Posted on 07/05/2016 6:25:48 PM PDT by ObozoMustGo2012
Donald Trump, speaking in North Carolina, just praised deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein as a killer of terrorists, noting that Hussein “didn’t read them the rights” before executing them.
“Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, right? He was a bad guy. Really bad guy,” Trump begins. “But you know what he did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good. They didn’t read them the rights, they didn’t talk. They were a terrorists - it was over. Today, Iraq is Harvard for terrorism.”
Hussein was labelled a major sponsor of terrorism by the American government for decades, a status that was a major plank in the rationale to invade Iraq in 2003.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
Unfortunately, they will play it for all it is worth. The media knows what they are doing.
Spot on. A mistake that could lead to our destruction.
LOL! “Praised him”.
You can stop with the pearl clutching nonsense...
Huffington Post makes my point quite well:
Huffington Post headline this morning:
TRUMP PRAISES SADDAM’S BUTCHERY
This little nugget may have passed you by, but the primaries are over, the strategy that works so well in the primaries for Trump won't work in the general...
He already has the media's attention, saying things like "You know what Saddam did so well" is just asking for a negative headline...
Instead of saying such things, he needs to attract moderates and independents to vote for him in the general, giving the left easy talking points like the huffington post headline to keep his negatives up...
His one goal should be to attack Hillary every second of every day not going off on tangents to simulate the media that hates him anyway...
What country did we illegally attack?
Are you saying when Congress approved to go to war against Saddam, it was illegal?
In hindsight, probably a bad idea...but it’s hard to predict outcomes...
Bush the Elder was a foreign policy realist as were his advisers like the then clear-headed Brent Scowcroft.
The coalition forces he had assembled had the goal of driving Saddam out of Kuwait, not conquering Iraq. There was an option of destroying more of the Iraqi army while we were at it, but occupying Iraq was a utopian lunacy that would have to wait for his not so bright son and his neocon nation builders.
Wolfowitz and his civilian aides were people whom I know that the uniformed military were suspicious of. Cheney as Sec Def was saying that conquering Iraq would be a bad idea, I don’t know if that was because he believed it at the time or was explaining GHW Bush’s goal for the war. Schwarzkopf had war gamed and designed the battle plan for defeating the Iraqi army. Don’t know if he had voiced a strategic plan that would have included the mess of occupying a large Muslim country.
We are in agreement there, though your use as Huff Po as making a point is suspect, to say the least. Do you routinely use liberal trash liners for your talking points? The risk is being seen as a one trick pony that only says bad things about Hillary and that may turn off indies and others who are looking for something other than just how bad Hillary is. That's how Cruz lost (well, one of the reasons he lost) because it was all about how bad Trump was, not what Cruz had to offer. In an election season that has been replete with mistakes, bad predictions and downright stupid comments by the supposed best and brightest punditry has to offer, Trump's tangents, in my view, only make them look more silly because they get wrapped around the axle about the "shining new thing" (Trump's latest "stumble") and miss the fact that he is solely sucking up the oxygen from anything Hillary, Biden, Warren, Obama, etc. have to say. You can see how it is bothering B.O. when he gets into his stuttering mode off teleprompter because Trump lives in his head.
It’s because they are terrified that Clinton is such a weak, awful candidate and Trump can win. They will do anything, change positions as many times as necessary and bend themselves into pretzels so much that they may even look like neocons in the end, to win.
Of course, you understand that the resolution was based on false premises. Wasn’t it?
Many in the Baathist party were Wahhabi Sunni. They were loyal to Sadaam always and with them he suppressed any adverse parties such as the Sadr city shiite bunch. But he did not let them get out of hand and would kill them if they got too rambunctious. Sadaam was not a practicing Sunni until the last two years. He was a sectarian dictator. But he kept the two factions at bay and if you created problems you took a dirt nap. This is the same control we saw in multi-ethnic Yugoslavia with Tito. When you have ethnic rift that permeates your country ,you suppress it with force.Its not a pretty sight. That was done until we invaded and left. That unleashed living hell and directly created the AL Qaeda element ( ISIS) in Iraq and Syria. Now you see the result.
We had no business there. Im still not sure why we went there. I guess it was to set up a big control bases in the middle east. That is what Wolfowitz wanted for the protection of Israel ,IMO.
Here is where the problem starts, you cannot pick and choose Muslim leaders...
Thanks for your reply.
From:
“Iraqi Perspectives Project, Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents “
“State sponsorship of terrorism became such a routine tool of state
power that Iraq developed elaborate bureaucratic processes to monitor
progress and accountability in the recruiting, training, and resourcing
of terrorists. Examples include the regime’s development, construction,
certification, and training for car bombs and suicide vests in 1999
and 2000.”
http://lauren.vortex.com/dod-iraq-aq.pdf
No...considering every western intelligence agency including Israel though Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, I'm not real sure it was a false premise...
Every intelligence agency was wrong? ...highly unlikely
Also WOD were found in Iraq after the war...Not widely reported...
I might add how does it feel to use libtard talking points which boils down to "Bush lied people died" BS
20/20 hindsight is always clearer than current situations...
I'm not defending attacking Iraq, but at the time, the Congress, the UN, all NATO countries thought it was the right thing to do...
Suspect how?
I used them to make my point...
I said the left would use Trumps words against him and they did...
Did you expect me to use a conservative site to validate my point about a libtard website?
But it was false wasn’t? Presidents don’t get paid to make mistakes. That is my point. Rock on. VOTE TRUMP or HILLARY . There is no place else to go.
Why are you concerned about what the Huff Post says about Trump? It’s not as though any of its readers will vote for him. Let the libtards make those arguments...they only resonate with libtards.
Are you purposely being dense ?
I could care less what Huffpost says about Trump...
My point was and still is he is giving the left and the Hillary campaign easy talking points to paint him negatively by not being careful with his words...
Huffpost is one of the most viewed websites on the internet for all sorts of news, all sorts of people look at it besides politics...
Millions of people look at the site...
So what if millions of people look at the site? They read it for the garbage that is posted there, juts like the New York Times, The Washington Post, The Atlantic, Rolling Stone or any of the innumerable liberal rags that are out there. Whether Trump says Saddam Hussein was good at controlling terrorism or not giving these liberal rags a headline matters not because their reader’s minds are already made up. If Huff Post never posted another negative Trump article, or even posted a positive article, it wouldn’t change the reader’s opinions of Trump one bit. So don’t sweat what Huff Post says...that’s my point.
I’ll give that a look.
We are going to have to agree to disagree....
Granted, rags like Huffpost are liberal driven....
There is a vast number of people who read all the media sources you mentioned, that doesn’t mean that said readership automatically will not vote for Trump...many dispise Hillary...
Their job is to beat Trump up everyday so they won’t vote for him...
Why Trump gives him talking points to do their job is beyond me....
I mentioned before that the primaries are over and the general is upon us....Trump will need every vote he can get to win....
Helping the enemies with slam dunk talking points isn’t going to help him win...
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.