Posted on 01/27/2008 2:49:33 PM PST by AlternateEgo
..."Whatever the true story, though, we continue to believe the Bush and Coalition allies had no choice but to invade, given the assessment that Saddam was a real threat.
And make no mistake: He was.
Anyway, he got what he deserved.
But America needs to heed the underlying message: Dictators won't respond to threats they don't take seriously. Had the US record reflected greater toughness, the war itself might have been averted."
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
It’s Clinton’s fault!
I wonder if the editors of the Times are aware of the proverb: A broken clock is right twice a day.
Of course, had Bush 41 or Bubba 42 taken out Saddam, then the Nutty Left would have nothing to argue against GWB.
Thugs around the world are going to learn this lesson: when a Democrat is in the White House, it’s party time. When a Republican is President, watch your step.
Result: more and more open campaigning for the Democrats by thugs and dictators.
Every president who made a threat and didn’t follow through, every member of congress who “visited” a dictator, every hollywierd actor and actress who sucked up to a dictator for a photo op, every media talking head who “analzed” our news for us and every voter who “didn’t care” own a part of this.
*They aren't 'anti-war', they are anti-American. They only oppose wars, in which America is involved. They never, ever, ever protest any other war. They never, ever, ever protest the savagery are barbarity of the terrorists. We haven't come up with a better word to describe the Pinkos, defeatists, anti-Americans yet.
“Of course, had Bush 41 or Bubba 42 taken out Saddam, then the Nutty Left would have nothing to argue against GWB.”
Except that small detail about Florida and the stolen election!!!
You need lessons on how to post.
Announcements – Notifications of Activism events, FR business
Breaking News - Not every story is breaking news. Breaking news should be news that affects most of us. There are some exceptions. If there is a hot current event happening, check breaking news. Most likely, it's there already, please check first, then use our search function.
Editorial - Editorials are opinions. Some vanities, if well written and thought out can be considered editorial material.
Extended News - Extended news is for stories which have been posted previously and have updated or newer information.
Free Republic - This category is reserved for Free Republic business.
Front Page News - Front page is for stories which are not breaking news, but would be found on the front page of a newspaper.
Fixed.
Sorry, but that's an ahistorical statement.
When the US threatened Saddam, we had just come off finishing off the Taliban. GWB was taken seriously.
The PROBLEM, in a nutshell, was Chirac and the French. The French, and their actions in the UN security council, were seen as a life preserver to Saddam, and gave him hope that he could wait out GWB's political offensive and survive.
The actions of the French made the US "surounding Iraq" tactic fail to dislodge Saddam, and made the invasion inevitable.
Let the shame lay where it deserves.
So how does one demonstrate toughness? This means we should have finished Saddam off in the early 90s.
This is true at more than one level. In the late nineties France and Russia both signed multi-billion dollar oil development contracts with Saddam that were worthless while sanctions continued, and worthless if Saddam were forced out of office. When I saw that, I knew and predicted, really anyone could predict, that Saddam was coming out of his box. Sanctions were on the way out, the only question was how best to orchestrate it.
And so the PR campaign commenced about all the millions of dead Iraqi children caused by sanctions, ad nauseum, ad infinitum.
In fact, the biggest problem to ending sanctions is that everyone was making so darn much money off of them. Finally Saddam threatened both France and Russia that he would cancel the contracts if they didn't get off the dime.
This means, for anyone paying attention, that Saddam had already bought off at least two members of the security council, as well as UN administrators. When Bush entered office I believed then that war was Bush's only choice, and I read remarks he made during the campaign and the early days of his presidency as indicating (to me at least) that he fully understood that war was necessary. It was never about WMD, it was about the fact that sanctions were on the way out. It was take him down quickly, or face an empowered Saddam returning to the world stage with UN, Russian, and EU backing.
But you can't really explain that publicly, so you blab on about WMD.
Saddam really was a “perfect enemy”. That is, he went out of his way to do everything he could to guarantee American action. Almost by the numbers. He broke every international rule he could, clearing the path for the US. He even humiliated his international supporters, who while not liking him, dislike the US more.
Compare him to Iran. While also full of bluff and bluster, arrogance and belligerence, Iran knows when to back down, such as when Reagan was elected. Iran knows that you can only taunt the tiger so much before you become lunch.
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.