Bush got Saddam Hussein

[ginscpy]

Obama got bin Laden

Saddam was a head of state

which is bigger?

 

[DutchBoy]

Yes he got Sadam with a war that is still going on. If you compare the costs of getting Sadam and Bin Laden than Obama is working very cost efficient.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Obama got bin Laden

Saddam was a head of state

which is bigger?

Are you nuts or ignorant?

Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11. The only reason Bush jumped him was because he tried to assassinate his daddy in 1993. Not to worry.....it only cost us 4400 young American lives, 35,000 seriously wounded and a trillion dollars. It was simply another case of us meddling in the business of an oil country. A country where we didn't evennneed to be.

Read this letter which was sent to Bill Clinton and then examine closely those who signed it:

January 26, 1998



The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC


Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.


Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.


Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

 

[Liberal]

Top 5 dumbest threads I have EVER seen.

I am saving this one.

 

[uscitizen]

obama got bin laden

saddam was a head of state

which is bigger?

lmao!

 

[HUGGY]

Obama got bin Laden

Saddam was a head of state

which is bigger?

The cost in American lives and treasure.

 

[bodecea]

Obama got bin Laden

Saddam was a head of state

which is bigger?

Yes, Bush got Saddam...and broke an entire country to do it.

 

[uscitizen]

What did Sadam do to us?

 

[DutchBoy]

What did Sadam do to us?

He made an oil deal with France

 

[Toronado3800]

What did Sadam do to us?

He made an oil deal with France

The man was a monster just not a super effective one.

 

[DutchBoy]

The world is loaded with brute dictators. So there must be another reason for taking out Sadam.

 

[Noomi]

Obama got bin Laden

Saddam was a head of state

which is bigger?

Bin Laden helped to kill 3000 innocent people, and was the bigger threat.

 

[uscitizen]

Obama got bin Laden

Saddam was a head of state

which is bigger?

Bin Laden helped to kill 3000 innocent people, and was the bigger threat.

And we killed at least that many innocent people going after Sadam, who even Bush admitted had nothing to do with 911.

 

[DutchBoy]

Obama got bin Laden

Saddam was a head of state

which is bigger?

Bin Laden helped to kill 3000 innocent people, and was the bigger threat.

And we killed at least that many innocent people going after Sadam, who even Bush admitted had nothing to do with 911.

The weapons of mass destruction are also never found. This was the reason fot going to war if I'm right.

 

[uscitizen]

Bin Laden helped to kill 3000 innocent people, and was the bigger threat.

And we killed at least that many innocent people going after Sadam, who even Bush admitted had nothing to do with 911.

The weapons of mass destruction are also never found. This was the reason fot going to war if I'm right.

That was the first of several reasons, all the while the Bush admin is speaking in a way to link Sadam to 911.

According to the polls about 25-30% of americans still believe that Sadam was responsible for 911 in some way.

The Bush admin was responsible for making them believe that.

 

[Obamanation]

All this time I thought Congress started wars...

Funny, but wasn;t there a whole slew of dems in Congress who started that war?

Oh, I also love Cammmpbell - asks if OP is ignorant then says "the only reason" bush (not congress) went after Hussein was because he tried to assassiinate his dad. Then says that we did it over oil...

Now which is it?

Europe was for the Iraq war too ---- seems like only the second guessing US left (after the fact) were against the war...

 

[Lakhota]

Bush got Saddam Hussein

Yeah, but why...?

 

[healthmyths]

The world is loaded with brute dictators. So there must be another reason for taking out Sadam.

GEEZ YOU people really disgust me!!
THE 1991 WAR WAS NEVER OVER! Do you understand???
HOW many times must you be told!
The 1991 CEASE FIRE was BROKEN BY SADDAM! How many times must you idiots be TOLD THAT???

THEN when the military operation was OVER and the Liberation was accomplished on May 1, 2003.
THESE TRAITORS AND YOU obviously had NO problem prolonging the war at a cost of 3,000 troops and $600 billion when you and these TRAITORS encouraged, recruited, praised, called our troops terrorists, cold blooded murderers.. THESE words made by these TRAITORS had MEANINGS!!

Media complicity in at the minimum HELPED prolong the Iraq conflict by promoting these commonly held attitudes by our leaders about our troops!
A) our troops are Terrorists.. called that by the below:
Presidential candidates that said: "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
Senator Kerry (D) calling our troops "TERRORISTS"!

B) Our troops KILL Civilians
or a future President saying: Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

C) Our troops cold blooded killers
U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”

D)Calling our troops Nazis, Soviets
Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets --action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.


WHY is it so hard to understand that when YOU stand on the sidelines and CHEER for the other SIDE that is treason!
THAT is what you and all others that stupidly support the above TREASON statements!
The terrorists LOVED to hear these words..troops air raiding villages...killing civilians!

For the love of God... how f...king stupid are people like yOU who evidently HAVE NO problem like the above singing the praises of the terrorists and gutting our troops???

 

[Old Rocks]

Iraq cost us over 4000 American lives, and at least 3 trillion dollars. And for what?

 

[healthmyths]

FOLKS as Long as I live, these words helped kill US troops, cost $600 billion and prolonged the freeing of 28 million people and most importantly made me understand that there ARE traitors in this country that didn't CARE how many troops were killed or how much it cost... JUST so they could have political power!

THIS is what THESE STATEMENTS did:
A) our troops are Terrorists.. called that by the below:
Presidential candidates that said: "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
Senator Kerry (D) calling our troops "TERRORISTS"!

B) Our troops KILL Civilians
or a future President saying: Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

C) Our troops cold blooded killers
U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”

D)Calling our troops Nazis, Soviets
Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets --action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.