Consider this exchange, for example, from this morning’s press conference.
Q: Mr. President, moments ago you said that al Qaeda attacked us before we were in Iraq. Since then Iraq has become much less stable; al Qaeda has used it as a recruiting tool, apparently with some success. So what would you say to those who would argue that what we’ve done in Iraq has simply enhanced al Qaeda and made the situation worse?
BUSH: Oh, so, in other words, the option would have been just let Saddam Hussein stay there? Your question is, should we not have left Saddam Hussein in power? And the answer is, absolutely not. Saddam Hussein was an enemy of the United States. He’d attacked his neighbors. He was paying Palestinian suicide bombers. He would have been — if he were to defy — and by the way, cheating on the U.N. oil for sanctions program — oil-for-food program. No, I don’t buy it. I don’t buy that this world would be a better place with Saddam Hussein in power, and particularly if — and I’m sure the Iraqis would agree with that.
And what about Bin Laden?
3 comments:
Yea, he was cheating on oil for food with Conie... not?
I ment, Condoleezza Rice with the Chevron Corporation.
And we took care of Kuwait and ended that attack of their neighbors....imbecile not idiot....the gulf war is over.
Now Al Qaida is running amock in Iraq because Sadaam kept them out.
Post a Comment