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
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last
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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last

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