What a Looooser
Posted on 12/17/2003 8:04:12 PM PST by Commie Basher
Sunday's capture of Saddam Hussein made it a great day — a great day for empty rhetoric and meaningless posturing by politicians and journalists.
Somehow it was assumed by politicians and the press, without explanation, that Hussein's capture has vindicated the Bush administration's attack on Iraq. But from September 2002 to March 2003, George Bush said nothing about capturing Saddam Hussein. Instead, Bush talked incessantly about weapons of mass destruction and Iraq's ability to attack the U.S. with them — as well as Al Qaeda camps in the Iraqi desert. How does finding Saddam Hussein make Bush's claims any more true than they were last week?
We're told that that the Iraqis can see now that Saddam Hussein isn't coming back to power — as though they couldn't figure that out for themselves with 130,000 foreign troops occupying their country.
But in the wonderland occupied by politicians and journalists, the capture of Hussein must mean that all the resisters — also known as "loyalists of the old regime" — would have no more reason to resist.
Some politicians said that if anti-war protesters had their gotten way, Hussein would be in his palace today, instead of in jail. Yes, and if the anti-war protesters had gotten their way, several hundred Americans and thousands of Iraqis would be alive today, instead of dead.
The press played its part in the celebration. Wolf Blitzer of CNN said that Hussein's capture proves to the world that "the President of the United States means business" — whatever that means.
In fact, we've known all along that George Bush means business — the business of getting reelected.
There were plenty of TV pictures of Iraqis firing AK-47s into the air. But no inquiring minds bothered to ask how everyday Iraqis could be carrying AK-47s out in the open, when the American occupiers have imposed strict gun-control edicts and are at war with resisters.
What if Saddam Hussein says that all the dreaded Weapons of Mass Destruction were destroyed years ago? Well, we know that George Bush believes in preemptive strikes, and he's already made one on this front. On Monday, he said of Hussein:
He’s a liar. He’s a torturer. He’s a murderer. . . . He’s a — he’s just — he is what he is: He’s a person that was willing to destroy his country and to kill a lot of his fellow citizens. He’s a person who used weapons of mass destruction against citizens in his own country. And so it’s — he is the kind of person that is untrustworthy and I’d be very cautious about relying upon his word in any way, shape or form.
In other words, "Believe him only if he confirms what I've been telling you for the past year."
Liberation
Donald Rumsfeld said that Hussein's capture means that the Iraqis can now be free in spirit, as well as in fact.
Ah yes, liberated Iraq. It is now a free country. George Bush has liberated it.
How has Iraq been liberated? Let me count the ways . . .
1. The country is occupied by a foreign power.
2. Its officials are appointed by that foreign power.
3. Its citizens must carry ID cards.
4. They must submit to searches of their persons and cars at checkpoints and roadblocks.
5. They must be in their homes by curfew time.
6. Many towns are ringed with barbed wire.
7. The occupiers have imposed strict gun-control laws, preventing ordinary citizens from defending themselves — making robberies, rapes, and assaults quite common.
8. Trade with some countries is banned by the occupying authorities.
9. The occupiers have decreed that certain electoral outcomes won't be permitted.
10. Families are held hostage until they reveal the whereabouts of wanted resisters — much like the Nazis held innocent French people hostage during World War II.
11. Protests are outlawed.
12. Private homes are raided or demolished — with no due process of law.
13. The occupiers have created a fiat currency and imposed it on the populace.
14. Newspapers, radio stations, and TV are all supervised by the occupiers.
This is liberation in the NewSpeak language of politics.
Words like freedom just don't seem to mean what they used to, do they?
If Saddam was allowed to annex Kuwait, he could have eventually commanded a huge portion of the world's oil reserves. That would have been very bad for everybody, including us. Containing him was worthwhile from geopolitical view. Defeating him utterly would have been better.
Tell me which president you consider an isolationist.
What a Looooser
It would have done two things. Encouraged oil exploration in less volatile areas of the world and further encouraged free market development of alternative energy sources. The price of oil is subsidized by billions and billions of dollars in government spending, reducing the profit incentive for the development of alternatives, reinforcing our reliance on oil.
Ironically (or perhaps fittingly) the politicians promise to fleece us further to funnel money into their districts, ostensibly to research the very alternatives the market would develop absent their interventions.
As in using drugs, or are you expressing the sentiment of most on FR of what should be done with him?
Depends on what your values are.
Do you recall that Saddam, with all that oil wealth and power, attempted to take Kuait so he could grow his strength, power, increase his WMD arsenal,(Yes he did/does still have WMD, there is proof of that already in place, they will bring that evidence out at his trial) etc....
Pull your head out of that dark moist place you keep it for a change. We cannot live in bunkers or build a razor-wire fence around this continent!
Protectionism is a pipe dream along with your convoluted ideals. You can continue to defend the "Butcher of Baghdad" all you want, however the more you do, the more irrelevant you make yourself by proving you lack credibility.
All that oil wealth? Do you know what it adds up to? Not even what the U.S. spends annually on it's military. Stalin had much more economic power, much more WMD, yet never got around to attacking the U.S. Deterrence works.
Protectionism is a pipe dream along with your convoluted ideals.
At this point, the neutral, free republic our Founders created is just a dream. Some idiots welcome the current nightmare of a welfare/warfare state, constantly involving itself in other people's wars.
100 million on the head of Saddam 10 years ago, and poof, no more problem. But we all know this is a much bigger 'game' in the middle east than getting rid of tin-pots..-- Except those of us who are duped by Big Brother's oily lies.
Paid assassinations of tinpots have their own advantages and disadvantages. Past foreign policies can always be second-guessed. Secondary motivations can be adduced.
You think with the Harry Brownes of the world that that both Bushes warred against Saddam for electoral advantage. You are welcome to your tinfoil hat world.
Why is it necessary to tell lies about Harry when his own words are bad enough?
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.