Of course he's silent. He'd be happy to be "dictator of America" if he could get away with it... as would have been Bush!
At least Bush killed a dictator (Saddam Hussein), where as Obama would have invited Saddam to the White House for tea, and to speak to him without any conditions.
Gingrich misses the point. We're supposed to speak out for the people only when it benefits the USA? How about speaking out for the people because we support the cause of democracy? because it's the right thing to do? Obviously it's no simple matter. Why not support the President and how he's handling things rather than try to be a Monday morning quarterback? Newt, STFU
Ovomit is silent when our enemy's are murdering their people in mass but he is quick to condemn our friends and allies for anything he finds at fault. Notice how he was quick to toss Mubarak under the bus but he is silent on the atrocities in Libya and Iran. To say he is a weak president is an understatement. His policies are just stupid.
Actually, American soldiers found Saddam quivering and hiding in a spider hole. He was then turned over to the Iraqi authorities where he was tried, convicted, and hung!!! If it weren't for Bush, Hussien would still be running Iraq and killing his own people. So Bush gets full kudos for killing Saddam!!!
There seems to be some confusion as to exactly how the capture developed. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aUBP42FLX880
LOL.. If it were a choice of taking the word of Iraqi Kurds or our own military forces, I'll take the word of our own American forces. At least we have 'actual footage' of Hussien being captured by our military. If the Kurds would have custody of him before we did, o'l Saddam would have been immediately killed. After all, Hussien was responsible for the killing of untold numbers of Kurds. So I don't believe one word of the Bloomberg article.