Remembering Sadam: A Liberal in Defense of Bush

The United States’ war on terror moved into     Iraq on March 20th2003. One must be extremely careful when indicating who America was at war with, because they did not attack the nation of Iraq. U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair organized a joint effort to infiltrate and overthrow the Saddam Hussein. The two leaders articulated three reasons for the invasion.

Former President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, make...

Former President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, makes a point during his initial interview by a special tribunal, where he is informed of his alleged crimes and his legal rights. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

First, Saddam Hussein possessed nuclear weapons. Second, that he had ties to Al-Qaeda. Third, Saddam’s regime had been oppressing the Shia Islam population for decades. The first two have been, for the most part, proven untrue, causing Bush to be deemed a liar by a mass delirium throughout the nation. As a result of his reputation as a liar, many Americans overlook the incredible joy felt by every Shia Muslim upon hearing the news that Saddam Hussein had been captured by the U.S. on December 13th2003. They would finally be allowed the religious freedom taken for granted in America, and would no longer fear the oppressive Sunni regime, something that would have been impossible without U.S. intervention. This did not mark the end of America’s occupation of Iraq, however, and America decided to stay in control of Iraq until a stable democracy was established. It ended up taking until the December of 2011 for the U.S. to withdraw its troops from Iraq under President Barack Obama, thus putting an end to the Iraq war.

When evaluating the decision to invade Iraq it is possible to assert that President Bush lied to the American people about Saddam’s ties to terrorism and still deem his decision to invade admirable. Saddam was executed in 2006 after being found guilty of 148 murders of Shia Muslims in 1982. Since then it is impossible to accurately calculate the number of Shia he was responsible for slaughtering, but had America decided to stand idly by it is fair to say that Saddam would still be murdering the Shia today.


6 Responses to Remembering Sadam: A Liberal in Defense of Bush

  1. Wayne says:

    Reblogged this on luvsiesous and commented:
    Every now and then a self described ‘liberal’ is honest and clear thinking.

    This is one of those times.

    Unfortunately, I do not agree that the loss of American lives was worth what we got in return.

    But, I agree that Iraqis are much better off than they were under Saddam. He was one evil dude.

    And I agree that allowing ABC, CNN, & others to lie to us in their news reports was not good for our decision making. Unfortunately, the liberal media hides behind the First Amendment’s Religion Clause and its protection of Free Speech.

    But, they and the President were not making good decisions for America. They did make great decisions for Iraqis and for media’s bottom line …. maybe we could tax them?

    Any way, a good blog to read.


  2. I don’t think mant people would disagree that the removal of Sadam was a good thing, the main problem people have is the motivation behind the invasion and the lack of forward planning by the powers involved. Had more care been taken before the invasion to ensure the future stability of the country, many less people would have died. One of the major issues is that the sanctions before the war were imposed in such a way as to cement his hold on power by making the population of Iraq ever more reliant on handouts from a centralised government.

    Before any invasion is carried out, the invader must have an idea what the new government will be like, this was not the case in Iraq.

  3. sunnythesurd says:

    There is no wrong or right in international politics…The Mistake which the US made, and i am not going to blame the UK ( their issues with the war are entirely different) , is that it did not cater for the post war rehab of iraq like they had done after WWII. Gen Shineski( think i got this spelling wrong) the Chief of the Army had warned that he would require 420000+ troops for post war stabilisation. D Rumsfield, personally i call him “D Idiot”, discredited this advice. This was the “big mistake” of this affair. I always say “Public Opinion comes into play when mistakes after mistakes are made”. I have a feeling Public Opinion would have at least been ambivalent to this if the post war planners had half a brain. Unfortunately whatever they had they left it somewhere…..Lastly its time that the West stop massaging intervention using terms like “human rights”, “massacre”, “democracy”. Dont Lie. If an intervention is in national interests which includes energy security say it so. If it is not in national interests then dont intervene…

  4. LifeWithChad says:

    wow i loved reading the post + comments. intelligent people on here = cool

  5. LifeWithChad says:

    i thought i was going to read saddam was a liberal leader…ha

  6. […] Remembering Sadam: A Liberal in Defense of Bush ( […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: