Saddam told FBI: I bluffed on WMD because I feared Iranian nukes

posted at 7:23 pm on July 2, 2009 by Allahpundit

Not only is this old news, but it’s old news I’ve written about multiple times. Why cover it again? Because: It can’t be stressed enough that as bad as the current nuclear standoff with Iran is, it could have been that much worse if a certain nutjob wild card was still part of the international deck.

Hussein’s fear of Iran, which he said he considered a greater threat than the United States, featured prominently in the discussion about weapons of mass destruction. Iran and Iraq had fought a grinding eight-year war in the 1980s, and Hussein said he was convinced that Iran was trying to annex southern Iraq — which is largely Shiite. “Hussein viewed the other countries in the Middle East as weak and could not defend themselves or Iraq from an attack from Iran,” Piro recounted in his summary of a June 11, 2004, conversation.

“The threat from Iran was the major factor as to why he did not allow the return of UN inspectors,” Piro wrote. “Hussein stated he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for his refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq.”

Hussein noted that Iran’s weapons capabilities had increased dramatically while Iraq’s weapons “had been eliminated by the UN sanctions,” and that eventually Iraq would have to reconstitute its weapons to deal with that threat if it could not reach a security agreement with the United States.

I’ve never seen a what-if counterfactual about what the state of nuclear weapons in the Middle East would be right now if Saddam was still in charge in Iraq. Would there be international sanctions on him and Iran or would there be an international split between western nations over whom to support? Would Iran have scaled down its program for fear of another war with Saddam or as a concession to the west to get it to side with Tehran against Baghdad? Or would it have ramped up the program further in an out-and-out arms race with Iraq? Considering that the Iranian nuclear program was discovered in 2002, how much longer would Saddam have waited before restarting his own program? Once he did restart it, would that have reduced his pariah status in the region as neighboring Sunni nations rallied to his side against the Shiites? Or would it have set off mass nuclear proliferation across the region as Sunni leaders confronted the prospect of being threatened by Iran or the guy who tried to annex Kuwait? It’s hard for me to imagine a scenario in which the region would be in better shape with a nuclear-armed Saddam lurking, but if any lefties want to try to convince me, have at it.

Elsewhere in WaPo, John Bolton says it’s time for the IAF to attack Iran’s nuclear sites. I’d wait a bit longer in case Mousavi and the green revolution find their second wind and somehow knock out the mullahs, but his point about attacking at a moment when the public has never been more disaffected with the regime is well taken. The fear that striking Iran would drive Iranians back into the arms of the government has always been a deterrent, but in light of the schism over the past two weeks, it’s hard to imagine that happening. There’s no longer a relationship between the people and their rulers; such is the hatred, in fact, that I wonder how many of them would secretly thrill to seeing the Revolutionary Guard’s nose bloodied. It’s a gamble, but the odds really never have been better.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I would still like to see the Iranian dissident situation play out, as well. Maybe another month. But if nothing changes after that, send in the Israelis.

myrenovations on July 2, 2009 at 7:27 PM

Nope, not yet. Gotta wait until The Obama has a real crisis and needs a potent distraction.

Skandia Recluse on July 2, 2009 at 7:30 PM

Again, I’ll say:

“Lifelong liar admits to lying, but we’re Totally sure he’s telling US the truth today”

battleoflepanto1571 on July 2, 2009 at 7:31 PM

400,000 dead Kurds disagree.

roninacreage on July 2, 2009 at 7:35 PM

There’s no longer a relationship between the people and their rulers; such is the hatred, in fact, that I wonder how many of them would secretly thrill to seeing the Revolutionary Guard’s nose bloodied. It’s a gamble, but the odds really never have been better.

We’ll put our hope to that. An Israeli strike would be limited in scope , fewer civilians would be killed than at an ordinary election..

the_nile on July 2, 2009 at 7:35 PM

Related, from Norm MacDonald on SNL’s Weekend Update:

Jonathan Schmitz, the “Jenny Jones” guest who killed his secret gay admirer because of his fear and hatred of homosexuality, has been sentenced to 25 years in prison. Well, I guess that plan backfired!

thirteen28 on July 2, 2009 at 7:36 PM

Too bad Jamie Gorelick prevented the FBI from sharing this valuable information with the rest of our intelligence agencies.

The wall baby, the wall.

fogw on July 2, 2009 at 7:37 PM

Just goes to show that much of the world, pre Bush, thought of America as a Paper Tiger…

A country is not dangerous unless they have both Power, and the will to use it.

Saddam was more worried about Iran, because he KNEW how nutty they were… that they were already projecting power all over the Mideast (think Lebanon).

Romeo13 on July 2, 2009 at 7:38 PM

This is indeed old news, but I have to say I’ve never bought it. There have been too many “little” stories that point to the fact that Iraq DID have WMDs and that they were moved to Syria. I still believe this to be the case.

RightWinged on July 2, 2009 at 7:39 PM

SO.

As we know now, Iran turns out to be the real villain that gets away with the loot…for now.

We deposed and hung a guy that actually still would have been immensely useful in hamstringing Iran if we overlooked certain horrendous things…which we do regularly.

Was Bush right? Yeah, in a way, but he handled this all wrong. Not the Bush jr., I’m talking Bush Sr. He FUBAR’ed this thing and ended up feeding Al Quaida.

Leave George jr. Alone, if you want to put someone on trial, do it to the BIG liar George Sr. That son of a b1tch got me to vote for CLINTON ffs. Now THAT is a crime.

Spiritk9 on July 2, 2009 at 7:42 PM

“I think I’ll bluff those stupid Americans”….”why does my neck suddenly feel stiff”

Rovin on July 2, 2009 at 7:46 PM

There have been too many “little” stories that point to the fact that Iraq DID have WMDs and that they were moved to Syria. I still believe this to be the case.

RightWinged on July 2, 2009 at 7:39 PM

I agree, and that may have been part of what the Israelis blew up a while back in that attack that nobody still seems to want to talk about.

-Dave

Dave R. on July 2, 2009 at 7:47 PM

Saddam had very little reason to tell the truth on the subject of links to terrorism, al Qaeda and for some reason he wasn’t presented with the evidence of his links to such in the manner he was the crimes against Iraqis. This makes some sense if you know (apparently the rest of the press doesn’t) that the FBI was AT LEAST the 3rd agency to talk to him after Army intel and the CIA. What did he say to them? What were his answers to them?

I’ve FOIA’d both and will post any updates on http://www.regimeofterror.com if I get them but this FBI report is one that is pretty easy to take apart (why the hell did they believe Saddam would incriminate himself on terror links?) and I will do so in the coming days at my site.

ikez78 on July 2, 2009 at 7:49 PM

Bluff??
Bet’cha the Kurdish communities don’t see it that way.

christene on July 2, 2009 at 7:50 PM

Shoulda’ invaded Iran in any case. Bad call choosing Iraq, regardless of WMD.

Aristotle on July 2, 2009 at 7:51 PM

I agree, and that may have been part of what the Israelis blew up a while back in that attack that nobody still seems to want to talk about.

-Dave

Dave R. on July 2, 2009 at 7:47 PM

I would love to know all of the details of that adventure.

myrenovations on July 2, 2009 at 7:51 PM

This was always my assumption.

As for me, I’ve always thought that Bush’s decision to go after Iraq rather than Iran was the biggest strategic mistake in American history.

Saddaam just wanted his palaces and his rape rooms and so long as his ignorant, supine populace put up with it, fine with me.

Iran has been killing Americans for 30 years and represents an existential threat, via EMP.

Bush swore that he wouldn’t allow Iran to get Nukes. Hate to say it, but his failure to follow through on that may well make the rest of his failures pale by comparison.

guntotinglibertarian on July 2, 2009 at 7:51 PM

Saddam viewed Bin Laden as a “fanatic” and, therefore, didn’t want to work with him.

Unlike those Palestinian suicide bombers whose families he funded.

Yeah, yeah, the evidence appears to show that Iraq and al-Qaeda had a minimal relationship. Some contacts but nothing substantive. But the “He was a fanatic and I didn’t want to work with him” argument doesn’t wash with me.

SteveMG on July 2, 2009 at 7:55 PM

I’m surprised that AP has fallen into the liberal media’s trap.

Saddam Hussein had WMDs, and we know he had WMDs.

What he did not have (and was bluffing to the Iranians about) were nuclear weapons.

Chemical and biological weapons were considered, and still are considered, weapons of mass destruction.

I make this point because the media likes to basically say, “Oh sure, he had chemical warheads, but he didn’t have real WMDs.”

Anyway, yes he had WMDs, but he was undoubtedly referring to nukes vis-a-vis Iran.

apollyonbob on July 2, 2009 at 7:57 PM

I never have understood the left’s assertion that because Saddam didnt have a huge arsenal of WMDs that mean he was OK to keep where he was.

Saddam had WMDs he used them to kill Iranians and Kurds. It would not have taken him much of an effort to rebuild his stockpiles.

Seriously Libs think that the A BOMB is the only WMD to worry about. Clorine Gas or Anthrax spores are just as deadly (but dont kill millions in one blast. That is only difference)

Heck Iran and Syria have enough WMDs (non nukes) to kill thousands and we are only worried about them getting a nuke ?

William Amos on July 2, 2009 at 7:58 PM

Someone had to call that bluff sometime. So I say: Good for US, good for the ME, and good for the Iraqis!

ConScribe on July 2, 2009 at 7:58 PM

Saddaam just wanted his palaces and his rape rooms and so long as his ignorant, supine populace put up with it, fine with me.
guntotinglibertarian on July 2, 2009 at 7:51 PM

There could not be a more morally indefensible argument in the entirety of human history.

apollyonbob on July 2, 2009 at 7:58 PM

Yeah, yeah, the evidence appears to show that Iraq and al-Qaeda had a minimal relationship. Some contacts but nothing substantive. But the “He was a fanatic and I didn’t want to work with him” argument doesn’t wash with me.

SteveMG on July 2, 2009 at 7:55 PM

Saddam allowed Al Quaida to train in remote camps in Iraq to keep them from forcing him to turn ACTUAL hard line muslim.

Let THAT one sink in.

Spiritk9 on July 2, 2009 at 7:59 PM

apollyonbob on July 2, 2009 at 7:57 PM

Beat me by seconds.

William Amos on July 2, 2009 at 7:59 PM

Saddaam just wanted his palaces and his rape rooms and so long as his ignorant, supine populace put up with it, fine with me.
guntotinglibertarian on July 2, 2009 at 7:51 PM

I mean, I seriously can’t believe it — rape is okay if the person doesn’t fight back?

What.

apollyonbob on July 2, 2009 at 7:59 PM

Dave R. on July 2, 2009 at 7:47 PM

One of the world’s best kept secrets is Israels’s intell. They track and know where just about every strategic arms are being deployed long before the “other rookies” have had their first cup of joe. Syria’s “storage dump” was just that, a collection of WMD’s and a mock-up lab. Israel just waited long enough for the “collectors” to consolidate before putting a fuse to the cash. The Iranians are very aware of their capabilities and (if needed) their ruthlessness for self-preservation. This is the reason Israel is still on the map…..and will remain there.

Rovin on July 2, 2009 at 8:02 PM

OK, wait !! … simpleton here….
does this mean that ‘Boooosh (and the rest of the world) Lied’ is no longer applicable ???

Ooooooo, there goes a unicorn !
BIAFEW !

(crickets)

pambi on July 2, 2009 at 8:06 PM

Bolton is right. Iran`s nuclear facilities should be taken out yesterday.Time for IAF to move. In fact the piece above, while softly urging a bit more wait and see, actually makes the case for action now.The time to strike is now, not later. The Bell Tolls for Iran nuclear ambitions.North Korea should get the same treatment and fast.Inaction more often than not leads to more carnage, not less. A truth carved in stone that cannot be deciphered by the illiberals. The bama-bummer tough on ole powerful Honduras while slipping and sliding on the real threats?
Bummer is a purely negative elemental and has accomplished nothing meaningful so far, nor intends to. I would ask for his resignation, but . . . uh . . . who is next in line? And the one after that? Pretty stinky picture, sorta like that biggest flower in the world that smells like rotting meat to attrack its insect fans.

Sherman1864 on July 2, 2009 at 8:14 PM

It can’t be stressed enough that as bad as the current nuclear standoff with Iran is, it could have been that much worse if a certain nutjob wild card was still part of the international deck.

Joe Biden is in Iraq, he isn’t dead.

highhopes on July 2, 2009 at 8:14 PM

So, what happened to the weapons the UN said he had, the weapons he himself declared years earlier?

No one knows.

I think Saddam probably hid or sold many of his stockpiles, but he still had illegal programs and the intent to use them. I read that it would have taken him less than 2 years to build up those chemical and biological weapons again. About 5 years to a nuke.

What would have stopped him? If the US had not invaded, he would have felt free to do as he liked once the sanctions were lifted. And they were breaking down.

The thing is the US and the UN gave Saddam all sorts of deadlines and ultimatums and sooner or later they were going to have to either force him to comply or turn him loose and deal with him later. No good ending when dealing with the likes of Saddam Hussein. Those guys do not change.

Terrye on July 2, 2009 at 8:19 PM

There could not be a more morally indefensible argument in the entirety of human history.

apollyonbob on July 2, 2009 at 7:58 PM

Why, thank you, Bob. So I guess that means we’re on the hook to spend our blood and treasure in every dictator-ridden, fly-blown hellhole in the world where murder and rape occur? Where do you want to start? Dafur, North Korea, Pakistan, Burma, Yemen?

Care to volunteer yourself and your kids to march on in to free those miserable souls?

Difference between you and I is that I’m willing to say that we have no business invading sovereign states – no matter how repugnant – unless they represent a direct threat to our interests. And you, well, it’s so much more…comfortable..to parade your elevated moral bona-fides.

If Saddaam’s people weren’t willing to shed their own blood to throw of the yoke, why on earth should we?

guntotinglibertarian on July 2, 2009 at 8:19 PM

guntotinglibertarian on July 2, 2009 at 7:51 PM

Put that cap-pistol back in the holster partner. A frontal attack on Iran four years ago would have had devestating results on our military along with 3/4′s of the world that would have been against the U.S. Even the Brits would have abandoned an absurb notion like this without a Hitler-like assult on its nation. Bush knew the timing was not even close to reining in Iran’s capabilities.

Bush swore that he wouldn’t allow Iran to get Nukes. Hate to say it, but his failure to follow through on that may well make the rest of his failures pale by comparison.

Poppy-cock! For one man who liberated two nations from tyranny and NEVER allowed this nation to ever be attacked again by a foreign entity, he will never be a failure in these eyes. (fiscal matters excepted)

Rovin on July 2, 2009 at 8:22 PM

guntotinglibertarian:

Saddam tried to kill a president. He shot at our planes. He ignored a cease fire.

And as far as Bush going into Iran..for a libertarian you certainly seem to have a limited understanding of how government works. Bush had the sanction of the UN and the US Senate in his invasion of Iraq. It is highly unlikely he would have gotten that kind of support when it came to a military invasion of Iran. He was not King.

Terrye on July 2, 2009 at 8:22 PM

This claim is not accurate. I don’t know how to say this without crossing a line, but I supported some folks overseas and watched sattelite movements of this stuff being moved to Syria. I’m leaving it at that.

Jay on July 2, 2009 at 8:22 PM

And by the way, Bob, I purposely included the words “rape rooms” because I knew it would be inflammatory. Gotcher panties into a twist, now diddn it?

Lol

guntotinglibertarian on July 2, 2009 at 8:23 PM

Rovin:

Besides, you can bet that if Bush had found a way to go into Iran, it would not have taken guntotingwhatever here anytime to abandon the effort and second guess the invasion. Guys like this always do.

Terrye on July 2, 2009 at 8:24 PM

Jay:

Something certainly went to Syria, but where is it today?

Terrye on July 2, 2009 at 8:25 PM

Poppy-cock! For one man who liberated two nations from tyranny and NEVER allowed this nation to ever be attacked again by a foreign entity, he will never be a failure in these eyes. (fiscal matters excepted)

Rovin on July 2, 2009 at 8:22 PM

Do a little research on the Congressional hearings about an attack on the US by Electroagnetic Pulse weapons. Iran will have that capability within a few short years.

And then call “poppycock” when your electricity, your water, your telecommunications all go out within the blink of an eye.

Hint: the estimates are 90% death rate within 12 months. Bush knew it. Congress knows it. And they do….nothing.

guntotinglibertarian on July 2, 2009 at 8:27 PM

Funny how to Saddam says he rejected al Qaeda’s requests for help and they said they rejected him. Who is telling the truth?

ikez78 on July 2, 2009 at 8:30 PM

Besides, you can bet that if Bush had found a way to go into Iran, it would not have taken guntotingwhatever here anytime to abandon the effort and second guess the invasion. Guys like this always do.

Oh, yeah…that’s why I abandoned my post with the 9th Division in the Mekong, you twit.

And it’s also why my wife and I contribute to the Wonded Warrior Project, the USO and the Semper Fi fund.

And you?

guntotinglibertarian on July 2, 2009 at 8:31 PM

Poppy-cock! For one man who liberated two nations from tyranny and NEVER allowed this nation to ever be attacked again by a foreign entity, he will never be a failure in these eyes. (fiscal matters excepted)

The mission was not to “liberate two nations from tyranny”. It was to protect the United States of America.
Maybe you should read George Washington’s farewell address.

guntotinglibertarian on July 2, 2009 at 8:34 PM

It’s hard for me to imagine a scenario in which the region would be in better shape with a nuclear-armed Saddam lurking, but if any lefties want to try to convince me, have at it.
(thus wrote Allahpundit)

I think you need to define ‘better shape’. The region contains a good many people whose role model is an ignorant, lying, vindicitive, murderous thug with a predeliction for young girls. Once this point, and its implications, are grasped (and it wasn’t by messrs Bush and Blair) it isn’t hard to imagine that the region will never be in ‘good’ shape.

One must therefore choose one’s poison.

As far as the rest of the world is concerned the pragmatically optimum poison might have been to have done hard deals with Saddam Hussein and let him remain as a brutal tyrant. Despite his many character flaws, he did want Iraq to develop and modernise and Islam appeared to be a tool he used rather than something he personally wanted to expand, if it had been tried early enough, he might have accepted and Iraq could then have acted as a counterbalance to Iran (militarily) and Saudi Arabia (economically).

Whether this would have been morally any worse than the policies actually followed from 1990 to 2004 is highly debateable. Similarly the present situation is so pregnant with bad possibilities and high risk options that it is not difficult to imagine that doing deals with Iraq could have led to a simpler situation and one in which there might have been one or two less bad options.

YiZhangZhe on July 2, 2009 at 8:36 PM

Terrye on July 2, 2009 at 8:24 PM

Soooo right Terrye. These folks remind me of the one’s who screamed, “but what about Osama” Booooosh. “You promised to kill him, so the world would be safe, and I could go back to baking my cookies.”

Rovin on July 2, 2009 at 8:36 PM

YiZhangZhe on July 2, 2009 at 8:36 PM

You, sir, are awesome.

guntotinglibertarian on July 2, 2009 at 8:37 PM

Soooo right Terrye. These folks remind me of the one’s who screamed, “but what about Osama” Booooosh. “You promised to kill him, so the world would be safe, and I could go back to baking my cookies.”

Rovin on July 2, 2009 at 8:36 PM

Well, you’re mis-reading me entirely. I have no brief with the what about Osama nutters. And I happen to be grateful to Bush for his consistent stance on national security. But I cannot overlook the fact that he failed on Iran, which we will come to rue.

guntotinglibertarian on July 2, 2009 at 8:39 PM

I’m not aware that Mousavi has ever taken a stand against Iran’s development of nuclear weaponry.

Kralizec on July 2, 2009 at 8:41 PM

guntotinglibertarian on July 2, 2009 at 8:34 PM

Aside from Japan what war in the last 100 years has involved a direct threat to the United States?

Germany certainly wasn’t. It could be argued it might have been later, but it certainly wasn’t at the time we declared war. Neither was Korea, or Vietnam. Or Grenada. Or Bosnia. Or Spain. Or the Ottomans. Or Italy.

Going back further involves more conflicts, with more parties which are no threat to us, So I guess George Washington’s farewell address was pretty much ignored by every President in existence.

The reason your argument is morally indefensible is that while it can be said that it is not pragmatic to involve ourselves in every possible conflict in the globe, you cannot say that an action was wrong because we only stopped the rape, murder and torture of innocent civilians. That is, at its core, an admission that in the face of someone getting raped in front of you, you would do nothing to stop it because of the risk to your person.
Furthermore,
1) By saying the citizens of Iraq were not willing to stand up to Saddam Hussein, you are vastly oversimplifying the history of Iraq and our involvement of it, something I would think a Vietnam vet would be wary of and

2) There was more than a one reason we ousted Saddam Hussein from Iraq. If you don’t know all of them, you should look up the various laws our Congress has produced giving the President authorization to do precisely that.

apollyonbob on July 2, 2009 at 8:46 PM

Didn’t we figure this out 5 years ago?

Speedwagon82 on July 2, 2009 at 8:48 PM

Didn’t we figure this out 5 years ago?

Speedwagon82 on July 2, 2009 at 8:48 PM

Yeah, read the lede.

apollyonbob on July 2, 2009 at 8:52 PM

Who cares what this slimy lying murderer says.

Jeff from WI on July 2, 2009 at 8:55 PM

guntoting is no libertarian but a paleocon, of the Pat Buchanan/Charley Reese mold, at least on this issue.

His arguments that he served and gives so much to the USO, etc smacks of the “chickenhawk” smear that our liberal vet friends like to use. Don’t feed the troll anymore!

thebrokenrattle on July 2, 2009 at 8:56 PM

Green shoots
Iraq and Iran are failed states as are all their neighbor monarchy/theocracy. That culture has nothing to offer except improvement through conquest/usurping. We should just sit back and enjoy them self destructing instead of killing us. Periodically we need to drive through there and blow up any WMD facilities, but we shouldn’t risk a single fingernail of our precious children to help any members of that sick racist sexist religo-politico-culture. Saddam crapped his pants on cell-phone, that’s what I’ll always remember.

Reality Check on July 2, 2009 at 8:58 PM

There could not be a more morally indefensible argument in the entirety of human history.

apollyonbob on July 2, 2009 at 7:58 PM

A big mistake made by Messrs Bush and Blair and their advisers was that they thought Saddam Hussein was the sickness, when he was merely a symptom. Islamic communities are ruled by despots because Islamic ideas and values are conducive to their growth.

Do you think the rape and oppression has stopped just because three oppressive, rapists were killed?

The argument is repugnant but it is morally defensible simply because the western nations cannot stop the rapes. If one is forced to choose between different, but equally great, evils one might as well choose the evil that is less personally costly and then use one’s resources against problems where they will actually be useful.

How much good could have been done in the world with all those lives and all that treasure if the western coalition nations had guided their generosity with pragmatism instead of blinkered idealism?

YiZhangZhe on July 2, 2009 at 9:00 PM

thebrokenrattle on July 2, 2009 at 8:56 PM

It’s often worth smacking down the argument invading was wrong because Saddam Hussein was such a harmless fellow. Because it is perhaps the most pernicious of all liberal memes.

apollyonbob on July 2, 2009 at 9:01 PM

Aside from Japan what war in the last 100 years has involved a direct threat to the United States?

Germany certainly wasn’t. It could be argued it might have been later, but it certainly wasn’t at the time we declared war. Neither was Korea, or Vietnam. Or Grenada. Or Bosnia. Or Spain. Or the Ottomans. Or Italy.

I agree with you that none of those wars involved a direct threat to the US, though Korea, Vietnam and even Grenada were proxy wars waged by the the Soviets and it’s arguable that we had to stand up.

Now Bosnia: that’s a perfect example of the sort of “humanitarian, nation-building” wars to which I object.

You didn’t mention the first Gulf War. It’s arguable..and I would make the case…that Iraq’s seizure of Kuwait and its threat to Saudi represented a clear strategic threat to the West’s oil supplies and therefor was a legitimate causus belli.

I am simply saying that we should not expend American lives just because the atrocities which are visited upon a populace by it’s dictatorship are morally repugnant to us. That’s a bottomless pit.

I’ve seen Americans die on the field of battle. Many of them were my comrades and closest friends. And to see even one American soldier die for anything less than the true defense of this country is simply unacceptable to me.

I do not feel that Saddam Hussein represented, in 2002, an existential threat to the US. Yes, we had a legal right to invade Iraq, based upon his violations of the cease-fire. That doesn’t mean it was the right war at the right time. We had other effective means to contain him.

The Iranians, on the other hand, have been killing Americans for decades. If there was, in fact, a tri-partite “Axis of Evil”, Iran was, in my view, the most dangerous of the three.

guntotinglibertarian on July 2, 2009 at 9:01 PM

YiZhangZhe on July 2, 2009 at 9:00 PM

Once again,sir…you are awesome.

guntotinglibertarian on July 2, 2009 at 9:04 PM

guntoting is no libertarian but a paleocon, of the Pat Buchanan/Charley Reese mold, at least on this issue.

His arguments that he served and gives so much to the USO, etc smacks of the “chickenhawk” smear that our liberal vet friends like to use. Don’t feed the troll anymore!

thebrokenrattle on July 2, 2009 at 8:56 PM

Gosh, what deep insight into my psyche. I am humbled and chastened. George Washington will be similarly chastened to hear that he was a chickenhawk and a Palecon.

Since when does saying “Do not needlessly spill the blood of American soldiers” constitute being a chickenhawk, by the way? Your reasoning abilities are just…astonishing.

guntotinglibertarian on July 2, 2009 at 9:08 PM

Where did the material go? I’ve got a few good places to look for it. If I had to pick, it would be al-Baida: constructed just after we invaded Iraq, has the highest security of all the Syrian WMD sites. Its timing and placement make it difficult to strike even with bunker busters, and very hard to locate due to local geography.

After that you have Tal Snan, Khan Abu Shamat, Homs, and, of course, the Al Safira missile construction base/chemical weapons warhead placement center. The problem isn’t ‘which one’ but ‘how much has Syria garnered from the material’? I would guess the chemicals just slipped into the overall WMD infrastructure of Syria easily, and the technology got re-purposed soon after Saddam was finally captured. So there probably is no one place to find the equipment as its been integrated into the larger set of facilities that Syria has running already. The other reason for al-Baida is that it coincides with the sudden stoppage of work at pharma factories and the disappearance of ‘dual use’ equipment that was supposed to go into them. Now as it is very hard to make stuff like that disappear in a police state, that puts it at a very secure place. And with the phosphorus industry already providing uranium and the basics for chemical weapons, it also serves the bio weapon leg of the WMD triad.

Really, only Asad knows for sure… but Israel probably has some really good guesses on the subject…

ajacksonian on July 2, 2009 at 9:10 PM

And as bad as the current nuclear standoff is with centrifuges in Iran and Korea is, there is a Jew in East Jerusalem who is screening in his back porch…call the state dept.!!

Reality Check on July 2, 2009 at 9:13 PM

YiZhangZhe on July 2, 2009 at 9:00 PM

You are obviously unfamiliar with all the other reasons we invaded Iraq. You should look those up.

How much good could have been done in the world with all those lives and all that treasure if the western coalition nations had guided their generosity with pragmatism instead of blinkered idealism?

“all those lives” and “all that treasure”? GTL, you should listen to this too, because I think you’re also missing this point.

If you average the number of people killed by Saddam Hussein over the number of years he ruled Iraq, less Iraqi civilians died, per year, during the war than before it.

As for the troops, we’re talking an extremely large population of people. It should shock nobody that as many died during the Clinton years to accidents as during the Bush years to wars. While every soldier’s life is important, 4000 is a very small number statistically, and it is worth noting that as many Allied soldiers died on D-Day as Coalition soldiers died in the entire war of Iraq.

That’s insanely amazing, not to mention unprecedented in history. Never have so few had to make the ultimate sacrifice for such a fantastic outcome.

As for GTL’s comment: Containment is your answer?

Sure, we can contain him, until he got a nuke, which is AP’s point. Eventually Saddam would have developed nuclear weapons in response to Iran. Then what? Then we’re well and truly screwed.

See, you think war with Iraq was preventable. Considering the ambitions of the man, his lack of morality, and his capabilities, war with Iraq was inevitable until he gained nukes, at which point it would be impossible without millions of deaths.

Also, brokenrattle’s comment was directed at the fact that your immediate response to me was “You like war so much, join the army!” You’ll notice I ignored that, as I deemed it unworthy of response.

apollyonbob on July 2, 2009 at 9:16 PM

And to see even one American soldier die for anything less than the true defense of this country is simply unacceptable to me.

Then we’re screwed. Because if we can’t prevent catastrophe with even a single soldier’s voluntary sacrifice, we’re screwed as a nation.

For someone making as though he has the trappings of a realist, you don’t have a very realistic view of the world. America has prevented catastrophe from landing on her shores for her entire existance – it’s why we’re still around.

apollyonbob on July 2, 2009 at 9:22 PM

Also, brokenrattle’s comment was directed at the fact that your immediate response to me was “You like war so much, join the army!” You’ll notice I ignored that, as I deemed it unworthy of response.

apollyonbob on July 2, 2009 at 9:16 PM

Wait…who told you to join the army? Not me.

And although I agree that 4,000 casualties is amazingly small compared to say, just Iwo Jima, you really have to be crouching there next to a medic, telling your buddy to hold on, hold, while he cries for his mother and dies ugly before your eyes – and then 4,000 isn’t a small number at all.

I’ve just been called a chickenhawk by some buffoon here. A chickenhaw is an old guy who’s thumping the tub for war, knowing he’ll be comfy at home. I’m anything but: I say never, ever send our soldiers in harm’s way unless we know for certain that our freedom and national existence are at stake: whether our losses will be 4,000 or 4. Ever.

guntotinglibertarian on July 2, 2009 at 9:23 PM

You didn’t mention the first Gulf War. It’s arguable..and I would make the case…that Iraq’s seizure of Kuwait and its threat to Saudi represented a clear strategic threat to the West’s oil supplies and therefor was a legitimate causus belli.

Wait a second!

But it wasn’t an existential threat. So you’re violating your own logic! We can exist without oil from Iraq or Kuwait. We could drill off our own shores, as conservatives have been saying for awhile now.

Seriously, you haven’t given this line of thought much exploration as to its end, have you?

apollyonbob on July 2, 2009 at 9:26 PM

Care to volunteer yourself and your kids to march on in to free those miserable souls?

guntotinglibertarian on July 2, 2009 at 8:19 PM

And Rattle wasn’t calling you a chickenhawk, he was saying you were making the chickenhawk argument, which that was. Don’t blame him just cuz you can’t remember what you said an hour ago.

apollyonbob on July 2, 2009 at 9:27 PM

There’s no longer a relationship between the people and their rulers; such is the hatred, in fact, that I wonder how many of them would secretly thrill to seeing the Revolutionary Guard’s nose bloodied.

Not many if the Israeli’s were to strike. Nothing will bring disaffected Iranians back into the mullahs arms like Jewish aggression.

Mark it down as yet another dirty job for the US military, however it’ll have to wait until The One leaves office, hopefully at the end of his first term.

CliffHanger on July 2, 2009 at 9:31 PM

Times Online Brit. “There are too many muslims so there is no hope of ever winning in a fight with them.

William Amos on July 2, 2009 at 7:37 PM

It is good to see a mainstream paper articulate the demographic equation. I doubt they would have dared actually extend the argument to the UK itself, or to Europe in general, but I guess many of their readers are smart enough to work it out for themselves. Unfortunately their readers are probably not the holding the UK’s or EU’s controls.

Many people in the western world, including many supposedly enlightened liberals, are still afflicted by the 19th and early 20th century arrogance. They are so convinced of the superiority of their arguments, and of the world-stopping power of their moral clarity (so they mistakenly believe), that they cannot imagine that their culture could ever be vulnerable to being overrun and destroyed by opponents who are not the slightest interested in a merely rhetorical battle.

YiZhangZhe on July 2, 2009 at 9:33 PM

YiZhangZhe on July 2, 2009 at 9:33 PM

If you’re as smart as GTL claims, why don’t you tell us what the solution is?

I mean, we can’t fight militarily them because hey, it’s not realistic to fight every homocidal dictator with ambitions of nuclear power.

We can’t fight them culturally, because they’re not the slightest bit interested in rhetorical battle.

The UN’s resolutions get totally ignored, so diplomacy has been a gigantic waste of time.

It sounds like our options are “Lay down and die” and … ?

Mind filling in that blank?

apollyonbob on July 2, 2009 at 9:40 PM

Homicidal dammit every TIME.

apollyonbob on July 2, 2009 at 9:40 PM

You are obviously unfamiliar with all the other reasons we invaded Iraq. You should look those up.

Not at all; probably more familiar than most people since I followed the situation closely from 1991 to 2003. In 2003 I supported the war and felt it had become inevitable; there were many good reasons to make war with Iraq. However there were also many good reasons not to make war.

If you average the number of people killed by Saddam Hussein over the number of years he ruled Iraq, less Iraqi civilians died, per year, during the war than before it.

As for the troops, we’re talking an extremely large population of people. It should shock nobody that as many died during the Clinton years to accidents as during the Bush years to wars. While every soldier’s life is important, 4000 is a very small number statistically, and it is worth noting that as many Allied soldiers died on D-Day as Coalition soldiers died in the entire war of Iraq.

You are correct, but also missing the point. The rape and oppression hasn’t stopped and the resources assigned to the problem could have been used to greater effect somewhere else. We are not gods, we cannot make everything nice; we have to choose which evil to fight and which to tolerate. If a different, less idealistic, course had been charted from 1991 onwards it is conceivable that we would have a better situation today than the one we actually have. Not perhaps better for Iraqis, and certainly not better for those particular women called to entertain Saddam Hussein and his vile Sons, but perhaps better overall for the world.

That’s insanely amazing, not to mention unprecedented in history. Never have so few had to make the ultimate sacrifice for such a fantastic outcome.
apollyonbob on July 2, 2009 at 9:16 PM

Well, the outcome is not that fantastic. Perhaps fewer people are presently dying but the root problem of Islam is just as firmly established in Iraq than it was six years ago, probably more firmly established. That problem is spreading and growing. The war in Iraq has antagonised Muslims around the world causing them to become more defensive, to retreat further into their Islam ‘world’ and be even less open to questioning it. Also the war has caused fluffy thinkers around the world to feel sympathy for Islam making it harder to push back gainst it in Europe and the USA.

YiZhangZhe on July 2, 2009 at 10:01 PM

Well, I suppose Bush did fail on Iran, in that the efforts to awaken the people of that country did not come to the recent action while he was still in a position to give it the nudge it needed to flourish. If the people of Iran had decided to stand up to the Mullahs a year earlier, thing might have been very different. But with Obama the Iranian people never had a chance of getting any support.

MikeA on July 2, 2009 at 10:12 PM

YiZhangZhe on July 2, 2009 at 10:01 PM

Hrm.

So I’m going to assume that you have a full knowledge of the recent history of Iraq.

Your argument is that a man who built the world’s largest mosque, put the Islamic credo on the Iraqi flag, and had a copy of the the Koran written in his own blood, was just using Islam as a tool, and that, aside from the ruling party being comprised entirely of Islamists, Iraq was secular.

Your argument is also that Iraq sponsorship of terrorism in the Middle East and elsewhere around the globe coming to a sudden end doesn’t address the root problem of Islamic terrorism.

Your argument is that a tyrannical dictatorship in which rape was institutionalized and was so common that there were rooms all over the country dedicated to that purpose, where torture was institutionalized and was so common that there were rooms all over the country dedicated to that purpose, is as equally oppressive as a nation of democractically elected leaders that have to follow the rule of law written in a constitution.

Your argument is that the people who immediately after 9/11 were asking what America did to deserve this because Islam is a “religion of peace” would be suddenly against Islam if only we hadn’t invaded Iraq.

Uhm, I guess my only response is, “You’re wrong.”

apollyonbob on July 2, 2009 at 10:56 PM

If you’re as smart as GTL claims, why don’t you tell us what the solution is?

I don’t claim to be especially smart, nor to have all the answers but actually in my very first post I already did suggest what the solution might be … namely doing deals.

“Keeping friends close and enemies closer.” that sort of thing. Unpleasant, morally dubious, but pragmatic and morally no worse than what has been done.

I mean, we can’t fight militarily them because hey, it’s not realistic to fight every homocidal dictator with ambitions of nuclear power.

We can’t fight them culturally, because they’re not the slightest bit interested in rhetorical battle.

The UN’s resolutions get totally ignored, so diplomacy has been a gigantic waste of time.

It sounds like our options are “Lay down and die” and … ?

Mind filling in that blank?

apollyonbob on July 2, 2009 at 9:40 PM

We can and should fight but we have been, and still are, fighting the wrong things. Nothing has been done to stop Saudi Arabia spreading its vile ideology by sponsoring mosques. Nothing has been done to stop Iran sponsoring violence in Palestine. Nothing has been done to curtail Islam in the ‘western’ countries.

One major error in dealing with Iraq was that western nations and the UN were (and are) stuck in an unrealistic, naive, ideological framework. They failed completely to grasp that Saddam Hussein was keeping the lid on an Islamic pressure cooker. Today they fail to grasp that the Iranian government is performing a similar role, as do the greater and lesser tyrants that preside over every other Islamic nation.

Trying to build a wholesome nation that has Islam at its core is just silly and a complete waste of resources. Trying to integrate Islam into the west is suicidally silly.

We are not fighting the right battles because our so called leaders haven’t identified the enemy correctly. Saddam Hussein, various ‘terrorists’ and the Iranian rulers have all been treated as anomolies rather than as the legitimate offspring of Islamic ideas.

If the goal was to render Saddam Hussein mostly harmless to neighbouring states then possibly that could have been accomplished by doing deals.

If the goal was to prevent young women being violated then Islam itself should be contained and that is a whole different game.

YiZhangZhe on July 2, 2009 at 10:57 PM

In order to get respect, I used to go around telling cops that I was armed and dangerous even though I was neither. You would be surprised how poorly that tactic worked.

Laurence on July 2, 2009 at 11:24 PM

Uhm, I guess my only response is, “You’re wrong.”

apollyonbob on July 2, 2009 at 10:56 PM

You appear to be making up the argument that you have just ascribed to me and declared to be wrong. The debate would probably be more fruitful if you didn’t try invent my viewpoints as you go along.

However, to the extent that I can work out what you were trying to say, here are my answers.

a man who built the world’s largest mosque, put the Islamic credo on the Iraqi flag, and had a copy of the the Koran written in his own blood, was just using Islam as a tool, and that, aside from the ruling party being comprised entirely of Islamists, Iraq was secular.

Those are the actions of a megalomaniac, not necessarily the actions of a pious or sincere Muslim. Also I didn’t say Iraq was secular; I wrote that Saddam Hussein wanted to use the religion for his own ends. Obviously Iraq is not secular and Saddam Hussein knew that too. He knew that Iraqi people respect Islam and that they expected their leader to do so too. He also knew that a religious cleric would be able to stir the people’s emotions. So he did what he needed to do to satisfy his own ego and to dominate the religion so that clerics would not be able to undermine his authority. If any cleric challenged his authority to rule by questioning his faith, he would be able to refute them with those displays of piety.

that Iraq sponsorship of terrorism in the Middle East and elsewhere around the globe coming to a sudden end doesn’t address the root problem of Islamic terrorism.

Islamic inspired violence continues, even in the absence of Saddam Hussein. Islamic inspired violence began when Islam began and will continue until its demise. Saddam Hussein et al were just one rather small and temporary manifestation of it.

Your argument is that a tyrannical dictatorship … [snip] … is as equally oppressive as a nation of democractically elected leaders that have to follow the rule of law written in a constitution.

No, my argument is that the oppression is inherent to Islam, not merely to tyrants who might or might not be Muslims. Saddam Hussein and his sons are dead, the ‘virtues’ and attributes that they manifested are not. Those three men no longer rape or torture, but I am sadly confident that brutality and barbarity will continue in homes and police stations and the total number of people affected will be little changed. If I am wrong then I will be glad.

Your argument is that the people who immediately after 9/11 were asking what America did to deserve this because Islam is a “religion of peace” would be suddenly against Islam if only we hadn’t invaded Iraq.

No, not my argument at all … you just made this up along with the other points you ascribed to me, remember?

My argument is that if you want to reduce brutality you need to eliminate Islam. Attacking Iraq and then creating a government with Islam at its core does not help the world rid itself of Islam.

This debate begain by considering whether the situation would be better if Saddam Hussein were still president of Iraq. In otherwords, we were discussing a whole region, not just the lives of some people in one particular country.

In considering Iraq and Saddam Hussein, the choice has never been between good and evil, or between strife and peace. The choice has always been between this evil or that evil, between this conflict or that conflict. One can make those choices idealistically or pragmatically. I have argued that a pragmatic, if distasteful, choice made back in the early 1990s might have led to an overall better situation regionally and globally. Of course we will never really know because we cannot go back and try again, but AllahPundit set the challenge and I have tried to answer it.

YiZhangZhe on July 2, 2009 at 11:58 PM

Leave George jr. Alone, if you want to put someone on trial, do it to the BIG liar George Sr. That son of a b1tch got me to vote for CLINTON ffs. Now THAT is a crime.
Spiritk9 on July 2,

WOW!
Really?

You actually voted for Clinton who told us

Saddam link to Bin Laden

The Guardian
February 6, 1999

By Julian Borger
The Iraqi delegation was led by Farouk Hijazi, Baghdad’s ambassador in Turkey and one of Saddam’s most powerful secret policemen, who is thought to have offered Bin Laden asylum in Iraq.

News of the negotiations emerged in a week when the US attorney general, Janet Reno, warned the Senate that a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction was a growing concern. “There’s a threat, and it’s real,” Ms Reno said, adding that such weapons “are being considered for use.”

Lets see, humm 1999, that would be president Clinton yes? His AG Ms. Reno TELL’s our SENATE that Bin Laden is meeting with Saddam AND this makes the threat of WMD’s by AQ being REAL and “are being considered for use.”.

Tell me Spiritk9, if you had read that in 1999 and actually understood what it says would you conclude that the Clinton admin was STRONGLY suggesting that Saddam AND AQ were linked?

Would you conclude that the Clinton admin was STRONGLY suggesting that Saddam HAD WMD’s? (fact is, there were no WMD’s after 1994)

Not good enough? Okay how bout this.

Newsweek
January 11, 1999

Saddam + Bin Laden? America’s two enemies are courting.

By Christopher Dickey, Gregory Vistica, and Russell Watson

In the no-fly zones of northern and southern Iraq, Saddam Hussein’s gunners blindly fired surface-to-air missiles at patrolling American and British warplanes. In Yemen, terrorists seized a group of British Commonwealth and American tourists, and four of the hostages died in a shootout.
But in a region where no one puts much faith in blind coincidence, last week’s conjunction of Iraqi antiaircraft fire and terrorism aimed at the countries that had just bombed Iraq convinced some that a new conspiracy was afoot.

Here’s what is known so far: Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas — assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. US sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two US embassies in Africa last summer. US intelligence has had reports of contacts between low-level agents. Saddam and bin Laden have interests — and enemies — in common. Both men want US military forces out of Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden has been calling for all-out war on Americans, using as his main pretext Washington’s role in bombing and boycotting Iraq. Now bin Laden is engaged in something of a public-relations offensive, having granted recent interviews, one for NEWSWEEK. He says “any American who pays taxes to his government” is a legitimate target.

Spiritk9, this is “NEWSWEEK”, notice the word alleged is not used, meaning this is reported as FACT.

NEWSWEEK source on this was Richard Clark.
http://www.lexisnexis.com

I gots hundreds more if you’re not convinced. You would be hard pressed not to conclude that an AQ attack on America was not sponsored by or supported by Saddam based on what the Clinton admin was telling ALL America.

Even Dan Rather on Letterman was telling us the Saddam was somehow connected to 911!

Dan Rather, CBS News Anchor
Interview on “The David Letterman Show”
September 17, 2001

RATHER: And with what we’re dealing with here, which is not one man [Bin Laden], it’s a hydra-headed operation that’s in 55 countries around the world. Now granted, the focus is on, and we should understand, not just Afghanistan — Afghanistan, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya.

LETTERMAN: Why?

RATHER: Who can explain madmen, and who can explain evil.
RATHER: Saddam Hussein, if he isn’t connect to this, he’s connected to any other things. He’s part of this ‘Hate America’ thing. You have to understand, Saddam Hussein is somebody I have sat this close, eye to eye.

Spiritk9
Was Bush right? Yeah, in a way, but he handled this all wrong. Not the Bush jr., I’m talking Bush Sr. He FUBAR’ed this thing and ended up feeding Al Quaida.

Spiritk9, AQ didn’t exist when Bush 1 was President, nor did the Taliban. If your referring to 1979 when The Soviet union invaded and the CIA backed the “freedom Fighters” that was President Carter and Bush 1 had been out of the CIA for nearly 2 years at the time.

Seriously dude, lean about timelines and history.

That will help so you don’t vote stupid like ya did when ya voted twice for Clinton.

DSchoen on July 3, 2009 at 2:53 AM

Someone had to call that bluff sometime. So I say: Good for US, good for the ME, and good for the Iraqis!
ConScribe

Kinda like when the cops shoot someone and it turns out to be a toy gun.

DSchoen on July 3, 2009 at 3:17 AM

I never have understood the left’s assertion that because Saddam didnt have a huge arsenal of WMDs that mean he was OK to keep where he was.
William Amos

The answer is they didn’t.

The Iraq Liberation act made that absolutely clear.
left’s assertion that it was okay to leave Saddam alone did not exist till Bush became President.

The Lefts stand was PURELY Domestic politics.

Question? When was the last time you heard of an IVAW protest? Or any protest against ANY of our wars?

DSchoen on July 3, 2009 at 3:27 AM

We all know that the task to take out Iran’s nuke program has been placed in Israel’s lap. There is no doubting this. What is going to happen afterwards is what Biden was talking about with his “gird your loins” babble. As soon as Israel handles the West’s biggest problem, the West, including the US, now, is set to pounce on Israel and try to squash it out of existence. The EU, along with lackeys from the junta in Washington, are going to condemn Israel worse than any condemnations anyone has heard since the Nazis were on the rampage. They have even prepared the field for this with all of their Nazi references to Israel’s kid gloves treatment of the palestinian savages in the territories. This will result in a full embargo of Isreal and, quite possibly, a naval blockade (at least, The Precedent is going to try that). The chaos that erupts in Iraq after the Israeli attack will be the excuse. They plan on strangling Isreal to death, literally.

Seeing that this is the future Israel has to look forward to, there is no point in Israel trying to do anything lightly in order to stay on the West’s good side. That will be an impossibility, no matter what Israel does, so Israel needs to go full force. It needs to capture the Iranian oil fields, to totally defang Iran and to give itself leverage against the coming onslaught from the West. Nothing else will save the state, since after whatever action Israel takes the West will set about to kill them in every way and every forum available.

Israel is alone and needs to act accordingly. Hit Iran hard. Take the oil fields. Leave the UN. And, after the West lays into Israel, start shipping the Palestinians out of the West Bank.

It’s ugly, but this is a forced play.

progressoverpeace on July 3, 2009 at 4:24 AM

Shoulda’ invaded Iran in any case. Bad call choosing Iraq, regardless of WMD.
Aristotle on July 2, 2009 at 7:51 PM

There was no way we could have fought a war on terror without taking Saddam out. If we was distracted by a war in Afghanistan it would be perfect for Saddam to cause trouble and build his weapons. Also he would have supplied WMD to terrorist. Although he didn’t like the Taliban, an enemy of my enemy is my friend. Iraq was a perfect fly paper trap for terrorist rather than chasing them all over or maybe here. Bush said that Iran was ripe for revolution and would take care of it self which we are starting to see. N Korea is hardest situation due to close proximity of massive artillery to S Korea’s City of Seoul. Bush did the correct thing. It was fitting that Saddam head snapped off during the hanging. Coldwarrior should weigh in on this one.

Ed Laskie on July 3, 2009 at 5:17 AM

guntotingliberal:

You do not know what you are talking about. As far as a threat to the US, there are plenty of people out there right now that would tell you Iran is not a threat to the US, even with nukes. Saddam’s bluster and his threats to get even etc were every much as belligerent as anything the Iranians have done. Saddam actually killed Americans and tried to kill more.

As for Mekong…what has that got to do with this? I am sure there are thousands of people who supported the invasion of Iraq who have served as much or more as you. So don’t pull that chickenhawk crap with me.

You would have abandoned Bush in a heartbeat if he had gone into Iran. And for the same damn reasons you are yammering about here. You are just a Pat Buchanan clone that is all.

Terrye on July 3, 2009 at 7:27 AM

DSchoen:

Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. That gun was not a toy, it was the real thing.

Terrye on July 3, 2009 at 7:29 AM

YI:

There are more than a billion Muslims, the idea that we will eliminate Islam is absolutely insane.

Terrye on July 3, 2009 at 7:31 AM

YI:

There are more than a billion Muslims, the idea that we will eliminate Islam is absolutely insane.

Terrye on July 3, 2009 at 7:31 AM

Eliminating Islam doesn’t mean mass genocide. Islam is so heavily based on certain locations and structures that should they be destroyed the whole religion would come to a halt.

Dark-Star on July 3, 2009 at 9:19 AM

Well! If he said it to the FBI it must be true.

davod on July 3, 2009 at 9:32 AM

There are more than a billion Muslims, the idea that we will eliminate Islam is absolutely insane.

Terrye on July 3, 2009 at 7:31 AM

No, that idea is not insane at all, but certainly it is unrealistic, which is why nobody is proposing it. I mentioned it only to highlight that it is rather silly to fret about brutality while simultaneously encouraging Islam to thrive. Perhaps I should have been clearer and referred to the elimination of Islam from specific communities, eliminating it here and there and thus diminishing its scope and overall influence.

YiZhangZhe on July 3, 2009 at 9:34 AM

It was fitting that Saddam head snapped off during the hanging.

Ed Laskie on July 3, 2009 at 5:17 AM

Saddam Hussein’s head remained fully attached to his body.

You might be thinking of his half-brother, Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti, who was executed in January 2007, and who was decapitated by the hanging.

YiZhangZhe on July 3, 2009 at 9:55 AM