That slur: "Saddamite" -- as in someone who opposes the U.S. mass-murder of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis. That slur is so mindless. But it's worse than mindless. It makes no sense at all. Non-interventionists surely opposed U.S. support of Saddam in the 1980s. This was when he committed his worst crimes, which retroactively became one of the biggest "reasons" for Gulf War II. Were the interventionists Saddamites then? More so than the antiwar people are now, I would say.
The liberventionist defense of it goes as follows: "We" needed to back Saddam, because "we" were fighting the Iranians (who didn't like "us" ever since "we" put the Shah in power in the 1950s -- but that's another story).
This, of course, is interesting reasoning. If it was worth it to fund Saddam back when he was being a major bad guy in the 1980s, because he was "'our' major bad guy" and "we" were fighting the Iranians, why is it that he can be condemned for crimes back then? Wasn't he simply fighting the Cold War? If millions of bombed innocents in Indochina was okay, why can't Saddam get some slack here?
Of course, the principled answer is because he was still an aggressor, Cold War or not. But the liberventionists think it was worth it back then, even if it makes the Cold War ally a retroactive war criminal. I guess that means supporters of Gulf War II are retroactive "Ayatollahites"
