Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Vindicated for Removing Saddam
Frontpagemag.com ^ | 22 July 10 | Ryan Mauro

Posted on 07/24/2010 6:03:57 AM PDT by LSUfan

President Bush’s top political advisor, Karl Rove, said on July 15 that his biggest mistake was not fighting back against Democrats trying to score cheap political points by accusing the President of lying to get the country to support an invasion of Iraq. Rove is right, but another mistake was made: not trying to vindicate the removal of Saddam Hussein using evidence, including Iraqi government documents, that was obtained after the regime’s overthrow. Compelling evidence exists to show that Saddam’s regime was sponsoring terrorists (e.g., Al-Qaeda), had the ability to quickly produce weapons of mass destruction, and the will to use both against its enemies.

(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: alqaeda; iraq; jihad; osamabinladen; saddam; terrorism; wmd; wot

1 posted on 07/24/2010 6:04:01 AM PDT by LSUfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
Karl Rove, said on July 15 that his biggest mistake was not fighting back against Democrats trying to score cheap political points by accusing the President of lying to get the country to support an invasion of Iraq.

Was this published in "Duh" Magazine?

I remember being one of the Freepers who was pulling his hair out over the lack of response to the lies. I was labeled a "Bush Basher".

2 posted on 07/24/2010 6:33:11 AM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Judas Iscariot - the first social justice advocate. John 12:3-6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler

Agreed. Bush just didn’t make the case for Iraq to the American people over the din from the Red Press.

Anyone with common sense would be able to understand why being rid of Saddam was necessary.


3 posted on 07/24/2010 6:37:54 AM PDT by jazminerose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

Anyone who believes this was a ‘mistake’ isn’t paying enough attention. You don’t get to the big leagues making minor league errors like these boys supposedly did.

No, politics is nothing but theatre and all of the players read from the same script.

Wake up people! How come the Pubbies always seem to get ‘taken’ by the Rats? Are they that stupid? Not at all. It’s just theatre. Don’t ever forget that...


4 posted on 07/24/2010 6:48:29 AM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

the momentum for slapping down the media was not there at the time- not like it is now

Bush was a victim of CNNBCBSPBSMSNBCNPR

Up until they talked the economy into the tank things were fine for 7.5 years

People (just 2 years later) are more aware that the media is a bunch of leftist LIARS more than ever before


5 posted on 07/24/2010 6:49:52 AM PDT by Mr. K (Physically unable to proofreed (<---oops! see?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

Bush would curl up in a ball when the Rats started the lying marathons,The only ones he talked down too were US! calling American citizens racists for not wanting the entire population of dregs from south of the border here with us.


6 posted on 07/24/2010 6:53:57 AM PDT by Cheetahcat (Zero the Wright kind of Racist! We are in a state of War with Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
Compelling evidence exists to show that Saddam’s regime was sponsoring terrorists (e.g., Al-Qaeda), had the ability to quickly produce weapons of mass destruction, and the will to use both against its enemies

You mean we had/have "compelling evidence" that Saddam sponsored terrorism and we didn't make it public?

7 posted on 07/24/2010 6:54:18 AM PDT by Riodacat (Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." ‹(•¿•)›)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

What. Bush didn’t know that no one was watching any of those stations?


8 posted on 07/24/2010 6:58:08 AM PDT by kempster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Riodacat

That evidence has been around for at least 2 years:

The Truth About Saddam and Terrorism

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25604/


9 posted on 07/24/2010 7:00:45 AM PDT by LSUfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
From the article:

One document details a meeting between Iraqi intelligence and Osama Bin Laden in 1995, where Bin Laden asked the Iraqis to broadcast the sermons of an extremist cleric. He also requested joint operations against foreign military forces in Saudi Arabia. Apparently, the Iraqis actively entertained this idea. The Iraqi Perspectives Project found [15] a government manual from 2001 talking about how to overthrow the Saudi Royal Family involving the use of “martyrs.” A Kurdish newspaper published [16] a 2002 document mentioning preparations for a meeting with Ayman al-Zawahiri in relation to a Saddam-approved “revenge operation” against the Saudis. One Al-Qaeda document [17] confirms that some members of the terrorist group had gone to Iraq and that Ayman al-Zawahiri had visited both Iraq and Iran.

It sounds like Saddam scared the hell out of Bush's buddies in the House of Saud, just like back in '91.

10 posted on 07/24/2010 7:01:43 AM PDT by Sarajevo (You're jealous because the voices only talk to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazminerose

It’s like I was living in a dream world during this era. I could have sworn I attended a town hall meeting in Columbus, Ohio February 1998. I must have dreamed I heard Madeline Albright, Sandy Berger and Richard Cohen lay out their case for action in Iraq.
It’s like it never happened.
When you heard the word ‘quagmire’ uttered merely days after the invasion, you knew the direction this was headed.
God Bless our troops for doing the right thing. And to hell with the politicians that thwarted the efforts of a swift and clean operation.


11 posted on 07/24/2010 7:04:38 AM PDT by griswold3 ('Regulation and law without enforcement is no law at all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
Whenever people say to me that we shouldn't have gone in to Iraq I always say ‘then you were ok with Saddam Hussein's reign?’. I always point out that he would still be in power if not for the fact that we found him and executed him. They usually try to talk around that but it's no use. The Iraq War, though mismanaged at times, was the right thing to do. Big Media has done a good job of demonizing the good guys, the USA.
12 posted on 07/24/2010 7:06:59 AM PDT by originalbuckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

This is what pisses me off about GOP. Their rope-a-dope stategy, throw up your hands to deflect punches, but don’t counterpunch.

GO AFTER THEM . . .PUT THEM ON THE DEFENSIVE . . . they can’t justify their own BS so hold them accountable and call them out.

Sometimes being a good streetfighter is worth it.


13 posted on 07/24/2010 7:08:15 AM PDT by A_Former_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

>> President Bush’s top political advisor, Karl Rove, said on July 15 that his biggest mistake was not fighting back against Democrats...

You can just stop right there, Karl — because the statement is true not only of America’s involvement in Iraq, but on so many other topics as well.

Not for nothing do they call the GOP the “Stupid Party”.


14 posted on 07/24/2010 7:08:56 AM PDT by Nervous Tick (Eat more spinach! Make Green Jobs for America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

Remember back to 2004, Rove’s behind-the-scenes mantra was “No More War in ‘04.”

He’ll deny it now, but he was going to his close friend Grover Norquist’s Wednesday meetings telling conservative policy wonks that they needed to get the war off the front pages to be able to push their domestic agenda.

This was by design. It wasn’t a mere mistake. It was an irresponsible miscalculation in which he threw our war effort under the bus for pure politics. And if you look at their “compassionate conservative” domestic policies, it leaves you wondering, “What for?”

And people should remember that part of those politics was immigration “reform,” which Rove is every bit as bad on as Obama, though he ducks the issue now. That too was a serious “mistake,” that wasn’t truly a “mistake,” but a political miscalculation designed to payback Hispanic voters for helping Bush in Texas.


15 posted on 07/24/2010 7:23:01 AM PDT by LSUfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

Yes, GWB’s shameful attempt to shove amnesty down our throats is an ugly blot on an otherwise fine presidency.


16 posted on 07/24/2010 7:27:52 AM PDT by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

The Bush Administration were the world’s worst political communicators. They paved the way for Obama and huge Democrat majorities. Thank you, George and Karl. We really appreciated it.


17 posted on 07/24/2010 7:29:06 AM PDT by Jabba the Nutt (Are they insane, stupid or just evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

If this wasn’t obvious 6 years ago to anyone paying attention, you’d have to be a moron not to realize this in 2010. Can you imagine I’mANutJob and Saddam in an all-out sprint to acquire nukes? Given how hapless Obama has been in even being able to slow down Iran’s dash to acquire a nuclear capability, the notion he could have successfully “contained” the allegedly “boxed-in” Saddam is ludicrous.

As bad as the situation already is in the Middle East, it would be an order of magnitude worse with Saddam still in power. Of course, you will never get Obama, Biden, Pelosi or other war critics to ever concede this point.


18 posted on 07/24/2010 7:47:26 AM PDT by DrC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: originalbuckeye; DrC
Who would you recommend to take the helm in Iraq now that Saddam is gone?

Face it, the country needs a dictator to keep it under control. A moderate won't cut it. Right now, there is a huge schism between the Sunni and the Shia. Al-Maliki won't give up his seat as the Prime Minister, even though Allawi narrowly won the elections last March. Al-Maliki is in the Iranian camp, yet he is seen by some in the region as being pro-US.

Allawi, who is secular and pro-US, is holding meetings with al-Sadr in Damascus <-think Syrian influence here.

The entire regime is corrupt, from the bottom to the top, and it's a wreck.

Saddam may have been a tyrant and a piece of crap, but he was a known quantity in the region.

19 posted on 07/24/2010 8:06:02 AM PDT by Sarajevo (You're jealous because the voices only talk to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: griswold3

Amen.

I agree with every word you posted.


20 posted on 07/24/2010 8:19:26 AM PDT by jazminerose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
Loftus also agrees that putting forth the significant evidence of Saddam’s WMD capabilities and ties to terrorism could have shifted public opinion.

“The Bush Administration didn’t make a competent argument to defend its position because they weren’t competent enough to assess the intelligence,”

Obviously this Loftus guy isn't competent enough to assess the lying colluding leftist media and the dimwits that hang on their every anti republican word.

21 posted on 07/24/2010 8:27:55 AM PDT by Gumption
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
That evidence has been around for at least 2 years:

The Truth About Saddam and Terrorism

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25604/

I'm not talking about some blog off an internet site few people have heard of.. I'm talking about an official release of documentation by the Gov't of the United States. Karl Rove said the info was available. Why wasn't it released to proper channels.

22 posted on 07/24/2010 8:51:41 AM PDT by Riodacat (Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." ‹(•¿•)›)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

Here is the Clinton campaign hammering HW Bush in 1992 for not removing Saddam Hussein for his terrorist ties.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0h6gehCPvpk&feature=player_embedded

Here is ABC in 1999 reporting on the Osama bin Laden terrorist ties of Saddam Hussein.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7n3ivH3pCQ&feature=player_embedded


23 posted on 07/24/2010 9:12:46 AM PDT by ansel12 (Mitt: "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Riodacat

You didn’t even bother to read the first paragraph of the linked article.

You best go back and read that Human Events article because it cites a report issued by the Pentagon’s Institute for Defense Analyses released through the Joint Forces Command.

It was called, “Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents.”


24 posted on 07/24/2010 9:26:42 AM PDT by LSUfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Sarajevo

Total nonsensical hogwash. Sounds like State Department “stability” doctrine. Iraq is no longer a threat. This is unbelievably obvious. Iraq was a threat under Saddam.


25 posted on 07/24/2010 9:29:13 AM PDT by LSUfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

I saw that, but it should have come from the highest level of the civilian (elected) side of the house (e.g. POTUS or SOS), not the military or intellegence side of the house.


26 posted on 07/24/2010 10:15:39 AM PDT by Riodacat (Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." ‹(•¿•)›)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jazminerose

Bush did make a case and a compelling one ....the media worked with the Dems to drown it out .They zeroed in on the lack of wmd found .

When I think of it Colin Powell never said a word in defense of Bush or the administration yet he was the point man making the case for there being wmd


27 posted on 07/24/2010 10:23:07 AM PDT by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
Total nonsensical hogwash.

Refute my analysis then. Who do you think is strong enough to stabilize the country once we're gone?

BTW- State Dept doctrine is to continue throwing money into a black hole.

Iraq is no longer a threat.

The lack of leadership makes it a threat to regional stability. Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria are currently jockeying for position in the country. The Iraqi Army is unable to defend the country and the Iraqi Police are corrupt to the core.

Iraq was a threat under Saddam.

To whom? The House of Saud? I don't recall Iraqi's attacking the US.

28 posted on 07/24/2010 10:30:28 AM PDT by Sarajevo (You're jealous because the voices only talk to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: originalbuckeye
I always say ‘then you were ok with Saddam Hussein's reign?’

Yah, I'd be. I prefer a Saddam to an Islamic Republic ala Iran.
We should have made him an offer he couldn't refuse.
I'm pretty sure that with some persuasion we could have made him our bitch.

29 posted on 07/24/2010 10:30:38 AM PDT by Riodacat (Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." ‹(•¿•)›)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Sarajevo

Who do you think is strong enough to stabilize the country once we’re gone?

Iraq wasn’t “stable” by that definition under Saddam. You’re looking for a new dictator. Why, I have no idea.

BTW- State Dept doctrine is to continue throwing money into a black hole.

You are confusing policy with doctrine. Stability is State Dept doctrine.

The lack of leadership makes it a threat to regional stability. Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria are currently jockeying for position in the country. The Iraqi Army is unable to defend the country and the Iraqi Police are corrupt to the core.

The idea that Iraq’s internal position today poses a greater threat to regional and world stability than Saddam Hussein’s regime is simply misguided. Pundits have been predicting since before Saddam was overthrown that Iran would take over Iraq. It hasn’t happened yet and the Shia won’t allow the Sauds to take over either. Syria is not even worth mentioning as they have neither the wealth nor expertise to pose the threat you are imagining.

To whom? The House of Saud? I don’t recall Iraqi’s attacking the US.

This is where your true colors become obvious. Your clear stance is that Saddam’s Iraq was not a threat and that position is undefensible, as laid bare by the sources cited in the sources linked in the article I posted, as well as the Human Events article from 2008.


30 posted on 07/24/2010 10:55:53 AM PDT by LSUfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
Iraq wasn’t “stable” by that definition under Saddam. You’re looking for a new dictator. Why, I have no idea.

Under Saddam, Iraq was able to defend it's borders against regional threats, and Saddam was a known quantity. In essence, he could be measured. Now, there is no standard of measurement. As for "looking for a new dictator", the average Iraqi (Kurds not withstanding)doesn't understand democracy. They've lived their entire lives under a dictatorial government which provided everything; essential services, health care, jobs, it made their decisions for them. They don't know how to live without that hovering over their heads. The current Maliki-led government is weak. It cannot provide the services that the people had grown to accept, and the average Iraqi sees that.

Stability is State Dept doctrine.

Then it's a failure. The Iraqi people look upon the US military as the stabilizing force in the country. The State Dept wants to maintain a presence in Iraq after the final withdrawal, but they can't provide stability or the training the Iraqi's would need provide for their own security.

It hasn’t happened yet and the Shia won’t allow the Sauds to take over either. Syria is not even worth mentioning as they have neither the wealth nor expertise to pose the threat you are imagining.

Practically all the Shia east of the Tigris River are supportive of Iran. Maliki himself is under Iranian influence. There is a strong Syrian influence in Anbar Province. Allawi, who won the election in March, is in Damascus holding talks with al-Sadr. The Saudi's are exerting their influence in the south.

Your clear stance is that Saddam’s Iraq was not a threat and that position is undefensible, as laid bare by the sources cited in the sources linked in the article I posted, as well as the Human Events article from 2008.

I read your Human Events article down to where it mentioned Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The info on him is wrong, but that's a subject for a different thread. As far as my stance, Saddam was a regional threat, but with the northern and southern no-fly zones, plus being placed under a magnifying glass of world opinion and sanctions, his threat to the US was minimized. Sure, he hosted known terrorists, but the same can be said of the other countries in the region, even our NATO "ally" Turkey..

31 posted on 07/24/2010 11:41:31 AM PDT by Sarajevo (You're jealous because the voices only talk to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Riodacat

The problem with your argument there: is like comparing the Wicked Witch of the West with the Wicked Witch of the East!
The “West” was worse than the “East”, according to Glinda, the good “Witch of the North”! “The Wizard of Oz”


32 posted on 07/24/2010 1:56:58 PM PDT by dsutah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: griswold3

You didn’t dream it at all! I remember that too, now that you mention it.


33 posted on 07/24/2010 1:58:47 PM PDT by dsutah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: woofie
They zeroed in on the lack of wmd found

Why shouldn't they? GW himself said "the MAIN reason we invaded Iraq was WMD," admitting in the next sentence "turns out there weren't any."
34 posted on 07/24/2010 2:18:03 PM PDT by LanaTurnerOverdrive ("I've done a few things in my life I'm not proud of, and the things I am proud of are disgusting.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: LanaTurnerOverdrive

can you give me a source for that quote? I know he said some things like that but he also said a lot of other things about going into Iraq


35 posted on 07/24/2010 2:24:39 PM PDT by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: woofie
Enjoy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM
36 posted on 07/24/2010 2:31:12 PM PDT by LanaTurnerOverdrive ("I've done a few things in my life I'm not proud of, and the things I am proud of are disgusting.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: LanaTurnerOverdrive

The rest of that quote....”BUT THEY HAD THE CAPACITY TO MAKE WMDs”...

Talk about cherry picking and being “out of context”

Bush goes on to say a lot of good stuff about Iraq but again the left heard only what they wanted to


37 posted on 07/24/2010 4:43:34 PM PDT by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler

Agreed!

Mine didn’t grow back.


38 posted on 07/24/2010 4:48:38 PM PDT by Randy Larsen ( BTW, If I offend you! Please let me know, I may want to offend you again!(FR #1690))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: woofie

The UNMOVIC report was available for all to see. The problem with the Bush Administration claim of WMD was the ‘international definition of WMD. It gets very complicated.
The truth of the matter as proven by the UNMOVIC report was that Saddam Hussein illegally had ‘precursor, accelerants, and dual use materials. (Not to mention the designs and human capital to put them all together quickly) But trying to get GW to pronounce all that in a marketable sound byte without being mocked by the MSM was impossible.


39 posted on 07/24/2010 6:31:51 PM PDT by griswold3 ('Regulation and law without enforcement is no law at all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: woofie
The rest of that quote....”BUT THEY HAD THE CAPACITY TO MAKE WMDs”...

Irrelevant. Freaking Mexico probably has the capacity to make WMD, but they sold this war on the guarantee that Iraq actually had WMD in their possession and had the ability to deliver said devices in a matter of minutes. Or have you conveniently forgotten?
40 posted on 07/25/2010 4:30:42 AM PDT by LanaTurnerOverdrive ("I've done a few things in my life I'm not proud of, and the things I am proud of are disgusting.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: woofie

I think he should have been front & center with it—using pressers if he had to. As POTUS, he can get an audience whether the press likes it or not. I think he misunderestimated how vile the media had already become & how much venom was left over from 2000.

I totally agree with you about Powell. Where’s the video of that UN speech?


41 posted on 07/25/2010 7:14:14 AM PDT by jazminerose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: LanaTurnerOverdrive
This quote is from this article:

The Bush Administration could have saved its own credibility and that of the United States by explaining that the distinction between having the ability to quickly produce WMD and having actual stockpiles is minimal.

All Im saying is that Bush made the case....maybe not enough and maybe not articulately enough....but I think no matter what he had said, the other side with the help of the media would have lied and twisted things around .

Bush was fighting a war ....they were (and are still) fighting Bush

42 posted on 07/25/2010 8:48:35 AM PDT by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; Arthur Wildfire! March; Berosus; bigheadfred; blueyon; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; ...
Thanks LSUfan.
43 posted on 07/26/2010 8:41:35 PM PDT by SunkenCiv ("Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others." -- Otto von Bismarck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

.


44 posted on 10/18/2010 12:57:19 PM PDT by raygunfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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