Test for Iraq liberation: Was Saddam really repressive?

The Washington Post today publishes another hand-wringing article about “dubious intelligence” used to make the case for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Ho-hum.

Every time I see one of these reports, I have one question: Was Saddam Hussein’s regime repressive or not?

U.N. Resolution 688 required that Saddam end his repression as a condition of the 1991 cease-fire. At the United Nations in 2002, President Bush cited that resolution first in making his case for action against Saddam.

Basic question. Ask yourself: Was Saddam repressive? If so, he invited the invasion, and it’s a good thing there were no major stockpiles of WMDs to interfere with the liberation of 25 million people.

This new Post story says Bush administration officials in 2002 exaggerated the relationship between Saddam and al-Qaida. The truth is, Bush never made an operational link between Saddam’s links and al-Qaida.

Bush mentioned that al-Qaida affiliates like al-Zarqawi had found a safe home in Iraq. Beyond that, Bush was right to mention that Saddam had violated the 1991 cease-fire by supporting a wide range of other terrorists.

Liberation required. So yes, Saddam invited the invasion.

Was Saddam repressive? He was. Iraq had to be freed.

Frank Warner

* * *

Update: Another test for Iraq liberation: Was The Washington Post quoting an independent Pentagon inspector general on the "reports of dubious quality" about the Saddam-al-Qaida links, or was The Post simply quoting perennial defeatist Sen. Carl Levin?

Well, it turns out The Post was quoting Carl Levin, and incorrectly attributed Levin's comments to the inspector general. The Post had three reporters writing this story, and somehow, none of the three knew whom the story was quoting. As it turns out, they were quoting something Levin wrote three years ago.

The Post had no news story, but the pseudo-liberal Democrats at The Post just can't help sucking up to Levin.

For the correction, click here.

Another question The Post forgot to ask: Was Saddam repressive? Such a question might remind a Democrat or two that there is a reason that real democrats must win this war.

* * *

SEE ALSO: More safe cash: $5 reward for proof Saddam ended his repression.

Comments

[Christopher Taylor]

Most people on the left would agree that Apartheid was a horrible thing in South Africa. Nations like Rhodesia were involved in this as well as SA, and it was oppressive and terrible for blacks and other minorities.

Things in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) are not exactly cheery any more. In fact, in some ways they were much better off under white rule, under Apartheid - particularly for whites.

Does that mean that Apartheid wasn't bad, that the oppression blacks faced was not so very bad after all, because things aren't great now?

There's such a willful disconnect in the minds of anti-war people, a deliberate ignoring the facts and history in a vain attempt to force reality to fit their template. This isn't rational, it's relativist idiocy.

[Frank Warner]

It's not even anti-war. This mindless philosophy ignores old wars, like the Iran-Iraq war and Saddam's war on his own people, and it generates more war.

The pro-defeat crowd simply refuses to fight back against the sick and repressive forces that are racing to destroy free societies.

[Kevin]

Are the governments of Sudan, Iran, Syria, North Korea and China repressive?

*shiver*

[Frank Warner]

Those regimes certainly are repressive.

But do any of them have 1991 cease-fire agreements under which they are required to end their repression? Violating a cease-fire agreement is equivalent to declaring the war is on again.

Saddam's requirement to end his repression is enshrined in that U.N. Resolution 688, which may have been the first of its kind.

However, the lack of a U.N. resolution doesn't mean Sudan, Iran, Syria, North Korea and China legally may continue their repression.

All democratic rights and freedoms also are guaranteed by the U.N.'s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (I'm sure the U.N. is working to stop all violations.)

[Kevin]

"I'm sure the U.N. is working to stop all violations."

HAHAHAH! Yeah, me too :)! That is the best sentence I've read all week :).