dpberr Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 Except he's not right. Saddham did not kill terrorists whose mission was aligned against the West. He funded a lot off her or groups. If anything, he provided a safe heaven to militant groups who were his bulwark against the restjve Kurds in the Northwest. Like who? He was pretty much the Middle East's primary anti-Islamic, anti-Shiite pressure bulkhead. He was enemies with the Iranians and their proxies, the Kurds, Sunni milita, Sunni insurgents (early days of al-Qaeda) and strong Sunni nations (Kuwait, UAE, the Saudis). The man barely left Iraq, leaving foreign relations to Aziz because he was too busy warding off all of the factions that have become household names today. If he was funding "terrorists" it was his own intelligence services. Saddam was the West's secular "main man" up until 1990. The biggest mistake Saddam made was he invaded Kuwait. The West couldn't turn a blind eye to that due to the massive Saudi influence and pressure that persists to this day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 Except he's not right. Saddham did not kill terrorists whose mission was aligned against the West. He funded a lot off her or groups. If anything, he provided a safe heaven to militant groups who were his bulwark against the restjve Kurds in the Northwest. Yes but he didn't provide safe haven for those that did harm to us otherwise that would have been our reason for going into Iraq. Trump's point was a good one but made poorly which is often the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 Here's Hillary directing her staff to strip identifying markers and send non-secure Click on to enlarge Seems like intent to me................... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 Now, I'm not sure why she wouldn't be charged with obstruction or some other crime based on her complete dishonesty in the investigation... Because she was probably smart enough to be forthright with the FBI. What's said to the public isn't the same as what's said to agents investigating her or her staff. Even taking the 5th isn't lying. So, in short, it's more Clinton parsing of language and rules to skate. Simple fact is, I'll never forgive the Clintons for Rwanda and Afghanistan. And don't tell me "That was Bill," not after Hillary's "WE are the President" bull ****. Yup. I may have mentioned this before, but one of the more memorable lectures I attended while in college was done by a UN peacekeeper who was on of the last to leave Rwanda as the massacre began. He had video he shot himself while sitting on the back of the UN convoy as they drove away, passing through angry mobs of armed people just waiting for the peacekeepers to leave. The footage showed people being butchered with machetes en mass as the UN drove away unable to do a damn thing about it. The footage was horrifically stunning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 Because she was probably smart enough to be forthright with the FBI. What's said to the public isn't the same as what's said to agents investigating her or her staff. Even taking the 5th isn't lying. So, in short, it's more Clinton parsing of language and rules to skate. Well sir, I guess we'll never know. Director Comey just informed congress that Ms. Clinton was not put under oath, nor was there any record kept of the three and a half hour question session. I guess the question that comes to mind is.................why did they even bother ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 Well sir, I guess we'll never know. Director Comey just informed congress that Ms. Clinton was not put under oath, nor was there any record kept of the three and a half hour question session. I guess the question that comes to mind is.................why did they even bother ? Because Comey is a smart guy and played every step to support the outcome he recommended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 (edited) Because Comey is a smart guy and played every step to support the outcome he recommended. My guess is, our ex-president who was dis-barred for making false statements under oath, met with the Attorney General and asked her not to put Hillary under oath, to avoid the same scenario. . . Comey: Hillary’s FBI Testimony Wasn’t Under Oath Or Recorded . Edited July 7, 2016 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 Comey doesn't know if his investigators asked if she ever sent classified material, but he's sure there wasn't criminal intent. Incredible. Clinton's FBI interview was not recorded or under oath http://hill.cm/apWRfaq Unauthorized servers, secret emails, perjury, destruction of evidence?.............................. Ok, we're good here one Hell of a criminal investigation ya had there, Comey. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 Like who? He was pretty much the Middle East's primary anti-Islamic, anti-Shiite pressure bulkhead. He was enemies with the Iranians and their proxies, the Kurds, Sunni milita, Sunni insurgents (early days of al-Qaeda) and strong Sunni nations (Kuwait, UAE, the Saudis). The man barely left Iraq, leaving foreign relations to Aziz because he was too busy warding off all of the factions that have become household names today. If he was funding "terrorists" it was his own intelligence services. Saddam was the West's secular "main man" up until 1990. The biggest mistake Saddam made was he invaded Kuwait. The West couldn't turn a blind eye to that due to the massive Saudi influence and pressure that persists to this day. Saddam did keep a lot of those groups under his thumb, and his activities against Iran suited our agenda, but make no mistake we considered removing him on many occasions, but did not like the chances of whoever replaced him being better. This idea that we just left Saddam alone to do whatever he wants as long as he suited our agenda isn't as black and white as that. Like many other foreign policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpberr Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 Saddam did keep a lot of those groups under his thumb, and his activities against Iran suited our agenda, but make no mistake we considered removing him on many occasions, but did not like the chances of whoever replaced him being better. This idea that we just left Saddam alone to do whatever he wants as long as he suited our agenda isn't as black and white as that. Like many other foreign policy. In a way we did. It was only after the Iran-Iraq war where everyone started calling in billions of dollars of IOUs that Saddam got desperate and started invading countries. Sure, we didn't like what he was doing in Iraq in the 70s or 80s but we didn't do anything about it. FWIW, this isn't a case that Saddam was this awesome guy. He was a brutal dictator. However, I think the size and depth of the Pandora's box we opened up toppling him was greatly underestimated - and that's the same worry I have with Clinton and her desires for nation building. I don't know how the West and Russia contain Syria if Assad goes on top of what's already destabilized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 In a way we did. It was only after the Iran-Iraq war where everyone started calling in billions of dollars of IOUs that Saddam got desperate and started invading countries. Uhh...the reason those IOUs existed in the first place is because Saddam invaded a country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 Dear God, Comey admits under oath her attorneys scrubbed devices in a way to prevent forensic recovery .. Astounding Surely there’s no inference of intent to be drawn from this. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpberr Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 Uhh...the reason those IOUs existed in the first place is because Saddam invaded a country. I suppose I should have put "invaded even more countries." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 Dear God, Comey admits under oath her attorneys scrubbed devices in a way to prevent forensic recovery .. Astounding Surely there’s no inference of intent to be drawn from this. . Intent to what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 In a way we did. It was only after the Iran-Iraq war where everyone started calling in billions of dollars of IOUs that Saddam got desperate and started invading countries. Sure, we didn't like what he was doing in Iraq in the 70s or 80s but we didn't do anything about it. FWIW, this isn't a case that Saddam was this awesome guy. He was a brutal dictator. However, I think the size and depth of the Pandora's box we opened up toppling him was greatly underestimated - and that's the same worry I have with Clinton and her desires for nation building. I don't know how the West and Russia contain Syria if Assad goes on top of what's already destabilized. I mean we can go back and forth on this but the bottom line is that we are blamed for doing something in 2003 and destabilizing the region, wouldn't the same have been true in the 70's and 80's? I think another question to ask is can someone who isn't a brutal dictator retain control of the region? We tried giving Iraq free elections but they are still fracturing. What is the way forward here that won't be interpreted as wrong? I don't think there is a good answer, especially when the American people have zero will to proceed with any solid plan. I think the same could be said about the past foreign policy as well. Saddam was a brutal dictator who came to power under his own but what was the alternative? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 I mean we can go back and forth on this but the bottom line is that we are blamed for doing something in 2003 and destabilizing the region, wouldn't the same have been true in the 70's and 80's? I think another question to ask is can someone who isn't a brutal dictator retain control of the region? The Iranian Republic seems to be pretty stable. The Jordanian monarchy would as well, if their neighbors weren't constantly trying to destabilize it. The bottom line, though, is that we'll keep destabilizing countries as long as we keep forcing Western paradigms on to non-Western societies. Afghanistan, for example, was stable for a long time. As a loosely organized tribal society. It's not until the West decided that that was "uncivilized" and tried to enlighten them that they started having real problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 Intent to what? LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 Intent to what? Certainly not an intent to dissuade your love of Hillary because that is mission impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 (edited) LOL! It's a legal question. Intent to what? She was hiding/destroying evidence like a MFer but Comey was not asked to look into perjury or obstruction (yet). Edited July 7, 2016 by Observer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 It's a legal question. Intent to what? She was hiding/destroying evidence like a MFer but Comey was not asked to look into perjury or obstruction (yet). Destruction of evidence in a case looking for evidence is illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts