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

To: SeekAndFind
He wasn’t above cooperating with terrorists when it served his interests...

A point that gets lost in all this historical revisionism: Saddam was just fine with terrorist organizations, and the entire reason Bush II invaded Iraq was that he was convinced that Saddam would lend state-level support to Islamic terrorist organizations in the way that Afghanistan already had, and that existing camps in Iraq indicated that Saddam already was. People who knew this perfectly well at the time appear to have forgotten it in the midst of the media blitz since then, and others deny it because it conflicts with their "Bush lied" narrative.

Saddam Hussein was not protecting the United States against terrorism. If he were he'd still be there.

18 posted on 06/26/2014 5:46:21 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Billthedrill

Somebody who understands the history of Iraq rather than the fantasy that Saddam Hussein was a pluralist and secularist. Congrats. BTW how many Americans would know who Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas and Abu Zarqawi were and why they were in Baghdad?


23 posted on 06/26/2014 5:58:46 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: Billthedrill

You are absolutely right. How quickly we forget.


33 posted on 06/26/2014 6:33:54 PM PDT by Jay Redhawk (Oh Crap!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

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