"ALL CAPS IN DEFENSE OF LIBERTY IS NO VICE."

Friday, October 21, 2005

IN 1991, SADDAM DIRECTLY THREATENED THE USA WITH TERROR ATTACKS - and in 2003 Bush FINALLY did something about it!

SADDAM: "The United States wants to secure the flow of oil. This understandable and known. But it must not deploy methods which the United States says it disapproves of -- flexing muscles and pressure. If you use pressure, we will deploy pressure and force. We know that you can harm us although we do not threaten you. But we too can harm you. Everyone can cause harm according to their ability and their size. We cannot come all the way to you in the United States, but individual Arabs may reach you."

This quote proves that Bush was right to dethrone Saddam because this was a direct threat to the continental USA - one which could not be tolerated in a post 9/11 world.

This blatant threat coupled with the fact that Saddam had used WMD (against his own citizens in Halabja, and against Iranians), and was sponsoring international terror (by sending money to Palestinian terrorist groups) and was harboring terrorists (including Zarqawi and Abu Nidal) and was firing on our jets patrolling the NO-FLY ZONES (which were the only things preventing his continued genocide against the Kurds and the Shias) made his continued rule over Iraq a serious threat.

In 1998, the Congress passed and Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act - making regime change in Iraq the official policy of the USA. IN ADDITION, Saddam was in violation of several UNSCR's - which constituted the armistice for the Gulf War, and therefore - technically and legally - a state of war existed. When the UNSC unanimously oassed UNSCR #1441, they specifically warned Saddam that this was his last chance to get back into good graces, and what did he do??? Saddam filed what is UNIVERSALLY regarded as a false declaration. This essentially burned his final chance.

By using force to oust Saddam, all Bush did was implement UNSCR's and defend the security of the USA. This was - and remains - the president's most important duty, and in regard to Iraq, it was a duty he had the Congressional authority to ensure with the use of force - and authority granted to him in October of 2002 - THREE MONTHS BEFORE THE SOTU IN WHICH HE CITED BRITISH INTEL' ABOUT IRAQ'S ATTEMPTS TO BUY URANIUM IN AFRICA --- A FACT WHICH WAS ONLY A SINGLE FACET OF A MULTIFACETED CASE AGANIST SADDAM.

I bring this up today because with all the hubbub surrounding the Plamegate grand jury, and the Saddam Trial, I think it's important to remember that the first job of ALL presidents is to protect and defend the USA. We should NEVER allow our nation to be governed by a president - a COMMANDER IN CHIEF - who makes that a secondary priority - as Clinton did (remember, BJ Clinton didn't do enough to strengthen our defenses or counterattack our enemies after Somalia, the African embassy bombings, the Khobar bombing, the USS Cole attack. Still don't believe me that Clinton was DERELICT? Then just read the Freeh book!).

BOTTOM-LINE: Ousting Saddam made his threat to us moot. And it has changed Kaddafy, freed Lebanon - and will soon liberate Syria, too. And utterly isolate Iran.

It took great courage for Bush to stick by his guns and do the right thing. We are safer as a result (because Saddam canno threaten us or the Saudis or the Israelis or anyone else) - and the world is becoming a better place, too: democracy is spreading, and the swamp which breeds jihadoterrorism is draining - (that swamp is NOT anti-Americanism; it is tyranny and the poverty and ignorance which tyranny produces). In Iraq we are killing jihadoterrorists and we are constructing a society which will diminish the appeal of jihadoterrorism, and which will inspire other peoples and other nations - which are under the thrall of tyranny - to become free - as in Lebanon.

Joe Wilson - andf those who use him - are using LIES in a YEARS OLD attempt to show that the war was not justified. They are wrong. I think I have proven they are wrong, FOR EVEN IF BUSH NEVER MENTIONED AFRICA AND URANIUM IN HIS SOTU, USING FORCE TO OUST SADDAM WAS RIGHT! And in September of 2002 - BEFORE Congress authorized Bush to use force to oust Saddam - Bush spoke to the UNGA and gave a long laundry list of reasons why Saddam had to go, and why his exit would lead to the spread of democracy and proerity and peace.

People like Joe Wilson and Dean and Pelosi ignore the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act and the SEPTEMBER 2002 speech AND the OCTOBER 2002 Joint Congressional Resolution authorizing the use of force against Saddam, (AND MERELY FOCUS ON ONE SENTENCE IN A 2003 SOTU).

People like Joe Wilson and Dean and Pelosi (and Bill Clinton) are bad for our national security. They are untrustworthy, cowardly, mendacious self-serving jerks who have directly and indirectly aided our enemies. Wilson is one of the worst culprits; he has used outright LIES to try to cast a negative light on Bush's courageous decision to use force to oust Saddam. Wilson should go on trial after Saddam!

ADDENDUM: the FACT that Saddam should have been removed will NOT be changed ONE IOTA even if Rove and/or Libby are indicted FOR ANYTHING. But that will not stop the Left - and the MSM they still dominate - from spinning any indictments as "proof that Bush lied, and people died - needlessly, (or for oil)."

5 comments:

i_answer_to_john_most_of_the_time said...

Your account certainly sounds reasonable. But the fact of the matter is that a decision to go to war didn't have to be made when it was made. A simple decision tree would have shown that the risk simply was not worth the effort. The real risk was not and IS not WMD. The real risk is reinforcing an unstable middle east. AND reducing America's ability to leverage/pressure other issues throughout the world.

The decision DID NOT have to happen when it did. Nothing material would have changed if the decision had been delayed, PERIOD. The administration/President had a lot of information, BUT that should not have changed the options on the table. If the information on WMD was convincing, it was and still is a very, very bad decision.

john c

Reliapundit said...

john;

you wrote:
"Nothing material would have changed if the decision had been delayed, PERIOD."

WRONG. the ONLY reason we got as far as we did by feb or 2002 is becasue we had 500,000 troops in the region READY TO GO. and it is a FACT that they could NOT be kept there indefinitely. as soon as it became clear that saddam was not going to FULLY AND COMPLETELY comply (it was his FINAL chance afetr all!!!) we had to move on him.

you wrote:
"A simple decision tree would have shown that the risk simply was not worth the effort."

AWHATTA?!?!?!?

Saddam is on trial; Iraq has a constitution and is now - for the first time - a democratic republic; and as a result of this bold move libya caved in, and lebanon became free of occupation, and soon syria will be free of tyranny - and iran is surrounded...

and you have the audacity to say it was not worth the risk!?!?!?

and... WE HAVE ONE MILLION BATTLE-TESTED MILITARY MEN AND WOMEN.

I'd say it has been a RESOUNDING SUCCESS! and well wporth it.

the men and women in our armed forces have NOT sacrificed in vain.

yopu, john - if i may call you that - are WRONG!

buh-byeeeee!

sdfsbo said...

hi

San Diego real estate broker said...

Hi: Interesting blog.

Anonymous said...

the good thing about your blog is, its natural. Appreciate your views and added my comment on it. keep it moving and have a great blog. cheers !!!! quick payday