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