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

To: Jbny

I have been expecting war with Saddam since before most people were aware of him, and I supported Bush Jr. in part because reading between the lines of some of his remarks before the election, I believed he intended to take care of unfinished business there.

When the Towers fell, one of the first things I wrote was to assert that getting Bin Ladin wasn’t enough, we needed to finish Saddam as well.

Nothing has happened in the years since to change my mind about any of this.

If I’m a conservative, neo-conservative, classic liberal, neo-classic liberal, or a paleo-classic liberal doesn’t interest me particularly. In my mind I’m a Lockean Burkean, and I’m convinced Saddam needed to go.


20 posted on 04/10/2008 1:56:30 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: marron

I’m with you. Saddam was potentially 100x more dangerous than bin Laden, and then there was Qusay and the other nutcase son. We were looking at a permenant and abiding threat with the Hussein family in power. I am another one who never wavered or second-guessed about going into Iraq. I just wish we would have taken out Iran and Syria while we were at it.


34 posted on 04/10/2008 2:41:53 PM PDT by attiladhun2 (Obama is the anti-Reagan, instead of opposing the world's tyrants, he wants to embrace them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | 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