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

Skip to comments.

Advice to Bush: Take out Saddam soon
TownHall.com ^ | 8/20/02 | Cal Thomas

Posted on 08/19/2002 9:44:37 PM PDT by kattracks

One of the criticisms about the September 11 terrorist attack on America was that we should have seen it coming. Some sort of pre-emptive action might have stopped the terrorists from hijacking our planes and killing our people, some critics said.

We now have another opportunity to forestall perhaps even worse assaults on our people and freedoms by removing Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from power before he can unleash weapons of mass destruction on Israel and, perhaps, the United States.

In recent days, advisers to the former President Bush have gone public with recommendations to the current president not to take out Saddam. These are people, including former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, who recommended that the former president settle for expelling Saddam's forces from Kuwait during the Gulf War and not attempt to topple Saddam. That advice worked well, didn't it? Fortunately, the current national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, disagrees with her mentor. In an interview last week with the BBC, Rice called Saddam evil and said the world has an obligation to remove him from power or face inevitable global "havoc" orchestrated by his regime.

It would appear we have moved from the days of Franklin Roosevelt, who said, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself," to our present day when some fear fighting evil more than the evil itself.

President George W. Bush has the right attitude. He told reporters Friday that the public debate over what action to take against Saddam Hussein "healthy," but added, "America needs to know I'll be making up my mind (whether to go to war) based upon the latest intelligence and how best to protect our own country plus our friends and allies."

In the aftermath of 9/11, the president warned that the war against terrorism would be long and the price would be high. He said more lives would undoubtedly be lost, whether by terrorist acts or by the war against terrorism.

Freedom is not cheap and a war to oust Saddam Hussein won't come at bargain basement prices. But any decision about war must consider long-term benefits and consequences. No one, including Brent Scowcroft, disagrees that the world would be a safer and better place if someone other than Saddam Hussein headed Iraq's government. Saddam is not going to respond to any Western appeals for inspections or negotiations. We already know what his objectives are and they are not in our, or the world's, best interests.

On June 7, 1981, Israel took out Saddam's nuclear facility at Osirak, south of Baghdad. The nearly-completed Tammuz-1 reactor had been built by the French. European nations, which refused to save themselves from Hitler (and the United States had to do it for them at great cost), continue making back-door deals with Saddam while criticizing their supposed American "ally" for even contemplating the liberation of the Iraqi people from Saddam's iron grip.

The Israeli government issued a statement in 1981 that it had evidence that the Tammuz-1 reactor was "designed to produce atomic bombs," and that "the target for such bombs would be Israel." Europeans and even the United States, which voted to condemn Israel at the United Nations, criticized the attack. But who doubts that if Saddam had been allowed to complete his work Israel would by now be a radioactive parking lot?

No responsible leader believes Saddam Hussein has changed his stripes. Whether armed with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, he remains a threat to the world. Even dovish Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres told CNN last week, "The problem today is not if, but when (Saddam will use his weapons of mass destruction)." Peres added that while attacking Saddam now would be "quite dangerous.postponing it would be more dangerous" because "he will have more weapons.".

(Over the weekend, Peres softened his position, issuing a statement saying he was not pressuring the Bush administration to strike Iraq, and that the timing for any such assault would be a U.S. decision.)

Saddam Hussein seeks revenge because of the humiliation he suffered at the hands of former President Bush by humiliating Bush's son. A man who would gas his own people and back a plot to assassinate former President Bush will stop at nothing to make sure evil triumphs.

It is America's job, even if we must do it alone, to make sure he does not succeed.

Read Cal Thomas' biography

©2002 Tribune Media Services



TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 08/19/2002 9:44:38 PM PDT by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kattracks
BOMB SUDDOM
2 posted on 08/19/2002 10:16:44 PM PDT by RMrattlesnake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
I think Cal is right!
3 posted on 08/19/2002 10:35:41 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
If we do nothing, something like this will happen all over again, only 100 times worse.


4 posted on 08/19/2002 10:40:00 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
It is America's job

Yes. It is.

5 posted on 08/19/2002 10:46:09 PM PDT by GVnana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; MadIvan; tonycavanagh
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;

For he to-day that sheds his blood with me

Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,

This day shall gentle his condition:

And gentlemen in England now a-bed

Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,

And hold their manhoods cheap while any speaks

That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

6 posted on 08/19/2002 10:47:34 PM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Cal's right, but Saddam is not unique. There are others in his class. Should they all be dealt with? Daunting task.
7 posted on 08/19/2002 11:10:18 PM PDT by a_Turk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made
And crowns for convoy put into his purse:
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
8 posted on 08/20/2002 7:03:35 AM PDT by Mr. Thorne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: a_Turk
Who else has used poison gas in massive amounts on populated cities with no warning as a test, and to wipe out centers of resistance? Who else has started two wars of conquest, killing hundreds of thousands? Who else has fired SCUD sized rockets into enemy cities in at least 3 countries?

Yes there are evil leaders elsewhere. But none with Saddam's demonstrated proclivity to use WMDs on a large scale and invade his neighbors when he thinks he can get away with it.

He cannot be permitted nuclear weapons.

9 posted on 08/20/2002 8:08:31 AM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Thorne
Let the Euros hide in their cellers with their women and children, fearing the arab muslims in their streets.
10 posted on 08/20/2002 8:10:09 AM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
"Cry Havok, and Let Slip the Hounds of War!"
11 posted on 08/20/2002 8:20:17 AM PDT by Dead Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Yep. They can fight or they can hide.

Or, in the case of the French, they can just hide.
12 posted on 08/20/2002 8:24:22 AM PDT by Mr. Thorne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Yes I agree that he's first among rascals in beligerance. Yes I agree that he's got to be dealt with in a most decisive manner.

Yet others like Lybia, Iran, Saudi, Sudan, Syria, Lebanon, etc., etc., would be just as willing to obtain nuclear weapons, and in many ways would be just as dangerous if and when they do.

I think a comprehensive plan should be ready to be implemented when others start popping their heads out on Saddam's side, which I suspect they will.
13 posted on 08/20/2002 8:30:06 AM PDT by a_Turk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Thorne
It's the French way to surrender. No way will they have the balls to kick out the muslims before they are swallowed.

Where is El Cid?

14 posted on 08/20/2002 8:30:39 AM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: a_Turk
I would fight next to you Turk. If this war comes down to the Americans, British and Turks, we will prevail.
15 posted on 08/20/2002 8:46:37 AM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
I agree that against Iraq, the USA, Britain and Turkey should suffice. I hope something happens to convince the others to join in too, though. It's unfair that the USA should foot the bill alone.

The descent of the Ottoman empire occurred partially because of her investing in the infrastructure of, and having to fight subversion in the remote parts of the empire, especially in the Balkans and the lower middle east. The investment was not great, it consisted mainly of railroads, but was a pretty good percentage of her income. The contribution to taxes from these remote parts was minimal.

Footing the bill by yourself, engagement after engagement, will have other negative effects. You've gotto get the Asians and the Europeans to understand that it is in their own best interest to chip in. The best argument - at this time - is probably that cleaning up the middle east would drastically reduce illegal immigration into those countries. The ultimate would be if one of them got hit, but that's not likely right now.
16 posted on 08/20/2002 9:00:07 AM PDT by a_Turk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: a_Turk
The backwash from this war, or no war, will be with us for decades I guess.
17 posted on 08/20/2002 9:07:33 AM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kattracks; Luis Gonzalez
It would be nice to see Saddam instantly become part of the dust of history.
But Irag is pretty distant, and attacking him would be pretty tricky and complicated given the ambivalent support of neighboring countries.
Why don't we start out with something easier and closer to home?
Fidel Castro has been a pain in the butt a lot longer than Saddam Hussein.
Why don't we invade Cuba and bump-off Castro first?
18 posted on 08/20/2002 9:12:51 AM PDT by Willie Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
< Where is El Cid? >

In Spain!
19 posted on 08/20/2002 11:16:07 AM PDT by Mr. Thorne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: a_Turk
Cal's right, but Saddam is not unique. There are others in his class. Should they all be dealt with? Daunting task.

Who else has used poison gas? Who else is seeking to get nuclear weapons? Who else has fought the U.S. and lost and would seek revenge? Who else would give WMD to terrorists?

After you answer that, then which of them should daunt the U.S.? The only ones that would give me pause are China and Russia. Once our ABM's are in place, I would be willing to take on either, if they were helping terrorists against the U.S.

You're either for us, or against us.

20 posted on 08/20/2002 11:44:50 AM PDT by Forgiven_Sinner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

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.

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