Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gutfelf Mocks NBC News Reporter for Claim Saddam Hussein was "Moderating" Prior to War - Video
Freedom's Lighthouse ^ | September 6, 2010 | Brian

Posted on 09/06/2010 7:03:49 AM PDT by Federalist Patriot

Here is video of Laura Ingraham and Greg Gutfeld mocking NBC News Foreign Correspondent Richard Engel for making the claim last week that Saddam Hussein was “moderating” just ahead of the U.S.-led liberation of the Iraqi people from his brutal and despotic regime. Engel seemed to suggest that if the U.S. had not invaded and left him alone, Saddam was becoming more “accommodating” and was ready to join the family of nations.

To that, Gutfeld had a sharp response:

“He said he was being more moderate. You have to ask him what he means by “moderate” – was he talking about his alcohol intake? Was he going to cut back on his booze? Or was he only going to gas half as many Kurds? Or tells his sons they could only rape women every other weekend? Or maybe he was becoming more environmentally-friendly and was going to use renewable car-batteries when he electrocuted his citizens? So, we need him to give us specifics on what he means by “moderation.”"

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: greggutfeld; nbc; saddam

1 posted on 09/06/2010 7:03:54 AM PDT by Federalist Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Federalist Patriot

Kicking out the U.N. weapons inspectors was a very moderate response. I guess he could have dropped them into plastic shredders instead.

2 posted on 09/06/2010 7:05:42 AM PDT by Flag_This (Real presidents don't bow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Federalist Patriot
Richard Engel said that Saddam Hussein was “PROBABLY” getting more moderate.

Well, was he or wasn't he?

What kind of reporting is this?

3 posted on 09/06/2010 7:09:31 AM PDT by GOP_Lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Federalist Patriot

Then there was the matter of the hundreds of thousands in the mass graves.... call them moderate graves

4 posted on 09/06/2010 7:11:29 AM PDT by joelt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Lady

What kind of reporting ?
Weak. Pitifully weak.

5 posted on 09/06/2010 7:13:24 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (Impeachment !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

You’re right.

I was also thinking “MADE UP.” ;-)

6 posted on 09/06/2010 7:17:33 AM PDT by GOP_Lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Federalist Patriot

And if you can’t get their player to load try:

7 posted on 09/06/2010 7:22:09 AM PDT by InABunkerUnderSF (Anyone who has read Roman history knows a barbarian invasion when they see one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Federalist Patriot

We love Greg here! Very good show

8 posted on 09/06/2010 7:25:45 AM PDT by WhyisaTexasgirlinPA (I'd rather drink Tea than Koolaid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Federalist Patriot

slaughtering a high percentage of the unruly citizens in ones control does have a moderating effect on a country.

9 posted on 09/06/2010 7:31:52 AM PDT by mmercier (hug a commie for mommy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Federalist Patriot

Moderate muslims = Those that don’t eat their dead

10 posted on 09/06/2010 7:38:17 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (Obama. Chauncey Gardiner without the homburg.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Lady

NBC reporter claims “insider” information on Saddam turned up at the Dew Drop Inn in Alexandria, VA.

11 posted on 09/06/2010 7:46:07 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (Impeachment !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Federalist Patriot
The main reason we invaded Iraq likely had to do with the anthrax attacks which followed immediately after 9/11.

It does not take hundreds of tons of anthrax spores to create havoc. The sum total which was used was a few teaspoons full. In other words, a lifetime supply of that sort of thing for a guy like Saddam Hussein could easily amount to a hundred pounds worth, and I guarantee that I could hide that in a country the size of Iraq so that it would not be found.

The question of whether or not Hussein had 1000 tons of anthrax powder is simply the wrong question. The right questions are, did the guy have the motive, the technical resources, the financial wherewithal, the facilities, and the intel apparatus to play that sort of game, and the answers to all of those questions are obvious.

The first case of anthrax after 9-11 (Bob Stevens) showed up within miles of where several hijackers stayed JUST BEFORE 9/11, a very unlikely coincidence considering that they could have stayed anywhere in the country.

The last previous case of anthrax in a human in the United States prior to 9-11 had been about 30 years prior to that.

There are other coincidences. For instance, the wife of the editor of the sun (where Stevens worked) also had contact with the hijackers in that she rented them the place they stayed.

Atta and the hijackers flew planes out of an airport in the vicinity and asked about crop dusters on more than one occasion. Indeed, Atta sought a loan to try and modify a crop duster.

Atta and several of the hijackers in this group also sought medical aid just prior to 9/11 for skin lesions that the doctors who saw them now say looked like anthrax lesions.

Basically, you either believe in the laws of probability or you don't. Anybody claiming that all these things were coincidences is either totally in denial or does not believe in modern mathematics and probability theory.

While the anthrax in question originally came from a US strain, it isn't too surprising that Iraq might have that strain since that strain was mailed to laboratories around the world years earlier.

Nonetheless, it was highly sophisticated, and went through envelope paper as if it weren't even there; many thought it to be not only beyond the capabilities of Hussein but of anybody else on the planet as well including us. Nonetheless, later information showed Husseins programs to be capable of such feats:

Basically, the anthrax attack which followed 9/11 had Saddam Hussein's fingerprints all over it. It was particalized so finely it went right through envelop paper and yet was not weaponized (not hardened against antibiotics). It was basically a warning, saying as much as:

"Hey, fools, some of my friends just knocked your two towers down and if you try to do anything about it, this is what could happen. F*** you, and have a nice day!!"

There is no way an American who had had anything to do with that would not be behind bars by now. In fact the one American they originally suspected told investigators that if he'd had anything to do with that stuff, he would either have anthrax or have the antibodies from the preventive medicine in his blood and offered to take a blood test on the spot. That of course was unanswerable.

The basic American notion of a presumption of innocence is not meaningful or useful in cases like that of Saddam Hussein. Even the Japanese had the decency to have their own markings on their aircraft at Pearl Harbor; Nobody had to guess who did it. Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, is like the kid in school who was always standing around snickering when things went bad, but who could never be shown to have had a hand in anything directly. At some point, guys would start to kick that guy's ass periodically on general principles. Likewise, in the case of Saddam Hussein, the reasonable assumption is that he's guilty unless he somehow or other manages to prove himself innocent and, obviously, that did not happen.

At the time, the US military was in such disarray from the eight years of the Clinton regime that there was nothing we could do about it. Even such basic items as machinegun barrels, which we should have warehouses full of, were simply not there. Nonetheless, nobody should think they would get away with such a thing and, apparently, Hussein and his baathists didn't.

Bob Woodward's book "Bush at War" documents some of this:

'Cheney?s chief of staff, Scooter Libby, quickly questions the wisdom of mentioning state sponsorship. Tenet, sensitive to the politics of Capitol Hill and the news media, terminates any discussion of state sponsorship with the clear statement:

"I'm not going to talk about a state sponsor."

'Vice President Cheney further drives the point home:

"It's good that we don't, because we're not ready to do anything about it."

Even simple things like body armor, ammunition, and machinegun barrels which we should have warehouses full of simply weren't there, i.e. they'd been sold off at 40 cents on the dollar for DNC money. A friend of mine called up one of the nation's premier barrel makers about a barrel for a target rifle in early 02 and was told that they were working 24/7 making machinegun barrels and didn't have time for any sort of civilian firearm business.

Now, a president in W's position taking over after the 8 years of total mismanagement and abuse of this perverted Klintler administration had about two choices after 9/11: He could do what he actually did, or he could do what many Americans probably have done, which would be to nuke Mecca, Medina, Rihyad, Falluja, and every other den of slammite terrorism on the planet and ban the practice of I-slam throughout the world.

A reasonable person would probably like to at least try what W. has first.

12 posted on 09/06/2010 7:53:18 AM PDT by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson