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 ...
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".
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.
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...
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
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.
You mean we had/have "compelling evidence" that Saddam sponsored terrorism and we didn't make it public?
What. Bush didn’t know that no one was watching any of those stations?
That evidence has been around for at least 2 years:
The Truth About Saddam and Terrorism
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25604/
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.
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.
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.
>> 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”.
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.
Yes, GWB’s shameful attempt to shove amnesty down our throats is an ugly blot on an otherwise fine presidency.
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.
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.
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.
Amen.
I agree with every word you posted.
“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.
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.
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
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.”
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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..
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”
You didn’t dream it at all! I remember that too, now that you mention it.
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
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
Agreed!
Mine didn’t grow back.
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.
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?
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
.
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.