It Amazes Me That Baby Doc Bush Has The Gall To Say

[K8-EEE]

"some people think it would have been better to leave Saddam in power."

DUH!! EVERYBODY THINKS THAT BUT THE FREEPIEST OF THE FREEPERS YOU MORON! God, get some new material, Iraq is absolute chaos, anarchy, Islamic militias, torture, etc etc etc HELL YEAH IT WAS BETTER BEFORE. Would somebody give this moron a clue. OMG! I just can't believe they are continuing with the same lame old material!

[John Gauger]

1. Would somebody just give this moron a clue?

Would somebody just eat the moon? Some things just aren't possible.

[madokie]

2. baby doc bush says it all don't it

fits him to a tee

[K8-EEE]

4. Papa Doc Bush Looks Like A Genius In Comparison

BFEE and all, Baby Doc is the biggest idiot of them all. Every time he opens his fool mouth I'm ashamed for this country.

[The_Casual_Observer]

3. Saddam was a "madman" that suspended civil rights, approved

torture, wasted money on and overblown and incompetent military, started wars, and a maintained a big personal security apparatus.

Sound familiar?

[K8-EEE]

6. Oh Yeah And Saddam Did COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT

After his assasination attempts he sent people in to punish the regions the assasins were from. That's just not right. And it's not acceptable to think that the US military storming Fallujah after the US contractors were killed is ANYTHING like that! It's totally different because....um...because....

any lurking freepers I will need your help even finishing this "logic."

[The_Casual_Observer]

14. You see, the difference is bush is doing it in the name of "freedom".

Saddam was too "mad" to not name it properly, he didn't understand the part about "framing", that was his downfall.

[K8-EEE]

16. Oh He Did It For The Wrong REASONS!

Oooooooh. He took away freedoms because he hates freedom, while Baby Doc takes them away because he loves freedom. Thanks for clarifying!

[The_Casual_Observer]

17. Not the wrong "reasons" just the wrong name for the reasons.

Saddam didn't say "freedom". The reason isn't important, nobody can tell you the reason why bush does anything either,but whatever it is you've got to call it "freedom".

[K8-EEE]

18. Oh OK You Have To Say Freedumb

I mean freedom. No, I guess what we have now is FreeDUMB.

[VeggieTart]

20. That's how he'll win the war on terror!

Dubya says they hate us for our freedom. If the Bushies take away our freedom, why, they won't hate us anymore.
:grr::sarcasm::grr:

[SammyWinstonJack]

8. Sounds just like our newly appointed dicktator-tot. nt

[bluestateguy]

5. It would have been better to leave him in power

or less bad anyway. Let the Iraqis overthrow him if they want to. In any case, Baby Bush's old man made that same choice in 1991.

[K8-EEE]

9. Yeah Papa Doc Thought It Was Better To Leave Saddam There

Why does he love terr'rists. It's all Bill Clinton's fault I suppose! THESE PEOPLE ARE INSANE.

[Jack Rabbit]

7. It would have been and no one says that lightly

It is a very strong statement that says a lot more about His Imerpeial Incompetency than about Saddam.

[K8-EEE]

12. How Bad Do You Have To SUCK That Saddam Was Better

CUZ THAT'S HOW BAD BABY DOC SUCKS!

[anarch]

10. whassa matter with you? Did you forget 9/11???!?

Hail King George, Hammer of Terrorists

9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 terra terra terra 9/11 Saddam's a bad man.

[K8-EEE]

13. 9/11? You mean 9/10, don't you or 9/12?

DUH I GUESS I JUST FORGOT ALL ABOUT THAT! You know what of all the moronic stupid ass freeper accusations that is the one I am MOST sick of!!

[indepat]

11. Soon about a trillion dollars better and hundreds of thousands of deaths

and shattered lives spared: Saddam was a novice lightweight in comparison.

[K8-EEE]

15. What About This Woosley Asshole

I forget what show I saw him on he goes, "But Saddam killed 60,000 a year if you figure in everybody that died in the Iran/Iraq war!"

WTF!! The US was fuelling that war big time, so why don't they some of those deaths on Reagan & Papa Doc Bush....people are so dumb.

[Jack Rabbit]

19. What about that Woolsey asshole?

The refutation to Woosley's nonsense is that he has raised a red herring. We all know what Saddam was. I think we're all glad he's been swept into the dustbin of history. The question is: what next?

The problem is that merely getting rid of Saddam was simply a negative goal. By itself, achieving that goal left a power vacuum; the Bush junta had no idea how to fill it.

By being the instrument of Saddam's fall, the Bush junta took responsibility for replacing Saddam's brutal tyranny with a stable state of some kind. They have come nowhere near acheiving that goal. Say what you want about Saddam -- I have -- but Iraq was not a "failed state" before 2003. It looks like one now.

After refuting that, one can bring to Mr. Woosley or any other neoconservative why Bush (I refuse to say we or the US) invaded Iraq. While it is true that Saddam murdered people by the bushel, any one who says it was to liberate the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator is either a liar or a fool.

[madrchsod]

21. ya, his dad and all the nations who joined him left saddam in power

what did it cost the usa?-25 billion dollars and what did it accomplish? saddam nutured and the middle east reasonably calm.....