Do you really think another round of UN sanctions (or continuation of the corrupt Oil For Food program) would have stopped the evil son from pursuing his stated plans. More from the files of Saddam. (h/t – HughHewitt)
************
From Worldwide Standard:
The latest issue of Foreign Affairs contains excerpts from a recently declassified report, produced by the U.S. Joint Forces Command, on the inner workings of Saddam’s regime. This paragraph, in particular, hasn’t received much attention in the media:
The Saddam Fedayeen also took part in the regime’s domestic terrorism operations and planned for attacks throughout Europe and the Middle East. In a document dated May 1999, Saddam’s older son, Uday, ordered preparations for “special operations, assassinations, and bombings, for the centers and traitor symbols in London, Iran and the self-ruled areas [Kurdistan].” Preparations for “Blessed July,” a regime-directed wave of “martyrdom” operations against targets in the West, were well under way at the time of the coalition invasion.
It’s also worth noting that on April 8, 1991, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 687, the first post-Gulf War disarmament resolution, which declared, among other things, that Iraq “not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism.” Eleven years later, on November 8, 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441, which declared that the “Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism….”
************
Is there any doubt remaining to a breathing, open-minded human being that our intervention in Iraq (see Nazi Germany, circa 1933) prevented a hell of a lot more destruction and death than it has caused?
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
Yes.
Is there any doubt remaining to a breathing, open-minded human being that our intervention in Iraq prevented a hell of a lot more destruction and death than it has caused?
Among people who have functioning intellects, no. Among the hardcore BDS Moonbats who also believe Bush Killed JFK, there will never be enough evidence to convince them that Bush or America was ever right about anything.
It would be interesting to see someone argue for a doubt that our intervention in Iraq prevented a hell of a lot more destruction and death than it has caused, in a way that reflected all known information about Iraq and Saddam’s evil.
In a long stay here, I have yet to see anyone opposed to the Iraq war (from any perspective) do that. Assuming they even have an argument to offer, at some point they always “blank out” some crucial chunk of info about Iraq and Saddam’s evil.
The canard “Saddam had no connections to terrorists” is only one of their usual blank-outs.
Another is the canard that sanctions weren’t collapsing (as most of the other U.N. Security Council countries rushed to help Saddam violate them).
The question is fun, but irrelevant. The better is “what now.”
Check out Max Boot (no enemy of W) in today’s L.A. Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-columnist-mboot,1,3971554.columnist?coll=la-news-columns
Let’s get the job done.
Agape.
#5 – Weak dodge, Gene.
The question isn’t the least bit “fun”, and is VERY relevant, to the men and women who are actually trying to get the job done in Iraq. Remember them?
If people like you go around claiming, irrationally or untruthfully, that their intervention has increased the death and destruction in the world, what does that do to them? Or to necessary domestic support for their mission?
As for specific, constructive suggestions for “getting the job done” – let’s hear ’em.
Note: In a long stay here, I have yet to see anyone offer constructive suggestions that weren’t either (1) meaningless/impractical, or (2) in fact, already being done (and successfully) as we speak, and the commentor simply didn’t know about it.
It would be delightful if you came up with a good new suggestion or strategy.
P.S. as for Max Boot – the LAT article is “registration required” and my time isn’t infinite, so I didn’t register – thus wasn’t able to read it.
Good post, Bruce. Uday was the ultimate terrorist enabler with a father figure who beat him, brutalized him, and –in the end– left him to die while his father sought refuge in flight and cowering. These documents will hang the liberals and Democrats out to dry.
I hope we don’t get to a point where America is no longer listening… because the President and his allies need to tell this story repeatedly –wise counsel, judicious action, temperate military force in the face of pure evil –now let’s get to the documents where Saddam & Company talk about using Syria as a storage facility for the WMDs as US forces threatened his tyranny.
#6,7 Cal, Here is a “money quote” –the final two paras of Boot’s piece:
“Instead of talking about how quickly we can get out, the administration should be talking more about how we can win this war. That may actually require sending more troops — perhaps an extra division or two to help secure Baghdad and Anbar provinces. The administration’s continuing unwillingness to adequately police Iraq, or to increase the permanent size of the U.S. Army, suggests the need for a thorough spring cleaning at the Department of Defense.
Yet if President Bush has blundered badly — and he has — that does not make him different from any other wartime leader. Think of all the setbacks the U.S. has suffered even in successful conflicts of the past, from the failed invasion of Canada and the loss of New York, Philadelphia and Charlestown in the Revolutionary War to the horrific retreat from the Chosin Reservoir followed by two years of bloody stalemate in the Korean War. All were catastrophes of infinitely greater magnitude than anything that has occurred in Iraq, and yet none precluded a satisfactory resolution. We can still triumph in Iraq if we have the patience to outlast the fanatical jihadists and cynical opportunists who want to drive us out. Of course, that’s a big if.”
Boot is a staunch W supporter.
If you folks don’t have access to Max Boot anywhere else, it would behoove you to register at the LA Times. I think it’s cost free at this time.
Isn’t this about time for national Democrats to drag out Robert McNamara or Harold Brown and claim they supported Geo Bush (as in a photo op in the Oval Office with former Secy of Ds proves), were in favor of the invasion of Iraq and have now had a change of heart?
HowieDean, the highest ranking general of the Democrats’ war on Bush, could do the honors… outside JimminyCricket’s house in Plains, GA?
I drive around all day and listen to alot of talk radio, and Air America is not exactly covering this, as in they’re not. And note that fewer libs are commenting on the two posts regarding tis story. So much for caring about the truth.
#9 – ““Instead of talking about how quickly we can get out, the administration should be talking more about how we can win this war.”
But the Administration has been talking about that. Boot, from the (admittedly small or out-of-context) evidence of that quote, would not appear to be listening very well.
I don’t care if you want to proclaim Boot a “staunch” Bush supporter or whatever. My interest is in operational facts.
In various major speeches and press conferences, the Administration has been talking ad nauseum about how we can win – and are already winning – this war. BUT – if your news is all filtered by the New York Times and the alphabet networks, then of course you would not know. (I mean that as a comment on them.)
As for Boot’s specific suggestion, that we significantly increase Iraq troop levels: all I can say is what Bush said in his press conference just a few days ago: he’s asked the commanders on the ground if they need or want that, and they’ve said no.
Our forces on the ground in Iraq are slowly but surely being augmented by well-trained native forces, in a process you could call “Iraqization of the war” – and it’s something the Bush administration has been talking about openly for MANY months now – and slowly but surely, it’s working.
The news from people on the ground in Iraq is generally much better than the MSM is willing to tell you. The much-vaunted “civil war” that was supposed to have broken out (and, has NOT) after the Golden Dome bombing was prevented largely by the firm and proud showing of native Iraqi forces, who are reportedly supported by the vast majority of ordinary Iraqis.
Gene: read http://www.billroggio.com – it’s a great source for real news on Iraq, including the kind of analysis of our military progress that the MSM provided in days of yore.
There are some other great ones out there – I am away from my regular computer at the moment and can’t quickly get their links.
#12 Thanks for the link, Cal. I have an “ex” who will be there in April. He’ll also help to fill me in.
A question about your “he’s asked the commanders on the ground if they need or want that [more “boots”on the ground], and they’ve said no.” Isn’t that a larage part of the discussion? Bremer says he asked for more, didn’t he? And Shinseki (sorry about the spelling, General)?
Adjusting the old Southern saying: “That dog might not be able to hunt much longer.”
Agape.
“larage?”
Sheesh. Sorry.
#13 – What you’ve said about past (2003, 2004) discussions btw Bush and generals may or may not be true. Regardless, my comment’s focus was on recent discussions as reported by Bush in his press conference a few days ago.