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 ...
I think Trump was pointing out that he was a lesser evil than that of Iranian regime like Stalin was someone we had to cooperate with to defeat Hitler.
In the Arab World, Saddam was ‘par for the course.’
>>>I suggest you stop debating if you think such debate is counter productive
And why is this even a topic for debate now?
Thanks for your reply:
>>>”I think Trump was pointing out that he was a lesser evil than that of Iranian regime like Stalin was someone we had to cooperate with to defeat Hitler.”
Saddam was not an ally of the U.S.; he tried to kill a U.S. president.
Reagan’s approach was more appropriate: “If two of your enemies are fighting, who do you support? The one that’s losing.” And that was a far cry from praising Saddam.
I really appreciate your argument, but I still think this is not a wise topic, position or statement for the GOP now.
Yes, he was.
Thank you much for the music.. Nice to end the night on these notes.
I don't believe that American Thinker piece.
I read the report of the Iraq Study Group commissioned by GW Bush. It's online. Long, and dull.
The only terrorism that it reported Saddam Hussein being involved in was the killing of Iraqi ex-patriots who Saddam believed were actively working to overthrow him. That was the sum of his terrorism.
He was not an Islamist. His hero was reputed to be Joe Stalin because Saddam admired his ruthlessness. His terrorism was like that of Stalin liquidating any threats to his rule, it wasn't terrorism of the al Qaeda variety.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume your statement is correct:
“The only terrorism that it reported Saddam Hussein being involved in was the killing of Iraqi ex-patriots who Saddam believed were actively working to overthrow him. “
What then is the point of praising him as an anti-terrorrist? How, given your position here, judge the statement: “But you know what he did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good.”
It’s not my statement. It’s the conclusion of the Iraq Study Group that Bush convened and sent in after the fighting stopped.
‘What then is the point of praising him as an anti-terrorrist? How, given your position here, judge the statement: “But you know what he did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good.”’
I’d say the point is mistaken. Saddam was killing off perceived threats against his rule, not terrorists. These killings are what got Saddam himself listed as a terrorist, he was having exiles killed outside of Iraq.
My point as objecting to the American Thinker piece that (falsely) claims that Saddam backed Islamic terrorists. He didn’t. He regarded them with suspicion. Saddam’s one overriding concern was remaining in power. If he regarded Islamists as a threat he would have killed them just as enthusiastically as he killed any other rivals. From what I’ve read Islamists left Iraq alone while Saddam was in power. Either they weren’t interested in Iraq or they feared Saddam. Maybe a mixture of both is what was going on.
>>I’d say the point is mistaken.
I’ll take that.
I disagree that he didn’t support other terrorism elsewhere; but given your position, “Saddam the terrorist fighter” is mistaken.
It’s just a lose-lose as a GOP message.
“I disagree that he didn’t support other terrorism elsewhere; “
The Iraq Study Group report is extensive and they had no reason to cover up any terrorism Saddam was involved in. Saddam was killing Kurds and political rivals. Islam wasn’t his thing.
Saddam occasionally threw a bone to the anti-Israel crowd, with money IIRC, but then Israel had blown up his nuclear reactor back in the ‘80s so he wasn’t inclined to be friendly.
We disagree on the evidence here.
But, if you are right, Trump is praising Saddam for brutal terrorism against internal dissent.
Either way, my point is valid: Not a good message today.
BTW, I believe I’m conflating the Iraq Study Group report with the similarly named Iraq Survey Group report.
The Iraq Survey Group is the correct one. AKA known as a Duelfer Report. A long and dry read.
Thanks..
And I’m really not sure if the difference between: “Iraqi Perspectives Project Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Document” DOD
“We disagree on the evidence here.”
So where are you getting your evidence?
The Survey Group consisted of 1,400 Americans and Brits wandering all over Iraq for a year after the fighting stopped. They searched for WMDs, interviewed Iraqi scientists and military officers and government officials. Investigated factories, weapons depots, weapons labs. It’s the most complete, and perhaps the only survey of postwar Iraq.
The report includes a long section on Saddam’s involvement in terrorism, all of which details him killing political rivals. What is the source of information that you rely upon to arrive at a different conclusion than the Survey Group?
Part of the report, the WMD section, is published on the CIA website. The terrorism section isn’t included, it’s wherever the full PDF is offered.
https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004
This thing took off on Twitter, and it wasn’t even new. This is the new scandal manufactured by liberals. Ironically, this was the argument used by liberals attacking Bush that said we shouldn’t have taken out Saddam because he kept a lid on the terrorism. Now the liberals are all acting like they saw no benefits of keeping Saddam in power and sounding like George Bush Republicans. Fascinating.
Didn’t anti-Bush democrap haters defend saddam hussein at the time of the war on terror, calling him “So good at stopping mullahcracy from becoming more powerful”??? These people are full of crap.
That’s partially accurate
Colin Powell advocated they would look like butchers to the world if they annihilated a thoroughly routed army in disorganized fully abandoned retreat
Schwarzkopf Cheney and Wolfowitz as well as all the lower field command advocated destroy the enemy and unconditional surrender
Bush Baker Major and Powell carried the day
The marsh Arabs and Kurds paid the price
“The marsh Arabs and Kurds paid the price!!”
They sure did and Schwarzkopf regretted the decision.
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.