Freeper Ladies Re-Write History
I appreciate everyone’s patience with my fascination with the anthropological / tribal characteristics of militant authoritarian mind.
For you history buffs, a few things have changed recently.
It’s Clinton fault we had to invade Iraq.
Yes, I supported the Gulf war then and I think it was a big mistake not to have gone straight into Baghdad then and wipe him out back then. However I understood the logic and the International problems that would have created at the time. But it left us with a growing problem that would have to be addressed and Clinton didn’t have the stomach for it. He was too busy!! But he needed to get us into other things to draw attention away from his antics (wag the dog), which were less than stellar. Nuff said
There WAS a connection between Saddam and 9/11.
DownhomeGirl Dec 30, 6:29 pm says, (You’ll have to scroll down as this site does not link to specific comments)
Bush has said all along that there was an involvement with 9/11, that Al Quaida was present in Iraq, which they were whether you and your liberal buddies want to believe it or not. Even the 9/11 commission found that. His position hasn’t changed. New information has come to light and perhaps he has shared more of his reasons with us. Who knows. We are not privy to what goes on in the oval office.
The US should hire mercenaries to defend our country.
American Soldier says,
I read in a news article that the assumption of recruiting foreigners into the Armed Services is essentially having mercenaries defending our country.
I don’t know about you but I think this is just absurd. I know that despite what country you were born in you will endure the same training any red blooded American would. So just because you live in a different country and are recruited you are deemed a mercenary? Man I just want to smack some people in the ear lobe for being this dumb.
December 31st, 2006 at 8:52 am
Cliff, you tenacious bastard. Give’m enough rope and they hang themselves every time, Just like the Chimpus in Chief.
So now Clinton failed to get Saddam during the Gulf War. I wonder how long it’ll take’m to figure out Clinton did Water Gate too.
December 31st, 2006 at 12:59 pm
“The question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many.â€
~Dick Cheney 1992
December 31st, 2006 at 4:39 pm
Some people don’t keep up with current events. More than three years ago, President Bush stated that there was no evidence linking Iraq to the 9/11 attacks.
January 1st, 2007 at 5:14 am
Sue was answering The Question,
“For those that disagree with the Iraq War - did you support our action against the country in 1991? Did we do the right thing sending troops then (notwithstanding we didn’t finish the job)?
January 1st, 2007 at 7:28 am
No, saddam our “friend” at the time, was set up by the bush crime family.
January 1st, 2007 at 9:04 am
I’ve always had doubts about that emission as well. My deeply ingrained difficulty in supporting death-machines aside, this was perpatrated by another of the Bush family, former head of the CIA, delivery boy of the famous ‘cake, Bible and Key’ to the ayatolla of Iran, and supporter of covert (read: ‘Out of the Loop’) wars all over Central America. There was also the wonderfull little detail of Saddam, seeking the then-administraton of GWHB, as to whether such an invasion of Kuwait might engender U.S. wrath. No! In this credibility mix was the phoney incubator-babies-being-tossed-on-the-hospital-floor story that really only served to confirm that the pro-war propaganda machine had in its sights, a REALLY stupid audience.
So, if by ‘finishing the job’, you mean relieving the teeming masses of the criminally warlike bigshots, we’ve only just begun.
January 1st, 2007 at 10:38 am
It is the greatest disappointment of my life to have witnessed the recent birth of the right-wing, self-proclaimed political history analysts whose knowledge seems based primarily on vague memories of what they see on TV and maybe the unqualified reflection of someone who supports their world view (usually a politician or officer).
Caveat scratches the surface of a deeply complex history of geopolitical maneuvering well out of site of the American public to this day.
To even begin to try to answer the question about the Gulf war armed with a pedestrian’s understanding of that event requires a level of arrogance I have only ever seen since Karl Rove entered the world scene.
Truth - R.I.P.
January 1st, 2007 at 5:22 pm
It is a “question” of only historical interest now. I was in Yemen during the run-up to the Gulf War in 1991. Yemen, as some may know, is a republic and most people there are not admirers of the Kuwaiti royal family (or the Saudi royals, for that matter). Americans believed (justifably, I think) that we and our coalition were going to the aid of an ally and helping the Kuwaiti people escape a brutal occupation. Many people in the Arab street were rooting for Saddam back then, however perverse it may seem to us.
Americans who don’t know much about the Middle East are fond of asking, why didn’t the U.S. Army roll on to Baghdad? The short answer is, we had smarter, better informed leaders back then who knew that going beyond the liberation of Kuwait would stir up a hornet’s nest.
Let me quote two of those smarter leaders (emphasis added):
“Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in ‘mission creep,’ and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable ‘exit strategy’ we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations’ mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome.”
Who wrote that? It was former President George H.W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft, National Security Advisor during the Bush 41 administration, in their book A World Transformed.