Liberator Tony Blair Stands Tall at Iraq Hearing- Takes Jab at Obama & Brown
Posted by Jim Hoft on Friday, January 29, 2010, 11:41 PM
Hero Tony Blair stood trial today in Great Britain over his brave decision to send troops to Iraq to free the people from the mass murderer Saddam Hussein. Blair made the decision back in 2003. Since then the US and allies have secured the nation and won the war thanks to the leadership of George W. Bush.
150 moonbat protesters gathered outside with their astroturfed signs. (Reuters)
The trial was set up to humiliate Former Prime Minister Tony Blair for his decision to bring freedom to the persecuted Iraqis and stability to the Middle East. Blair stood his ground saying he would make the same decision today as he did back in 2003. He also took a couple of swipes at the current weak leadership in Washington and the UK.
The Daily Mail reported:
Mr Blair insisted: ‘This isn’t about a lie or a conspiracy or a deceit or a deception. It’s a decision.
‘And the decision I had to take was, given Saddam’s history, given his use of chemical weapons, given the over one million people whose deaths he had caused, given ten years of breaking UN resolutions, could we take the risk of this man reconstituting his weapons programmes or is that a risk that it would be irresponsible to take?
‘The decision I took – and frankly would take again – was if there was any possibility that he could develop weapons of mass destruction we should stop him.’
…He warned that Iran’s nuclear weapons programme now poses an even greater threat.
And, in an apparent rebuke to Gordon Brown and Barack Obama, suggested that if he was still in power he would be championing military action.
Godspeed, Tony Blair.
Thank you for being a friend to America, a friend to the Iraqis and a champion of freedom.
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Featured Story:
Republican Military Hero & First Female to Command Fighter Squadron Will Announce Run For Congress Today
Published February 8, 2012 at 8:42 pm - 106 Comments
bg commented:
++
i watched a bit of that off & on today, and cannot begin to describe the patience that man had with his questioners who kept trying to put their words in his mouth.. i can only presume they believed if they asked the same question (trying to corner Bush mostly) several different ways, the answer they’d get would be the one they wanted to hear..
i heart Tony!! thumbsup
==
Mike Crosby commented:
How depressing! I’m sure many in this country would like to do the same to George Bush.
I’m sure the people protesting came from the same stock that ousted Churchill.
jonyjoe101 commented:
The last of the great British leaders. Now they just have girlymen both in the UK and our own bowing girlyman extraordinaire.
Usually the British or the US has a “strong” leader that can get the other leader on the ball. In the 90′s PM Thatcher was able to get Bush (senior) to step up to the plate when he was “getting weak on the knees”. After 9/11 President Bush (junior) was able to get Blair to join him to stop the Iraqi threat. Blair didn’t need to much arm-twisting to go along.
Now 10 years later we have two weak leaders. They are popular with the liberal antiwar crowd, but otherwise worthless if the world decides to act up again.
ADVERTISEMENT
bg commented:
++
jonyjoe101 @ 12:23 am #4
re: [if the world decides to act up again.]
what do you mean “if”..
we (the world) are in more danger now than ever before throughout history.. which exemplifies just how “weak” the worlds “leadership”
truly is.. *sigh*
==
bg commented:
++
Obama et al claimed Bush took his eye off the threat.. yet Obama has managed to take everyone’s eyes off the threat by not only taking the GWOT off the table, but enlisting the aid of the enemy as to how to fight them.. yes, God help US, but he won’t unless we help ourselves, simple
as that..
==
bg commented:
++
morning session:
Fmr. PM Blair To Testify Before British Iraq Inquiry
afternoon session:
Fmr. PM Blair To Testify Before British Iraq Inquiry
==
Opus #6 commented:
Those are starting to look like the good ole days to me.
Andreas K. commented:
This irks me.
Look at the UK today. Look at it. It is where it is thanks to Blair. It’s going down the sewer thanks to Blair. He started it. Brown just picked up the baton, but the development with the UK turning into Europe’s shithole has started with Blair.
So he was part of freeing the Iraqis. Nice. But he was also an instrumental part of taking freedom away from 500 million people. He supported the Lisbon Treaty, which is steering the EU to become the EUSSR. He took a piss on all the things the UK stands for. So he freed the Iraqis? Do you really think the British people give a s**t? No really, do you think that? Thanks to Blair and later Brown Britain is now the country with the highest amount of violent crime per 100,000 inhabitants, even beating South Africa. It’s a country full of CCTV cameras (4 million, and growing), yet the crime rate is also going up. The British people and the police have been castrated by Blair and later Brown left and right.
Will the moonbats put Blair and Brown on trial for that?
Of course not.
Nathan R. Jessup commented:
Men of character are driven by principle. Men of weak character are driven by reaction of their piers and constituents. I have the utmost respect for men and women who adhere to principle while being attacked for doing so; a clear sign of strong character.
We NEED men and women with strong character to represent the people. I believe Thad McCotter (US House of Representatives) to be one of these men.
Nathan R. Jessup
http://www.the-raw-deal.com
Winston commented:
He was good in Foreign Policy areas but he was indeed UK’s Obama…. Another socialist douchebag
waicool commented:
right on Tony. your speech is historic, one of healing courage. thank you. that was a wonderful read.
Viv commented:
Blair was right over the issue of Iraq, that ‘s the only good thing I would say about the man. He is a socialist and would stand with Obama on all of his issues apart from Iraq. In many ways he is further left than Obama. Over the past decade Blair and his government in an effort to radically change the country (sound familiar?) and to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity” according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair and Jack Straw, Labour’s relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to “open up the UK to mass migration” but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its “core working class vote”. As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants. Blair is also a huge fan of a federal Europe and is responsible for dragging the UK further and deeper into the EU against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the population.
Blair is no great leader and is intensely disliked in the UK for many good reasons. If a Conservative had been PM at the time he/she would have also stood with the US on deposing Saddam
Steve commented:
They probably love him more than they did Saddam.
The problem with the Left is that they care not at all for Liberty; their own or that of another. “Better Red than dead”. Better to live in servitude than to not live at all. Very easy to say until you see what it’s like to live in servitude.
Reaganite Republican commented:
Great post, everyone should see this-
My readers will, as it’s linked at the Reaganite Republican…
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/2010/01/statist-varmints-on-run-now.html
Corporal Vere commented:
In other news: Iran tyrants execute two peaceful democracy advocates.
‘nuf said.
Chisum commented:
BUYERS REMORSE
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/01/buyers-remorse.html
squeaky commented:
from rcp – with a healthcare bill just over 2,000 pages you know some industrious critter[s]
took the opportunity to slip a few things past
“we the people”.
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/01/29/obamas-stunning-admission/
BigAlSouth commented:
Remember. Tony Blair was the leader of Britain’s Liberal Party. He may be wrong about many social and fiscal issues, but he was dead on accurate about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and hes WMD program.
This is a fact: Iraq would be YEARS ahead of the Iranians in the goal of having a nuclear weapon were it not for US combat intervention. Blair knew this. Bush knew this. I love it when Liberals go blank when I ask them if they would have a problem with Saddam having a nuke. After all, the Iranians are going to have one and nobody appears willing to stop them. Do you Liberals honestly think the the Iraqis, the sworn enemy of the Iranians, would stand by and let the Iranians be the only country in the region with a nuke?
squeaky commented:
“the Iraqis, the sworn enemy of the Iranians”
and that pesky shia – sunni thing.
Ken commented:
Hero Tony Blair stood trial today in Great Britain over his brave decision to send troops to Iraq to free the people from the mass murderer Saddam Hussein.,/i>
Sheesh. I find Blair a sympathetic and honorable figure, but that’s not the reason he gave for supporting Bush in Iraq, and it’s not the reason Bush mainly gave for invading either. Tell the truth.
BigAlSouth commented:
(#21) Ken, what is your truth? That Bush and Blair invaded Iraq because of Saddam’s WMD program? Saddam either had a WMD program or he did not. Every reasonable world leader, and quite a few Democrats, viewed Saddam as a threat if allowed to continue his program and goal of regional domination.
Tell me Ken. Do you agree or disagree that there is no willingness to challenge Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon? Do you honestly believe that Iran would acquire a nuke without objection by Saddam?
Finally, to all those readers who honestly believe that Bush “lied.” I don’t debate morons or ideologues.
Ken commented:
Big Al, I agree with your first paragraph analysis. But that’s not what our host wrote.
Your second paragraph is confused.
Nahanni commented:
Unfortunately Andreas K is correct. The policies of the New Labour Party under Blair and Brown have just about destroyed Britain.
TomB commented:
“Big Al, I agree with your first paragraph analysis. But that’s not what our host wrote.”
What, exactly, did our host write that was incorrect?
“Your second paragraph is confused.”
Only if you can’t answer the questions.
Ken commented:
Jim Hoft wrote that Blair sent troops to Iraq “to free the people from the mass murderer Saddam Hussein.” That is obviously untrue.
And the answer to Al’s first question is that I disagree. His 2nd is confused — Saddam is dead.
Edward commented:
Having watched Blair and his government destroying the United part of the United Kingdom by splitting it up to the EU’s orders and ruining the economy with feckless spending and frantic, politically correct over-regulation, I just do not understand how anybody could rate Blair as less than a disaster – assuming they actually wished the country well.
He is the worst sort of liar – he actually believes what he knows to be untrue whilst he says it. Like most liberals (in the American sense) he thinks that his own good intentions somehow make even the biggest lies and the greatest disasters somehow right. He lied to the country, lied to Parliament, lied to himself and (worst of all) believed himself.
I am not sure whether Britain should have joined the US war in Iraq but, as he chose to do so, his is the sole blame for the humiliating defeat of our under-resourced forces in Basra. That is what the enquiry should have been about. To will the end without the means is the classic failure of wishful thinking.
bg commented:
++
Ken @ 11:51 am #27
WMD was only one piece of the puzzle..
if you had listened to Blair.. WMD was the main initial reason for removing Saddam not only due to the very real threat he posed and his sponsorship & exportation of terrorism, but the very real possibility of terrorist either literally getting their hands on it, or Saddam allotting it to them..
btw & just a sample:
Iraqi WMD Mystery Solved
……………………………………….
1. Documents Moved to Syria: In essence, documentation of that small portion of the WMD program which was administered directly in Iraq was moved, along with other sensitive material and resources, to the Hshishi Compound at al-Qamishli (Kamishli) in Syria, just near the Iraqi border,
in August-September 2002. This was noted by GIS at that time.
2. R&D Conducted in Libya: The great bulk of the work on WMD and on associated missile delivery systems, however, was conducted since 1991
in a partnership with Libya, and also with Egypt, at facilities in Libya, in order to keep the programs away from US and United Nations (UN) probes. That, too, was noted by GIS.
now you know why Gaddafi surrendered his
“wmd” & Israel blew up Syria’s nuke facility..
==
bg commented:
++
and just for the heck of it..
Saddam regime in a relationship with the leaders of the organization of terrorist leaders Osama bin Laden, the terrorist Ayman al-Zawahiri …
==
Ken commented:
bg, you don’t seem to realize I’m not disagreeing with you about Blair’s motives, nor faulting them, only about what Hofts says it was, and says it was because to say what’s true would remind us that Blair was wrong (and Saddam’s having moving his program to Syria, if indeed he did, doesn’t change that. As for Saddam having some responsibility for 9/11, you’re not going to convince me with a Google translation.
Andreas K. commented:
The UK was a great country once. Today, when I’m flying overseas, I’m avoiding it. I rather go via France (and I really don’t like France.)
Honestly, I say it again: I’m irked that this is celebrated while nobody says a word about Blair and his goons supporting the Lisbon Treaty, a treaty that Tony Blair’s party has forced on the British people without giving them a chance to vote upon. The British people were shat upon by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
Just like in all other European countries. I never got to vote either. Voting was deemed not necessary by all governments in Europe (except Ireland) and Tony and Gordon happily nodded to this.
Everybody who thinks that Tony Blair is such a great rescuer of freedom… go to the UK. No, go there. Leave the tourist areas. Talk with the British people in the street. The British people who are taking it to the streets screaming angrily “We want our country back!”
Today you can be found guilty in a British court for not making a statement (happened last year.) The right to be silent does not apply there anymore. You might even get arrested for being too tall (as it happened to a rather tall photographer last year, a female cop was intimidated by his height, and thus the cops -in civilian attire who never showed their ID- arrested him.)
Edward, you’re totally dead on. The news I heard from the UK scare me at times. And I know, this will spread into my country as well. It’s already starting in Germany, too. And from there it’s only a small step.
When looking at Europe right now, I smell blood. There is war brooding in Europe. And it’s people like Blair who brought us to this point.
bg commented:
++
Ken @ 1:12 pm #31
excuse me, but you’re still not getting it..
the grueling Blair took was associated with one segment of
the total of reasons for removing Saddam Hussein’s Regime..
there’s much more to it, be patient you will see..
that said, please be specific about your Hoft gripe..
exactly what do you have a beef about what GP stated??
iow: point it out to me so i can respond to you coherently..
because you seem to want it both ways..
and also point out where Blair was wrong
within the time frame he was attesting to??
thank you..
==
bg commented:
++
Andreas K. @ 1:20 pm #32
excuse me, but are they suffering from BDS in your neck of the woods??
you sound like Obama et al blaming Bush for the worlds plight..
newsflash:
Islamists & Marxists by any other name are the ones
responsible for causing the global chaos.. although i’m
pretty certain they would agree with you & Obama..
how “weak” is Germany that they so desperately need a scapegoat??
==
bg commented:
++
Treaty of Lisbon
[The Treaty of Lisbon (initially known as the Reform Treaty) is a treaty that was signed by the European Union (EU) member states on 13 December 2007, and entered into force on 1 December 2009. It amends the Treaty on European Union (TEU, Maastricht; 1992) and the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC, Rome; 1957). In this process, the TEC was renamed to Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
[..]
New impetus
50th anniversary in the summer of 2007, Berlin. (Merkel and Barroso)
Search Wikisource Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Berlin Declaration
In 2007, Germany took over the rotating EU Presidency and declared the period of reflection over. By March, the 50th anniversary of the Treaties of Rome, the Berlin Declaration was adopted by all Member States. This declaration outlined the intention of all Member States to agree on a new treaty in time for the 2009 Parliamentary elections, that is to have a ratified treaty before mid-2009.
[..]
Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the United Kingdom did not take part in the main ceremony, and instead signed the treaty separately a number of hours after the other delegates. A requirement to appear before a committee of British MPs was cited as the reason for his absence.
[..]
Ratification
Main article: Ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon
Order in which countries ratified the Treaty (become green).
All EU member states had to ratify the Treaty before it could enter into law. A national ratification was completed and registered when the instruments of ratification were lodged with the government of Italy. The month following the deposition of the last national ratification saw the Treaty enter into force across the EU.
The Hungarian legislature was the first to approve the treaty, which it did on 17 December 2007. Under the original timetable set by the German Presidency of the Council of the European Union in the first half of 2007, the Treaty was scheduled to be fully ratified by the end of 2008, thus entering into force on 1 January 2009. This plan failed however, primarily due to the initial rejection of the Treaty in 2008 by the Irish electorate in a referendum, a decision which was reversed in a second referendum in 2009. Ireland, as required by its constitution, was the only member state to hold referendums on the Treaty. The Czech instrument of ratification was the last to be deposited in Rome on 13 November 2009.[18] Therefore, the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force on 1 December 2009.]
much more @ link..
[standard disclaimer: source Wikipedia]
==
bg commented:
++
re: bg @ 1:55 pm #35
sorry, the beggining of the New impetus
paragraph was cut off: here it is again..
[In 2007, Germany took over the rotating EU Presidency and declared the period of reflection over. By March, the 50th anniversary of the Treaties of Rome, the Berlin Declaration was adopted by all Member States. This declaration outlined the intention of all Member States to agree on a new treaty in time for the 2009 Parliamentary elections, that is to have a ratified treaty before mid-2009.]
==
bg commented:
++
Andreas K. @ 1:20 pm #32
(just a sample)
btw, i don’t disagree England is in a predicament, (and that Blair policy may have had a lot to do with it, but he alone is not responsible for Germany, France, or any other sovereign countries missteps) as is all
of Europe & America..
Boiling The Infidel Frog
wake up & smell the Global IslaMarxist take-over..
==
AuntieMadder commented:
bg, I believe this is what the Brits are rightfully angry with Blair about.
At midnight last night, we ceased to be an independent state, bound by international treaties to other independent states, and became instead a subordinate unit within a European state.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100018459/at-midnight-last-night-the-united-kingdom-ceased-to-be-a-sovereign-state/
bg commented:
++
ps re: bg @ 2:21 pm #37
again, one must also take into account the time frame..
hindsight is 20/20 has never been so true..
but who knew back then what is known now??
if Blair et al had to do it all over again, knowing what they know now, i’m certain things would be very different.. time to move forward, not assign blame for past, what we’ve only come to realize in the future to be, mistakes..
==
bg commented:
++
re: bg @ #38
hit wrong tab uhg!!
and correct them..
==
bg commented:
++
AuntieMadder @ 2:27 pm #38
date of article: Last updated: December 1st, 2009
point being Tony Blair is not the only one responsible, what
they know now & what they knew then are worlds apart..
sarc on/
with that said, may i refer you to back my previous posts on the matter of all was right with the world until Blair & Bush showed up & messed it up..
btw: there were other PM’s before Tony Blair, and as far as
i know, Tony Blair is no longer PM, and there’s anew PM
as well, or did i miss something??
/sarc off
thanks..
==
bg commented:
++
AuntieMadder @ 2:27 pm #38
[Until yesterday, Britain could simply walk out of the EU by abrogating the Treaty of Rome and repealing the 1972 European Communities Act. Henceforth, it will have to go through the secession procedure laid down in Lisbon. In other words – in the minds of Euro-lawyers, at any rate, if not of British constitutionalists – the EU gets to settle the terms on which its members are allowed to leave. Formal sovereignty has been shifted from the national capitals to Brussels.
It is appalling, demeaning, disgraceful that such a thing should have been done without popular consent, and in the absence of the referendum that all three parties had promised. “There’s no point in crying over spilt milk,” you might say. True. But there is every point in mopping it up.]
albeit stated so much more articulately, believe they more or less
arrived at the same bottom line as i did.. but heh, what do i know..
btw, this all has to do with the UN’s plan for a
New World Order, you know that don’t you??
==
AuntieMadder commented:
The little known truth is that WMDs were found in Iraq.
Saddam’s WMD have been found
New evidence unveils chemical,
biological, nuclear, ballistic arms
http://www.wnd.com
/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213
More on the weapons smuggled out of Iraq:
UN Confirms: WMDs Smuggled Out of Iraq
http://www.thevanguard.org/thevanguard/columns/040618.shtml
And if you need to read yourself to sleep, here’s a link to the CIA’s report on Iraq’s WMDs report.
https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm
I understand Ken’s frustration. Bush, with the approval of Congress (including a buttload of Dem Congresscritters) sent troops into Iraq to seize WMDs. I was all for it then and still support it now. While there, some WMDs were found and others were smuggled to Syria, neither of which the lamestream media reported. (I recently learned about this from you, bg.) To better prevent Iraq from getting back to work on bigger, better and deadlier WMDs once troops were gone, Saddam had to be removed from power. Even though I wasn’t aware that Iraqi WMDs were located, getting rid of Saddam was okay by me just the same as he was a genocidal mass murderer and since we were already there anyway… Without Saddam, a new govt had to be established in Iraq or else all hell would break loose there, hell that could very well have gone global. Again, no problems here as it makes sense to me. I didn’t then and don’t today think Bush lied or that the Bush administration had any ulterior motive for invading Iraq and helping the Iraqis to establish a new govt there.
The lamestream media, by not reporting on the located WMDs and then by revising history and the reason for entering Iraq initially, made it appear that Bush was revising history and his motivations for entering Iraq. In other words, by lying in their news reports and articles, the lamestream media made Bush look like a liar.
It pisses me off even today that the lamestream media did and continues to do that. The lamestream media also pisses me off by not reporting on the WMDs that were located. I’m also pissed off at the Dem Congresscritters who voted for entering Iraq and then later accused Bush of lying. They knew everything he knew and they even knew that WMDs were located, both in Iraq and smuggled out of Iraq. It really pisses me off when I remember the whole lot of them a few days after 9/11 singing God Bless America and then, only a couple of years later, most of them turning their backs on both God and America in favor of their own personal interests and careers. Yeah, a**holes, keep cuddling up with the enemy and see if God hears you singing next time…and there will be a next time.
Anyway, I understand Ken’s frustrations. Further, I believe the best thing we can do to help restore Bush’s rightful place in history as an honorable POTUS who made his decisions in the best interests of America, with the support of Congress, is to stop telling the stories that the lamestream media made up and told us and to start telling it like it really was.
Hero Tony Blair stood trial today in Great Britain over his brave decision to send troops to Iraq to end mass murderer Saddam Hussein’s WMD program and, to ensure Iraq remains without WMDs, free the Iraqi people from life under the tyrant’s deadly regime.
Or something like that. I ain’t no writer.
AuntieMadder commented:
bg
January 30th, 2010 | 3:11 pm | #42
Yeah, I know that.
And regarding your #41, all I have to say is this: Smartypants. :b
brooklyn commented:
OUTSTANDING !
MR. Blair is a leader, and with GW BUSH led the world to liberate Millions of Iraqis and Afghanis.
Amazingly, the nutty Democratic Partisans, the same we reference as the wacky left overseas, turned on Blair simply because of their mindless bigotry towards a REpublican.
They bought the hatred, the blindess, the fashion so much, they even still maintain a world with Saddam would be better for all?
NUTS.
that is what it is, simply nutty.
They are so lost, they cannot admit they are wrong.
Conservative Bill in Chester County commented:
You go Blair. he is a patriot unlike the marxist anti american we got.
bg commented:
++
AuntieMadder @ 3:15 pm #43
let me just add that Bush is a firm believer
& practitioner of “loose lips sinki ships” ..
jmo, but i believe he preferred ‘the less we knew the less dust it would stir up’ (so to speak).. makes sense to me that they’d rather take public lumps than alert the enemy to the fact they knew more than they were telling, ergo, the enemy would feel safer from discovery, and perhaps lead them to more info (or something like that)..
==
Joanne commented:
Well, I believe Tony Blair made the right decision, based on the information at hand, to go into Iraq with the Americans; unfortunately, the man sold the British down the river to the German-Catholic European Union and for that treasonous act he should ascend the Tower of London and be dealt with, with haste.
Joanne commented:
Andreas K. #9 – bravo, a million times bravo!!!
Joanne commented:
Actually forget the Tower of London, that would be too kind; just throw him into the British penal system.
Ken commented:
I didn’t then and don’t today think Bush lied or that the Bush administration had any ulterior motive for invading Iraq and helping the Iraqis to establish a new govt there.
It’s a matter of historical record that the Bush administration pressured the CIA to come up with evidence against Saddam, and also that they knew the yellow cake uranium charge was false. If Obama was guilty of either most people here would be howling. Here’s where I’m different. I agree that Bush acted in what he believed (and I believed) were the best interests of the country. Strictly speaking was he entirely honorable? No. But he meant well. What I really fault him for is his incompetent prosecution of the war, and his sending men and boys into battle without proper armor. If Obama did that, you’d be beside yourselves.
Wait a minute . . . you already are.
NC Cop commented:
“It’s a matter of historical record that the Bush administration pressured the CIA to come up with evidence against Saddam”
Matter of historical record? Not sure what record you are referring to. This might help.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/Senate_Intel_Popup.htm
“Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities.”
“and also that they knew the yellow cake uranium charge was false.”
Wrong again. Iraq DID send a delegation to Niger to seek Uranium. Niger said “get bent” and that was the end of it. The same link I posted did say that:
“Conclusion 16. The language in the Oct. 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that “Iraq also began vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake” overstated what the Intelligence Community (IC) knew about Iraq’s possible procurement attempts.”
It was exaggerated, there’s no doubt about it, but to say it was false isn’t 100% correct.
“If Obama was guilty of either most people here would be howling.”
Well, Bush wasn’t guilty of either, and people still howled.
“What I really fault him for is his incompetent prosecution of the war”
Wrong again. The war was flawless. We took down Iraq in less time than anyone thought possible. The plan for the AFTERMATH, however, was indeed screwed.
If you are going to be a stickler for details, than do it with your own posts, as well.
Marsh commented:
Those leftist **** stains are a trip. They’re the first to denounce supposed American war crimes yet they yawn at the daily barbarism of our islamist enemies. Have they ever attended an anti-terrorism rally condemning the intentional targetting and mass murder of countless Iraqi civilians as they were simply standing in line waiting to vote for the first time in their lives? Have they ever participated in a moment of silence when hundreds of innocent people are killed in a busy market place by an “allah ackbar” screaming islamofascist? Of course not.
And where do these so called anti-war types even begin to get on their high horse and declare themselves morally superior to people who supported the policy of regime change in Iraq? As if we were the ones who have the need to explain ourselves and to justify our positions. Let’s take the time to imagine what would have resulted had the U.S. government heeded their council shall we?
In the interest of saving time let’s start with the first Gulf War at the earliest. Saddam Hussein would be the owner and occupier of Kuwait. That country, which was a sovreign arab and muslim state and a member of the arab league and the United Nations, would simply no longer exist today but would rather be under Saddam’s iron fist. And with the huge amount of excess wealth that he would have received from stealing a huge percentage of the worlds oil supply we now know he was planning to use those funds to further advance his WMD programs (according to post-war investigations mind you) and to fuel his war machine for the lovely purposes of invading and occupying even more nations in the region.
Here’s what else would have happend: all of the muslims in south eastern Europe would now be ethnically cleansed from the entire continent. Something which the islamofascists who accuse us of being Zionist Crusaders with the goal of destroying islam convientently forget to mention. Not to mention that the taliban would still be in control of Afghanistan and al queda would still be their guests and Saddam and his deranegd crime family and his regime of henchmen would still be in power in Iraq and terrorizing an oppressed people in a situation that can only best be described as a mass grave below ground and a concentration camp above ground.
Now if I had that record I’d be EXTREMELY modest. I wouldn’t be demanding explanations from those of us who advocate that it’s about time that we stop this continual appeasment of racist, totalitarian, barabric and imperialist tyranical regimes. And that we don’t allow the same kinds of failings that were occuring in Iraq like those that took place in Ruwanda, Afghanistan, Bosnia, etc. The supporters of revolutionary regime change in Iraq take pride in our positions thank you very much. We especially take tremendous pride in our our Kurdish and Shi’ite Iraqi friends who took part in that struggle to save themselves from genocide and to establish a thriving free press and democracy based on the rule of law.
Oh, and almost forgot to mention that the anti-war left wanted us to pull out of Iraq years ago even though they had been told time and time again by experts on the ground in Iraq that it would lead to civil war and genocide. For shame!
Scott commented:
Do the math, lis, and you’ll find that Bush-Blair saved a net 750,000 Iraqi lives thanks to their ending the atrocious death rates under Saddam and Clinton’s embargo.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/10/85000-civilians-were-killed-during-iraq.html
bg commented:
++
Ken @ 6:52 pm #52
you audacious LIAR..
you’ve posted that & other crap a few times &
have been proved wrong, wrong, and wrong!!
btw i’m still waiting for a coherent response to
bg @ 1:38 pm #33, are you a coward as well??
==