Obama on Hussein

| October 8, 2008

Scott at Flopping Aces makes an excellent point. While parsing Obama’s foreign policy last night, he points out Obama’s mischaracterization of the cost of the war;

2) The cost of the war in Iraq literally changes every week according to Obama. Tonight he claimed it was $700+bn. No. That’s the cost of the war on terror as a whole. Iraq (per the Congressional Research Service) cost $444.6bn as of July. For reference, the cost of all the Clinton Wars was about $450bn most of which was spent “containing” Saddam, and that “containment”….caused UBL to decide to start killing Americans; caused the war on terror

So, either the money was going to be spent on containing Hussein, or on removing him. Which would Obama prefer? He kept making the point last night that John McCain was wrong on the Iraq war, but he leaves out the part where Clinton was wrong on Iraq, too. And, ultimately, the Democrats and Obama were wrong on Iraq. Obama made it sound as if he preferred a world in which Saddam Hussein  still presided over the terrorist state of Iraq.

And suppose Hussein were still the head of Iraq. All of those terrorists and thugs who pored across the borders of Iraq would have found their way to Afghanistan to face the infidels there. And, obviously, it’s much harder to fight them in Afghanistan than it was in Iraq. Especially with the added support they might have enjoyed from Hussein.

The Democrats can whine and moan about the war in Iraq, but it was inevitable. Every time Hussein farted, Clinton was restaffing our tanks and Bradleys warehoused in Kuwait to blunt an Iraqi attack. Did the Democrats think we were going to be able to do that in perpetuity?

He made a point of promising to exhaust all options when dealing with Iran before he would resort to force. Couldn’t he agree that three presidents before him exhausted all of their options with Hussein? This country was patient with Hussein for 12 years before the invasion in 2003. In fact, those years gave Hussein time to train his troops in resisting the US invasion. He had time to pass out copies of Blackhawk Down to his commanders. And they had time to digest it’s lessons.

Who ever the next president will be, they will be thankful that they won’t have to deal with Hussein while dealing with the myriad other problems the world presents us. The poodles of Europe are already grateful, though they won’t say it aloud.

Crossposted on Talon

Category: Politics

4 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Martino

How in the Hell could McCain be “wrong on Iraq”? What the f*ck does that even mean? We have won, for all intents and purposes, in Iraq. What’s next, Ike was “wrong on Normandy?” This Obama guy is a complete idiot. I have absolutely no use for the guy. And why didn’t McCain just give the guy the “WTF?” look, and walk away like he was gonna get sick if he had to entertain any more of that fool’s gibberish? Is it me?

DefendUSA

Martino- No, It isn’t you. I was listening to the debate while waiting for the train and my reaction was exactly WTF??? It’s not you. The guy is a complete onehundred percent idiot.

trackback

[…] it comes to cost, was it better to contain or remove Saddam? This Ain’t Hell has the answer. If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds. Don’t forget […]

bullnav

Don’t forget that that $450B in funding included enforcement of the UN-mandated No Fly Zones. This required USAF aircraft stationed in Saudi Arabia as well as USN carriers in the Arabian Gulf. Then there was the fact we had a rather large Naval force in the Arabian Gulf enforcing the UN sanctions against Iraq by inspecting suspect ships.

Oh, then don’t forget the 14 UN resolutions that Hussein ignored.

Yep, it’s pretty clear to me we should not have gone into Iraq…