Just one example. Go to the link and see the rest.

One thing to keep in mind is that Saddam Hussein was convicted for a 1982 atrocity at Dujail where 148 people were killed. He was not tried for his more horrendous crimes such as the chemical weapons attack on Halabja in 1988 which killed 5000 people and was part of a larger anti-Kurd campaign that claimed b/t 50000-100000 lives. It is widely accepted that this is because such a trial would draw attention to the fact that back then Saddam was a US ally and the Reagan/Bush I administrations successfully shielded Iraq from the outcry. So far I have not any explanation for this from the Bush II administration or its defenders.

[1]

Explanation? I doubt you will get one. Its not who he killed or how many, but who benefited or hurt. To try to explain that would mean saying that the past Republican administratiosn where FOR Saddam BEFORE they were against him. Besides, St. Ronnie is beyond reproach.