are better off with the mess we've made of their country is another issue entirely!

:)

I'm a conservative as well and would like for us to conserve our money and just nuke the place. :)

LMFAO!!! :D