Posted on 04/27/2015 7:35:18 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Edited on 04/27/2015 10:05:42 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Interesting, not because it’s a surprise that Ron Paul’s son feels this way — remember this? — but because this is a subject that every Republican in the field, Rand included, would probably prefer to avoid during the primaries.
Or am I wrong about that? Could this be a smart play for Paul, especially given how it’ll make Jeb Bush squirm?
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
I agree with you and Paul. I said it then and I still believe it. He was a dictator that kept everything under control. 911 would not have happened had he still been in power. JMO
Thanks.
You might find this following essay by Hinderaker useful when you run across those who now want to insist that there was no intention of trying to engage in democratic nation building in Iraq:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/08/the-fate-of-democracy-in-iraq.php
You are right. I half misread you. Good.
You nailed it pal!
After toppling Saddam the US should have pulled back to the borders...let the various factions work things out..let them have the revenge killings and comeback in only when called for...thats the only way to deal with the ME mentality. Hearts and minds ops is pure BS.
As to Rand Paul...he is his daddy’s little boy............
That genie is long gone out of the bottle, but in retrospect, leaving the Ba’athists in power would’ve prevented Iraq becoming a broken vassal state of Iran.
Now, I could understand if Rand was upset that Obama failed to get a SOFA with Iraq, or if he was upset that Obama failed to try to stop ISIS from emerging as a massive threat to civilization, but to become nostalgic for the Saddam status quo is to prove he's not fit to become our president.
You do know that Hitler declared war on the US right after Japan attacked the USA, right? Should the US have allowed him to destroy our ships with impunity for a pipe dream of Nazis ending the Soviet Union? And it is right to be morally outraged at the Soviet takeover of Central Europe; we should have said more sooner than we in the West did. But what would we have done militarily? Do you recall the “wanna go home” riots in the US military right after the war and how quickly the US tried to demilitarize its role in Europe?
The 9th post that should have been the first.
Yes he is. Christianity in Iraq was devastated as a direct consequence of the Bush war. ISIS is mopping up the pieces now. Bush and his family are demonic employees of the Saudis.
Yeah -- and one of those members of the first Bush administration who was most adamant about leaving Saddam Hussein in power was his Secretary of Defense: Dick Cheney.
Too bad the Dick Cheney of 2003 didn't have the wisdom of his predecessor 13 years earlier.
We should have nuked the Saudis on 9/12.
Maybe they wouldn't openly mutiny over there, but you can be sure that a lot of them wouldn't be putting themselves at risk outside the perimeter of their bases.
Easy to look back and make assumptions but one should take in the other factors - not enough actual “shock and awe” to really destroy those that needed to be destroyed, then an Obama comes along and pretty much ensures that the terrorists take what they wanted in the first place. Add hos misdealing with Afghanistan and Iran to the mix and one can not disentangle the mess.
Agreed.
In retaliation, President Clinton two months later ordered the firing of 23 cruise missiles at Iraqi Intelligence Service headquarters in Baghdad. The day before the attack U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Madeleine K. Albright went before the Security Council to present evidence of the Iraqi plot. And, after the U.S. attack, Vice President Gore said the attack "was intended to be a proportionate response at the place where this plot" to assassinate Bush "was hatched and implemented." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/longroad/etc/assassination.html
37. Sensitive reporting indicates senior terrorist planner and close al Qaeda associate al Zarqawi has had an operational alliance with Iraqi officials. As of Oct. 2002, al Zarqawi maintained contacts with the IIS to procure weapons and explosives, including surface-to-air missiles from an IIS officer in Baghdad. According to sensitive reporting, al Zarqawi was setting up sleeper cells in Baghdad to be activated in case of a U.S. occupation of the city, suggesting his operational cooperation with the Iraqis may have deepened in recent months. Such cooperation could include IIS provision of a secure operating bases [sic] and steady access to arms and explosives in preparation for a possible U.S. invasion. Al Zarqawi's procurements from the Iraqis also could support al Qaeda operations against the U.S. or its allies elsewhere.
38. According to sensitive reporting, a contact with good access who does not have an established reporting record: An Iraqi intelligence service officer said that as of mid-March the IIS was providing weapons to al Qaeda members located in northern Iraq, including rocket propelled grenade (RPG)-18 launchers. According to IIS information, northern Iraq-based al Qaeda members believed that the U.S. intended to strike al Qaeda targets during an anticipated assault against Ansar al-Islam positions.
The Saudi government funded 9/11.
Rand Paul is correct. It was all part of the plan to also work on Libya and Syria. That is not working well either.
Sorry, but I would have made the same decision given the facts presented.
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.