Again, you're ASSUMING he would have
the real issue was that nobody knew what hussein had. even his own generals didn't know. they were surprised that he he didn't have them when the us and the uk were on baghdad's doorstep and they wanted to use some of that on the coalition's forces. hussein was working the un to lift the sanctions through bribes so that he could get his weapons program back up and running.
there were a decade's worth of reasons to take his ass out.
Given his history, that's a safe assumption and one that we didn't need to wait and see realized.
Last edited by The Ressurrected One; 07-13-2005 at 10:32 PM.
For once I kind of agree with Kitty. Saddam was an SOB who should have been taken out long ago, but in its rush to war in Iraq the U.S. made some key militaristic and strategic mistakes. Not enough troops to secure weapons depots? Not enough heavy armor to protect our troops against IUD and rocket-propelled grenades. No real plan ever put in place for the immediate safety and well-being of Iraqi people and Iraqi property after the invasion of Baghdad and other large Iraqi cities. The errors go on and on, but yet no one has claimed responsibility.there were a decade's worth of reasons to take his ass out.
We can continue to hide from our mistakes and blame the lack of patience on progress in Iraq on everyone else, must be the liberals, the media, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Al Franken, yes, even you, but really what is happening in Iraq today is no different than the slow subjugation of Central and South American governments, and of course, their resources, in the later part of the 20th century, and look how well those experiments in ‘planting the seed of democracy’ have worked out for them.
Looking back, I'm betting FDR would have made a few changes to the D-Day plan.
Bush and Rove did a great job of "spamming" Americans with their scare tactics of WMD, and false ties to 9/11 and it is clear that staunch conservative republicans such as TRO bought it, hook, line and sinker.
I'm sorry you're scared.
I'm sorry you're too stupid know your ass from a hole in the ground.
As President Reagan once said, "Facts are stubborn things."
The Great Communicator himself.you're quoting this guy?
GET DOWN!
no, TRO, you have to admit... it makes more sense to let someone build the WMD and kill thousands of people after they have done it... there is no need to try to actually prevent something of this sort...
It certainly makes your criminal case at the Hague stronger, I guess. Even if you have to sacrifice thousands of citizens and billions of dollars in infrastructure, assets, and revenue to have a slam-dunk case.
Better than this guy...
In other words, the criminal case against Bush is very, very strong!!!! I doubt you even realize that you have described the effects of Bush's war in Iraq, but you have. You might want to add the thousands of American dead and wounded to this mix...
BTW: What the does a name like The Resurrected One signify? Are you Jesus?
Did Saddam buy some WMD's from Kim Yong and I missed the news? Saddam had less WMD material than the average American has in his garage.no, TRO, you have to admit... it makes more sense to let someone build the WMD and kill thousands of people after they have done it... there is no need to try to actually prevent something of this sort...
We supported the Mujahadeen against the Soviet invasion. When you get older you’ll come to learn that foreign policy is built on a set of priorities. First you take on the biggest danger, then the rest in succession. In the 1980’s, Ronald Reagan decided it was time to end the Cold War and eliminate the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction. At that point in history, the spread of Communism was the biggest threat to our nation. When the Communists invaded Afghanistan, we had to make the difficult decision to support the resistance movement. The same is true with our support of Iraq against Iran, the bigger evil of the two. These are difficult choices that come with being one of the most powerful and free nations in the world. We also supported Stalin in the beginning because it was in our best interest. Can you, or anyone, tell me who will be the nation’s greatest threat 20 years from now?
probably china!
Did Saddam buy some WMD's from Kim Yong and I missed the news? Saddam had less WMD material than the average American has in his garage.[QUOTE]
I would think some gassed kurds would disagree with you?
There is a little thing called Islam and Allah if you have not heard of it..
The 9/11 hijackers where chanting ALLAH AKBAR..
mms://wm.gannett.speedera.net/wm.gan...1505sniper.wmv
Listen to this chant in this video.. same ing chant on 9/11 inside
the pit...
[QUOTE=Dos]Did Saddam buy some WMD's from Kim Yong and I missed the news? Saddam had less WMD material than the average American has in his garage.The U.N. destroyed loads of his WMD and materials. We thought he hid some... guess not. Bottom like GW Bush didn't want to WAIT or gamble on it.
I would think some gassed kurds would disagree with you?
This ABC News video from five years ago is a classic.
Before Democrats had a partisan motive to claim, contrary to all the evidence, that there was no relationship between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and bin Laden's al Qaeda, their close and dangerous relationship was common knowledge. That common knowledge is reflected in this ABC news report, as it was in the Clinton administration's indictment of bin Laden in 1998 for, among other things, collaborating with Saddam on weapons of mass destruction.
It really is a fascinating question: in this era of digital media, can the news media and the Democrats get away with trying to flush what they said as recently as 1998 and 2000 down the memory hole?
Let's hope not.
Thomas Joscelyn continues his outstanding reporting on the connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. In this installment we learn, among other things, that following President Clinton's four-day bombing campaign in Iraq during 1998, Saddam dispatched a trusted operative to Afghanistan where he met with bin Laden and his cohorts. A few days later, bin Laden denounced the attack and called on all Muslims to strike U.S. and British targets, including civilians, around the world. The European media then began reporting details of a relationship (which some described as a "pact") between Saddam and al Qaeda. Corriere Della Sera (Italian) reported that Saddam had offered safehaven to bin Laden. A Paris-based pan-Arab magazine provided details concerning joint Iraqi-al Qaeda cooperation on chemical and biological weapons in Sudan. Several Arab news outlets stated that Iraqi military intelligence officials were in Afghanistan meeting with Taliban elements on the subject of exacting revenge on the U.S. and Britain. They also reported that Arab Afghans were receiving training in southern Iraq.
Newsweek and ABC also reported on this apparent terrorist alliance. And the New York Post stated that Saddam was courting both bin Laden and Abu Nidal (now living in Iraq) as part of a plan "to resort to terrorism in revenge for airstrikes his country." Even the leftist Guardian ran articles on the axis of Saddam and bin Laden.
The Clinton administration was also concerned about such an axis. Richard Clarke advised Sandy Berger that if bin Laden learned about U.S. operations against him, he "will likely boogie to Baghdad." Previously, Clarke had speculated that the Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was "probably a direct result of the Iraq-al Qaeda agreement." Joscelyn notes that reports of a relationship between Saddam and bin Laden continued until the eve of the war in Iraq.
The adminstration's critics and the MSM would like Americans to believe that the assessments of numerous reporters, analysts, and even Clinton administration officials on this subject were unfounded. But do they want this because they have a sound basis for discounting these assessment or because they bitterly oppose President Bush. As Joscelyn says, "it is left for the reader to decide."
Your next assignment, find the plane.
Stephen Hayes and Thomas Joscelyn have identified another link in the chain between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda -- Ansar al Islam. This is a terrorist organization that, according to the French anti-war newpaper Le Monde, "was founded in 2001 with the joint help of Saddam Hussein--who intended to use it against moderate Kurds--and al Qaeda, which hoped to find in Kurdistan a new location that would receive its members."
When even Le Monde accepts this particular connection, it's a bit dismaying to see our MSM ignore it, and folks who clearly should know better, such as former Clinton administration counterterrorism official Daniel Benjamin, denying any connection at all. Moreover, this connection is supported by intelligence intercepts and by the reporting of the New Yorker's Jeffrey Goldberg and others. Yet our see-no-foreign-evil, Rove-fixated MSM makes the absence of any connection an article of its liberal faith.
Please read the whole thing.
the real mother of all connections?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...11-report.htmlThe lead author of the Senate’s report on 9/11 says it’s time to reveal what’s in the 28 pages that were redacted from it, which he says will embarrass the Saudis.
A story that might otherwise have slipped away in a morass of conspiracy theories gained new life Wednesday when former Sen. Bob Graham headlined a press conference on Capitol Hill to press for the release of 28 pages redacted from a Senate report on the 9/11 attacks. And according to Graham, the lead author of the report, the pages “point a very strong finger at Saudi Arabia as the principal financier” of the 9/11 hijackers.
“This may seem stale to some but it’s as current as the headlines we see today,” Graham said, referring to the terrorist attack on a satirical newspaper in Paris. The pages are being kept under wraps out of concern their disclosure would hurt U.S. national security. But as chairman of the Senate Select Committee that issued the report in 2002, Graham argues the opposite is true, and that the real “threat to national security is non-disclosure.”
Graham said the redacted pages characterize the support network that allowed the 9/11 attacks to occur, and if that network goes unchallenged, it will only flourish. He said that keeping the pages classified is part of “a general pattern of coverup” that for 12 years has kept the American people in the dark. It is “highly improbable” the 19 hijackers acted alone, he said, yet the U.S. government’s position is “to protect the government most responsible for that network of support.”
The Saudis know what they did, Graham continued, and the U.S. knows what they did, and when the U.S. government takes a position of passivity, or actively shuts down inquiry, that sends a message to the Saudis. “They have continued, maybe accelerated their support for the most extreme form of Islam,” he said, arguing that both al Qaeda and ISIS are “a creation of Saudi Arabia.”
Saudi's Wahhabi radical sect and Egypt's Muslim bro'hood, two, long-time terrorist organizations but embedded with US "allies".
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
