A Retrospective on the First Iraq War
Now that it's vividly clear that President Barack Hussein Obama has successfully snatched humiliating defeat from the jaws of tenuous victory in Iraq and that the United States will have to return to Iraq with some sort of military action, members of the Democrat Party and their stooges in Obama's mainstream media are busily attempting to attach blame for that extremely regrettable situation and for its future consequences on former President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and anyone else in the previous administration they can possibly scapegoat.
That pathetic effort is a reflection of how disgraceful - and forgetful - today's liberal-leftist Democrats and their media lackeys have become.
That disgrace was highlighted by reports this week that the State Department has revealed that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) now occupies the Al Muthanna Chemicals Weapons Complex housing sarin, mustard gas, and the nerve agent VX, situated less than 50 miles from Baghdad, weapons of mass destruction the Obama administration has dismissed since they were old, contaminated, difficult to move, and therefore constituted no military value.
In view of the fact our ever-indecisive commander-in-chief has yet to decide exactly what future military action would entail, let's set aside for the moment the probable consequences of America's re-involvement in Iraq and the possible use by ISIS of those allegedly valueless WMDs. Instead, let's focus for the nonce on how and why we went into that Mideast cesspool in the first place and the Democrat senatorial hypocrites who approved of our intervention.
In a nutshell, Saddam Hussein was a certifiably sadistic megalomaniac and his sons, Uday and Qusay, were potentially worse.
While Uday and Qusay rampaged and raped their way through Iraq, Saddam was committing his own atrocities: He boasted about his weapons of mass destruction which he wouldn't hesitate to use. He demonstrated his bloodthirst by invading, looting, and annexing neighboring Kuwait in 1990-91.
His hitlerian ambitions were ultimately and soundly repulsed in Operation Desert Shield, a war waged by coalition forces from 34 nations led by the United States. He subsequently, repeatedly defied 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding, among other things, he destroy his WMDs and permit U.N. inspectors to verify their destruction.
In another nutshell, Saddam Hussein was a treacherous despot and represented not only a serious danger to the Mideast but to America and the world in general. And, at the time, most Democrats concurred in that estimation as well as in the pressing need to take military action to remove him and the threat he posed with his devastating weaponry.
Accordingly, Congress enacted the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution on October 16, 2002 supporting and encouraging efforts by President Bush to €strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq€ and €obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.€
As with the U.N. resolutions, Saddam ignored the United States Congress and belligerently ignored the resolution's authorization for President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States €as he determines to be necessary and appropriate€ in order to €defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.€
Simply put, Bush sought and received a bi-partisan congressional imprimatur to do what needed to be done with Saddam and Iraq, including going to war to €defend the national security of the United States.€
Among those voting in favor of the resolution and thereby agreeing Saddam was in possession of weapons that could effect mass destruction were 29 Democrat senators including such notables as Dianne Feinstein, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Birch Bayh, Tom Harkin, Mary Landrieu, John Kerry, Max Baucus, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer, John Edwards, Ernest Hollings, Tom Daschle, and Jay Rockefeller.
Nevertheless, when none of Saddam's WMDs were located in Iraq after that first Iraq war, their party and their MSM minions had a field day castigating Bush as a liar who had unilaterally involved our country in a needless conflict which would eventually cost 4,488 American lives and 36,710 total casualties over the course of eight long years.
War, any war, all wars, are ugly and destructive and repugnant.
Much uglier, more destructive, and more repugnant are supposed leaders of a country who initially support a war effort and then after it was essentially won and when a new national leader of their political party decides it's time to bug out and retreat and leave a war-torn but pacified enemy exposed to insurrectionists determined to reverse initial gains and necessitate another intervention, cast blame on everyone but themselves.
America has survived many wars, turmoils, and disasters. Whether we can survive lying quislings in our own country is questionable.
That pathetic effort is a reflection of how disgraceful - and forgetful - today's liberal-leftist Democrats and their media lackeys have become.
That disgrace was highlighted by reports this week that the State Department has revealed that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) now occupies the Al Muthanna Chemicals Weapons Complex housing sarin, mustard gas, and the nerve agent VX, situated less than 50 miles from Baghdad, weapons of mass destruction the Obama administration has dismissed since they were old, contaminated, difficult to move, and therefore constituted no military value.
In view of the fact our ever-indecisive commander-in-chief has yet to decide exactly what future military action would entail, let's set aside for the moment the probable consequences of America's re-involvement in Iraq and the possible use by ISIS of those allegedly valueless WMDs. Instead, let's focus for the nonce on how and why we went into that Mideast cesspool in the first place and the Democrat senatorial hypocrites who approved of our intervention.
In a nutshell, Saddam Hussein was a certifiably sadistic megalomaniac and his sons, Uday and Qusay, were potentially worse.
While Uday and Qusay rampaged and raped their way through Iraq, Saddam was committing his own atrocities: He boasted about his weapons of mass destruction which he wouldn't hesitate to use. He demonstrated his bloodthirst by invading, looting, and annexing neighboring Kuwait in 1990-91.
His hitlerian ambitions were ultimately and soundly repulsed in Operation Desert Shield, a war waged by coalition forces from 34 nations led by the United States. He subsequently, repeatedly defied 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding, among other things, he destroy his WMDs and permit U.N. inspectors to verify their destruction.
In another nutshell, Saddam Hussein was a treacherous despot and represented not only a serious danger to the Mideast but to America and the world in general. And, at the time, most Democrats concurred in that estimation as well as in the pressing need to take military action to remove him and the threat he posed with his devastating weaponry.
Accordingly, Congress enacted the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution on October 16, 2002 supporting and encouraging efforts by President Bush to €strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq€ and €obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.€
As with the U.N. resolutions, Saddam ignored the United States Congress and belligerently ignored the resolution's authorization for President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States €as he determines to be necessary and appropriate€ in order to €defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.€
Simply put, Bush sought and received a bi-partisan congressional imprimatur to do what needed to be done with Saddam and Iraq, including going to war to €defend the national security of the United States.€
Among those voting in favor of the resolution and thereby agreeing Saddam was in possession of weapons that could effect mass destruction were 29 Democrat senators including such notables as Dianne Feinstein, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Birch Bayh, Tom Harkin, Mary Landrieu, John Kerry, Max Baucus, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer, John Edwards, Ernest Hollings, Tom Daschle, and Jay Rockefeller.
Nevertheless, when none of Saddam's WMDs were located in Iraq after that first Iraq war, their party and their MSM minions had a field day castigating Bush as a liar who had unilaterally involved our country in a needless conflict which would eventually cost 4,488 American lives and 36,710 total casualties over the course of eight long years.
War, any war, all wars, are ugly and destructive and repugnant.
Much uglier, more destructive, and more repugnant are supposed leaders of a country who initially support a war effort and then after it was essentially won and when a new national leader of their political party decides it's time to bug out and retreat and leave a war-torn but pacified enemy exposed to insurrectionists determined to reverse initial gains and necessitate another intervention, cast blame on everyone but themselves.
America has survived many wars, turmoils, and disasters. Whether we can survive lying quislings in our own country is questionable.
Source...