Victory In Iraq: Five Years Ago Saddam Was Free, Today Iraq Is Run By An Elected Government

President Bush is in Iraq today for a farewell visit and to celebrate the security agreement with the Iraqi government that will soon have Iraq in full control of its own destiny and our troops coming home with their mission accomplished. Things have changed so much in Iraq that Air Force One landed in Baghdad in full daylight. Which is a stark contrast to the time when our President had to sneak into Iraq in the dead of night.
Bush’s visit also coincides with the five-year anniversary of Saddam Hussein’s capture. That tyrant once ruled Iraq with an iron fist, making war on his neighbors and murdering those in his own country who got in his way, but now Iraq is ruled by an elected government.
And that’s because of our troops, their commanders and our President.
We could have abandoned Iraq, as Obama and the Democrats wanted. Certainly that would have been a politically convenient move for Republicans years ago. But we didn’t. We stuck with our mission, and instead of Iraq having to throw itself on the mercy of its extremist, totalitarian neighbors (Iran and Syria) we have an independent Iraq that’s ready to stand on its own.
Which isn’t to say that the country is out of the woods. There’s still a lot that could go wrong, and the Iraqi leadership could fumble the ball, but we did what we set out to do. We deposed Saddam and replaced him with an elected government and put the destiny of Iraq in the hands of the Iraqi people.
And we did it despite the defeatism of the media and the left.

Tags: ,


«
»
  • http://Array Jerry

    We could have abandoned Iraq, as Obama and the Democrats wanted. Certainly that would have been a politically convenient move for Republicans years ago.

    True.
    And, sure, free at last. It’s all good. Nice foothold in a region that would like to see all Americans dead.

    However, had Bush brought the “surge” in sooner, like what folks like McCain wanted, he could have won this war sooner, and possibly avoided much criticism.
    From the Libs, Demos, and nuts like Davinski, above.

    So. Not too sure what History will say about what I consider to be very “slow” stratigery..

  • http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/ Chief RZ

    Frank. Yes. Davidinski, yes. What you failed to include was the 17 or so UN sanctions with the last one coming to a 15-0 vote. Then Sadam not complying with cease fire. He never returned captured Kuwaitis nor the material his troops stole.

    In the other cases you mentioned, maybe after 17 UN resolutions, they might authorize “most serious sanctions”

    We could easily do the same in any of the aforementioned, but certain people would cry “imperialism” or “nation building” or “no war for oil–or sand–or ?” whatever childish chant that rimes at the time.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    And we did it despite the defeatism of the media and the left.

    As soon as you said that, a Saddam supporting defeatist showed up and attempted to piss on the parade.

  • http://detroitcitydragons.weebly.com/ Frank A. Fiorello

    I thank President Bush for the past eight years, good and bad he did his best and was a great wartime leader. I believe history will redeem him in the eyes of the public. I hope that our new President will continue the fight against these terrorist and help keep our country safe.

    But that seem unlikely when the UN is passing Islamophobia laws and Obama is trying to hand over our country to the UN. Looks like Islam is winning a key battle against the western world.

  • G

    FREE On-Demand TV Shows (Full), Movies (Full), Music (6 million digital quality tracks), Unlimited Games, Easy Money, and College Educations (Stanford, Oxford, Notre Dame and more) @ InternetSurfShack.com

  • Davinski

    Ha!!! Go ahead Kenny. Keep supporting Mr. 20%. What do you think of General Powell’s statement on your boy Rush and your girl Sarah? LOL!!!!!

  • Davinski

    Do you honestly believe that the Bush Adm’s main reason for invading Iraq was concern for the Iraqi people? If that was the case why not concern for the Syrians, North Koreans and all the other dictators throughout the world? He (Bush) with his 20% popularity wanted to grease the hands of all the other thieves who supported his adm- Haliburton, Blackwater,etc.

    Further, he wanted to re enforce his macho side by going after Saddam for trying to kill “daddy Bush.”

    He turned a family feud into countless deaths and injuries on both the Iraqi and American sides. Aren’t you at all embarrassed by your continual support of this man?

  • http://insanereindeer.blogspot.com/ Kenny

    Do you honestly believe that the Bush Adm’s main reason for invading Iraq was concern for the Iraqi people? If that was the case why not concern for the Syrians, North Koreans and all the other dictators throughout the world? He (Bush) with his 20% popularity wanted to grease the hands of all the other thieves who supported his adm- Haliburton, Blackwater,etc.

    Awww, someone can’t make a point.

    That’s cute.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development