Dems demand Bush

[local 12 proud]

All I can figure is that their hatred of Bush has driven these people collectively insane.

How is what is happening in Darfur in any essential way different from what Saddam Hussein has been doing in Iraq for thirty some years?

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/dems-de...lamic-terrorism

 

[delldude]

Where were all the Dem's when Saddam was dipping young women and men in hot oil?

 

[bagstacker]

Where were all the Dem's when Saddam was dipping young women and men in hot oil?

Well, we know where the repukes were...

 

[bagstacker]

Well, we know where the repukes were...

But wait! There's more! (remarks in parentheses are mine)

Excerpts from MSP Star Tribune article by Eric Black:

Saddam Hussein was an ally of the United States before, during and after the Anfal. (Gassing of the Kurds)

"Saddam started a war with Iran in 1980. Because of U.S. emnity with Iran, the Reagan Administration “tiltedâ€￾ toward Iraq in 1981. In 1982, the (Reagan, republican) State Department removed Iraq from its list of state sponsors of terrorism.
In December 1983, Donald Rumsfeld, then a special presidential envoy, met with Saddam in Baghdad (see attached photo)and told him that the United States wanted to resume full diplomatic relations. Saddam agreed. During the Iran-Iraq war, the United States provided Saddam with military and economic aid. Some of the forms of aid are summarized in this Star Tribune story by your future Big Questioner, which ran on the eve of the current war.

It was still the middle of the Iran-Iraq war, and the heyday of the U.S.-Iraq alliance, that Saddam began systematically slaughtering the Iraqi Kurds to punish them for their rebellions against his rule. The most famous attack was the gassing of Halabja, a mostly Kurdish city near the Iranian border, on March 16, 1988. Rebel Kurds, working with Iranian troops, had taken the town a few days earlier. The gassing, which killed an estimated 5,000 Kurds, was part of the successful Iraqi counterattack.

The genocide continued after the war with Iran had ended. The United States (Reagan administration, republican, I believe? ) publicly condemned Iraq’s use of chemical weapons, but never suspended its aid programs to Saddam.
From the next portion of my own effort to deal with this unpleasant history, I outlined one senator’s unsuccessful effort to punish Saddam for the massacres:

U.S. Sen. Claiborne Pell, D-R.I.,(He would be a Democrat ) horrified at the attacks on the Kurds, got the Senate to unanimously adopt the Prevention of Genocide Act, which would end U.S. subsidies, U.S. purchases of Iraqi oil and ban the export to Iraq of technology that would help advance its weapons programs.

Still seeking to maintain its relationship with Iraq, and mindful that U.S. farmers and U.S. corporations were making a lot of money selling to Iraq, the (Reagan, a known republican! ) White House opposed the sanctions.

One internal State Department memo put the tradeoff between ethical, political and economic considerations this way: “Human rights and chemical weapons use aside, in many respects our political and economic interests run parallel with those of Iraq.â€￾


In 1989, President George Bush (the first, yet ANOTHER republican) opposed a second stripped-down Iraq sanctions bill right up to the day that Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. Within hours of the invasion, the bill passed 416-0 and Bush, by executive order, imposed a total embargo on Iraq and a freeze on Iraqi assets in the United States.

The story of what Saddam did to the Kurds is heart-breaking and will be retold in the phase of his trial just under way. May the opportunity to prove their case bring some measure of comfort to the survivors. Jefferson said “I tremble when I reflect that God is just.â€￾ May the Butcher of Baghdad so reflect and so tremble.

The story of how our country dealt with the crimes when they occurred is for us to face squarely and maturely and take into account in whatever way each of us chooses. History is not a fairy tale."
Full story here:

http://www.startribune.com/blogs/bigquestion/?p=192

So, there you have it. Democrats led the fight to cut off aid to Saddam to punish him for these crimes, but Reagan and Bush 1 (I have it on good authority that they were both republicans!) continued to cozy up and coddle this dictator, and supply him with weapons and money which enabled and encouraged further brutality. If only repukes could do the right thing instead of the thing that pays more, we might have avoided all this mess we're in now. Republicans are just a complete flop and failure at national security. Gee, no wonder Saddam got the idea he could invade Kuwait.

But hey, no need to let facts get in the way of a good pout... 🙁 It must be Bill Clinton's penis' fault. After all, he was thinking about running for president then. B)

 

[delldude]

Dems lead the fight...I don't seem to remember them bellering too loudly....
hells bells,George Clooney made more noise than them then...

It must be Bill Clinton's penis' fault. After all, he was thinking about running for president then.

I must say I take full responsibility for making you come out and defend the Presidents Penis.


Don't forget: the enemy of my enemy is my friend 😉

 

[local 12 proud]

U.S. Sen. Claiborne Pell, D-R.I.,(He would be a Democrat ) horrified at the attacks on the Kurds, got the Senate to unanimously adopt the Prevention of Genocide Act, which would end U.S. subsidies, U.S. purchases of Iraqi oil and ban the export to Iraq of technology that would help advance its weapons programs.

Yes those sanctions and UN resolutions really showed Saddam.

Liberals Still Supporting Terrrorist

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/17104.html

 

[Garfield1966]

The problem seems to be that the US has a tendency to support despots and dictators because it is convenient at that particular point and time. No one seems to look at the long term ramifications of these actions. No one looks at the actions of the individual them self (a dictator who would use nerve gas to quell an uprising) and think ‘gee, maybe it would not be a good idea to befriend this piece of trash". We supported Batista (that worked out well), Pinochet (sp?), the Shaw of Iran, Osama Bin Laden just to name a few. Then they either turn on us or they get over thrown by force and the people of that country lash out against the countries who supported the tyrant in the first place.

 

[UAL_TECH]

The problem seems to be that the US has a tendency to support despots and dictators because it is convenient at that particular point and time. No one seems to look at the long term ramifications of these actions. No one looks at the actions of the individual them self (a dictator who would use nerve gas to quell an uprising) and think ‘gee, maybe it would not be a good idea to befriend this piece of trash". We supported Batista (that worked out well), Pinochet (sp?), the Shaw of Iran, Osama Bin Laden just to name a few. Then they either turn on us or they get over thrown by force and the people of that country lash out against the countries who supported the tyrant in the first place.

This post may be the only thing that we agree on.

 

[local 12 proud]

Islamic Terrorist have carried out more than

5954

Deadly Terror Attacks since 9/11