The Current FReepathon Pays For The Current Quarter's Expenses?
Posted on 08/11/2014 5:35:26 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Because Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, and a gaggle of Republican consultants are incapable of articulating a defense of the Bush-43 administration’s prosecution of the Iraq War, an independent observer more schooled in the science of persuasive communication must intervene for the sake of the historical record. Here goes.
Contrary to revisionist history, the Iraq War was far from a discretionary “war of choice.” All the world’s major intelligence agencies agreed that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, an assessment ratified by Bill Clinton and his CIA Director (“slam dunk,” remember?). The 9/11 Commission later documented numerous contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda.
But wait, wasn’t the message from the 9/11 report just the opposite, i.e., no collaboration between al-Qaeda and Saddam? That is the partisan canard, but the text of the report merely denies any “operational” or tactical relationship involving Saddam and al-Qaeda. You see, the Democrat commission members wormed that compromise language into the final copy to ground their deceptive spin -- for the benefit of the inattentive public -- of no collaboration period. Sort of how $9.95 seems closer to $9 than $10 if you look at it fast and don’t think about it, the Democrats trust our brain-dead populace to overlook the “operational” modifier -- and the subliminal scheme seems to have worked. The key, ironic fact is that absence of operational collaboration leaves open the possibility of strategic interaction between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Get it?
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Great article; very direct and distinct about why we were in Iraq, and why RINO leadership failed us in not defending the war as it should have been. The RINO’s were played, they let themselves fall into the liberal’s narative.
It is amazing how many people, even Republicans, don’t believe that Iraq EVER had WMDs and that Bush made it up. Given the constant evidences over a decade prior to Bush’s election, and for a year nightly on the news, it is an amazing example of how propaganda can rewrite people’s brains.
Yep, I know a guy that made 39 trips to Iraq as a member of the UN inspection team. The good Col confirmed the shell game played by this other Hussein that was in power at the time. A member of the inspection team was a mole for Hussein and reported the inspection plans ahead of time in order to facilitate the movement of mobile labs to other locations. This is but one example of criminal activities that occurred during visits by the inspection team. People have no idea because of the lying by the equally criminal old media monopoly that reported no WMDs.
The Current FReepathon Pays For The Current Quarter's Expenses?
1.
Is there any active politician, in office or out, more adept at public speaking and more able to make a case based on facts than Dick Cheney?
The fact that the leftist media either ridicules him, lies about what he says, or ignores him doesn't make him incompetent.
2.
Of course there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and every well informed person knows that to be true.
Trucking them across the border to Syria and Iran before our forces in Iraq located them doesn't make it less true.
A few weeks ago the same media that had declared the Bush/Cheney claim of Iraqi WMDs to be false just reported that ISIS was taking over an old Iraqi WMD factory.
Saddam’s WMDs: The Left’s Iraq Lies Exposed
June 23, 2014
The State Department and other U.S. government officials have revealed that ISIS now occupies the Al Muthanna Chemicals Weapons Complex. Al Muthanna was Saddam Hussein’s primary chemical weapons facility, and it is located less than 50 miles from Baghdad.
The Obama administration claims that the weapons in that facility, which include sarin, mustard gas, and nerve agent VX, manufactured to prosecute the war against Iran in the 1980s, do not pose a threat because they are old, contaminated and hard to move.
And RINO’s let them.
Lies. Saddam was never a threat to the United States. The pretext was war was fraudulent. The “WMDs” were obsolescent tactical chemical weapons. The “cooperation with Islamic terrorists” meme was a sick joke — especially in retrospect. There was no nuclear arms program, and even if there had been, there was no means of delivering a nuclear device to the USA— much less any desire to do so. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, along with Wolfowitz, Gaffney, Bolton, Perle, Powell, Kristol, Gingrich, Krauthammer, Hannity, Tony Blair, and Conrad Black, are covered in Christian blood. They precipitated this disaster. I dare anyone to look me in the eye and say that the world is better off now than with Saddam. At the same time, I dare anyone to look me in the eye and pretend that Iraq or Syria can be made into liberal pluralist democracies. The new fake excuse that Obama cut and ran is BS. Iraq was never gonna be Peoria.
Shame, shame on all who engineered this disaster. Shame on those who attempt to excuse them now. They will all answer for their crimes, for the lies, the destruction, and the genocide, the maimed and and the mountains of dead. There’s scant justice in this world, but no one escapes God’s justice, and they will have a fearful reckoning.
Saddam was never a threat to the United States.
Hussein was making foreign policy in the middle east near impossible by openly demonstrating the fecklessness of the West - even in the face of obvious major violations of agreements at every turn - which was a core argument that Al Queda was using for why it was a good idea to attack us, which they were doing in a major way every year. Further, after the 1998 destruction of the Russian-supplied air defense systems, Hussein reversed his previous stances and engaged in relations, training, and funding for a variety of terrorist organizations, as well as hosting.
Quite aside from the direct effects of invading Iraq, the side effect of demonstrating our resolve in shutting down the pan-Arab, pan-Muslim WMD outsourcing cooperative in Libya was worth it all by itself.
So he was making us look bad. THAT’s your justification for a trillion dollars blown, a bloodbath, and a genocide? I hope you feel like you got a good return on your investment.
psst...we still look bad. Real bad. Much worse than before.
Anyone who doesn’t miss Saddam is playing for team Islam.
It’s not “making us look bad”. Your lack of comprehension of the effects of “fecklessness” in international relations and in the face of acts of war is profound.
When no one even pretends to honor agreements with you, when they attack you and your allies with impunity, you are not long for this world.
Your is a specious and small minded argument. But go ahead and revel in your 20/20 hindsight and revisionism.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hjres114/text
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3000898/posts
It should also be pointed out that a few weeks ago, some on the list were agitating to re-invade Iraq. Those that I saw with my own eyes were Cheney, Kristol, and Wolfowitz.
The GOPe are DemocRats. Not one dime’s worth of difference. Bi-partisan phonies.
To: Dr. Eckleburg
This is a war on Islam.
Then the USA would appear to be its most potent ally. The muslims got the benefit of every doubt in Kosovo. A hard-line shari'a state has been installed in Afghanistan. The secular, Christian-tolerant Ba'athist party in Iraq has been forced to embrace islamic radicalism for reasons of political survival, even as the USA, condusting talks with parties vying to be post'Saddam players in Iraqi politics, is insisting that the Shi'ites get a place at the table, notwithstanding their demands for a shari'a state. And -- finally -- there's nothing the Saudis can say or do that elicits a peep of public protest from the State Dept. or the White House.
With enemies like the USA, islam doesn't need friends.
409 posted on Sunday, February 16, 2003 12:45:23 AM by Romulus
To: Miss Marple
I have been wondering if the Pope was threatened...
No question, Marple; it's just a question of which direction the threat's coming from. Christians in the Middle East are in a perilous position everywhere -- especially in Iraq. If you think Saddam Hussein's secular Baathist thugocracy is a menace to the Christian community, just wait till "democracy" is installed, reflecting the views of the majority, who are fervently Shi'ite and have already indicated their intent to hold out for shari'a as the basis for their new islamic republic. If you're wondering whether US taxpayers are about to sponsor another triumph for Christianity along the lines of Kosovo, my guess is, Yes.
25 posted on Saturday, February 22, 2003 11:05:12 PM by Romulus
When both the father and son Bush support obama no matter what happens it is disappointing to see and hear the democrats do what they did in Vietnam. We are now seeing the same result. Genocide.
I always thought and believed that this was the problem. For reasons known only to most likely a very small circle, the Russian involvement was quietly swept under the rug. What was been smuggled out of Iraq just before the bombing started? I have had a few theories as to why this fact was not made well known. One of which, a deal was made with the Russians to go in and get the weapons out, fearing that the weapons would be used either against our troops during the invasion or against the Iraqi population during the bombing phase of the war and blame it on us. Imagine the Media going after the administration for not taking extra steps to secure the weapons and protect our troops. I have other theories but in the end none of it matters because for whatever reason Bush/Cheney did not do a good job at defending their actions in Iraq, the democrats saw weakness and went in for the kill.
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.