I think it's appropriate that the attrocities of Saddam Hussein will be remembered. I'm confident that one aspect of the Iraq War won't be remembered: the US congressional cowardice, especially of Reid and Pelosi, should be included to show what morons Bush had to battle with.
Hopefully the US military won't forget the congressional cowardice and vote accordingly. That'll just force the Dems to throw out more military votes like they always do.
During the 1980s this fiend was our ally. We supported him in his fight against Iran. http://
www.informationclearingho...article1412.htm
Was Saddam a bad guy ? Yes he was. Was he supported by the US and other western powers because he was fighting against Iran ? Yes he was.
Here is a link of Don Rummsfeld special envoy of Reagan shaking Saddam's hand back then. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSA...SAEBB/NSAEBB82/
This place should be required as a destination for all of our U.S. Congressmen, conservative and liberal. Maybe then Bozos like Reid, Murtha, Kerry-Heinz, Pelosi, etc. would understand the reason Bush went into Iraq.
Or more than likely, not!
If Saddam was on equal par as Hitler, which he was, and the Democrats supported Saddam by refusing to support the military, then doesn’t this make the democrats on equal par to Saddam and Hitler? I am just saying…doesn’t this make Democrats mindless and mentally sick for objecting to rescuing the Iraq people from another Hitler?
Your point is what, John? Joe Kennedy was a big Hitler supporter but that's never seemed to bother the dems all that much. FDR was a big go-go Uncle Jo-Jo. How many of you on the left now idolize Che? I guess I am missing your point.
RB,
Oh that's just the Dem talking point whenever anyone brings up this point about how much better the world is without Saddam. They think that that somehow diminishes what Bush and our military did.
I guess it never occurs to them that we didn't know about the "meathooks' and such then.
No, we didn't know about the meathooks because he hadn't gotten to that point. Meanwhile Reagan was trying to clean up another mess the dems, specifically Jimmah, made with Iran and radical Islam or at least contain it. And let's be honest here, radical Islam was not the threat then that it is now. Reagan dealt with the threat at the time, the Soviet Union, the legacy that FDR left us, and a fine job he did finally cleaning up that mess I might add.
Before the stuff hits the fan here this year (or next) I'd like to point out what Gorby said as the Soviet Union dissolved, we're not going away we're just going to take a little rest, or words to that effect. As I read the news these days it looks to me like the bear has come out of hibernation. What was it the winning team said this past fall, gird your loins?
What about terrorism? Nothing there? Isn't that why we went to war? Atomic weapons? Smoking mushroom clouds. That what we were told we were going to war. Damn Liberals must have rewritten history already
John's 2% is doing his 98% no good favors again.
paul,
Terrorists were plentiful in Iraq. Just ask the liberal, Hitchens. There are more data points if you're willing to look and prove yourself wrong. Unfortunately, they are plentiful in many other countries including the US.
We went to war because Iraq, more specifically Saddam Hussein, threatened the world with nuclear capability. Check out all the Dems in 1998. It turned out it was true with the exception of an ASSEMBLED nuclear weapon. The materials, labs, and plans were found in Iraq.
In addition, stockpiles of sarin gas weapons were found. Just set one of those off in your back yard and I guarantee you are going to have a bad day. On top of that, the same CIA that tried to destroy Bush declared sarin gas as a WMD before the Iraq war.
And yes, the cowardly, evil Dems revised history to protect their pathetic, corrupt power base.
paul,
Let me help you out. I'll let one of your "damn liberals" explain it to you. (Borrowed from RB in a post below)
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
And terrorism? Well, this is the thing. The purpose was to keep us safe here. You know, so there would be no "mushroom cloud," things like that. And maybe you didn't notice, but it worked. We were kept safe here.
Meanwhile, those guys who planned 9-11? Yeah, well we sent them to their 72 virgins in IRaq. Yes. We decimated Al Queda. You remember them, right?
Why don't you just take a deep breath, forget your ideology for once, and admit that we were kept safe by Pres. George W. Bush. Come on, I know you can do it. I know it's in you to be honest.
paul wrote:
What about terrorism? Nothing there? Isn't that why we went to war? Atomic weapons? Smoking mushroom clouds. That what we were told we were going to war. Damn Liberals must have rewritten history already
Yes, they have been successful in spreading the meme that WMDs were the only reason for going into Iraq... and using selective quoting to "prove" it.
RWS:
Why don't you just take a deep breath, forget your ideology for once, and admit that we were kept safe by Pres. George W. Bush. Come on, I know you can do it. I know it's in you to be honest.
He is lost. He cannot do that. It goes against Teh Narrative™ he preaches.
But, Sparkle, didn't America just vote for "change"?
Change? Every single Obama appointee has been from the Clinton or Bush administration. That's change?
It's amusing to me that the one thing the left hated Bush for is the war, and yet Obama kept Bush's defense Secretary.
VLA: The country, 53% of it anyway, did vote for change. And now 100% of us are going to get what the 53% voted for - right in the shorts. This only goes to prove once again that people should be very careful what they wish for, they may just get it.
And in 2012 the people will vote for change again. Only in 2012, the change will come in the form of Sarah Palin and, hopefully, Duncan Hunter. They should adopt The incoming Commissar's campaign slogan - "Hope and change we can all believe in." Because, by 2012, we will all be quite desperate for change and hope.
Scottiebill, I gotta hand it to you, I can't even begin to top that, much less add to it!!! LOL!
I went to the redstate site and posted about it on mine. Thanks! I linked to your site with gratitude. Brutally Honest then picked it up from my blog.
Things just go round and round.
chuck
Saddam was never a 'friend' or ally of teh USA. He was a soviet client. We helped him out once to stop the IRanians from winning the war. So what? That doesn't mean he is an ally. We helped the Iranians out when we thought Iraq was going to win. We something help out other nations not because we are 'friends' but because we have larger ambitions.
The picture of Rumsfeld shaking his hand means nothing. Diplomats shake hands. Reagan shook Gorby's hand. It doesn't mean anything. Its not proof of anything. Believing that the pic of Rumsfelf shaking Saddam's hand is significant is terrifyingly naive and ignorant.
Commenting by HaloScan
