MASS GRAVES
Saddam Hussein’s government is believed to have buried as many as 300,000 opponents in 263 mass graves that dot the Iraqi landscape, the top human rights official in the U.S.-led civilian administration said Saturday.
Sandy Hodgkinson said the administration has been sending forensic teams to investigate those grave sites reported to U.S. officials. So far, the existence of about 40 graves has been confirmed.
“We have found mass graves with women and children with bullet holes in their heads,” she said.
President Bush has referred to Iraqi mass graves frequently in recent months, saying they provide evidence that the war to drive Saddam from power was justified.
But some human rights activists have criticized the U.S.-led administration in Iraq for moving too slowly to protect grave sites and begin excavations, and have expressed skepticism that it will ever fully identify who is buried in the mass graves.
“There is just no way — technologically, financially — that they’re going to deal with mass graves on this magnitude,” said Susannah Sirkin of Physicians for Human Rights in Boston.
Amazing.
(Hat tip: Stephen Green)
I assume these would be the same “human rights activists” who didn’t care that the mass graves existed in the first place.
Yeah- They don’t care that Saddam filled them, only that we can be blamed for not “doing more” to protect them.
Uh, when did these occur? Any ideas?
And how about the 3 million dead in DR Congo? Any word yet when we’re going to invade there for humanitarian reasons? Or what about Guatemala or the half dozen other places where death squads run amok in Central America.
I applaud your humanitarian re-justification.
Unfortunately, the guy is still at large, ain’t he? And given that GW is hot to cut n’ run before 2004 elections, how is Iraq not going to get worse? If we don’t catch the guy and we pull out, 300,000 is going to be small potatoes. . .
MAN the KOOL-Aid must be good.
Your argument is that since we have not been able to save the whole world simultaneously we should not save anyone. That is a good caring compassionate liberal argument for you.
If there are people dying in the Congo, then we should let the people in Iraq die.
I applaud your stupidity.
Silly Republicans we see the advantage of saving lives and stopping terrorism.
And as for cutting and running Bush keeps making statements that we will be there until we are finished, it is the Democrats that want us out.
I’ve said about 100 times that the reason you all are losing elections almost as fast as they are being held is that you all are delusional.
Thank you for proving my point.
MAN the KOOL-Aid must be good.
Your argument is that since we have not been able to save the whole world simultaneously we should not save anyone. That is a good caring compassionate liberal argument for you.
If there are people dying in the Congo, then we should let the people in Iraq die.
I applaud your stupidity.
Silly Republicans we see the advantage of saving lives and stopping terrorism.
And as for cutting and running Bush keeps making statements that we will be there until we are finished, it is the Democrats that want us out.
I’ve said about 100 times that the reason you all are losing elections almost as fast as they are being held is that you all are delusional.
Thank you for proving my point.
If JC is hinting that it was Bush 41 who let Saddam murder these people, then it only supports the notion that the UN shouldn’t guide our foreign policy. Bush 41 held that we could not take military action without explicit approval from the security council. So once we kicked Saddam out of Kuwait he had no legal authority to finish the job.
As far as the cut and run theory, I’m interested to know where you’ve heard this. As far as I can tell nearly all the Dem candidates want to cut and run and Bush just said the other day that we aren’t going to leave until the job is finished.
Oh wait… I get it… Bush didn’t actually say he’s going to cut and run but Michael Moore knows that that’s what he’s up to because he knows. After all a Republican could never engage in humanitarian causes unless there’s oil involved.