The Only Good Republican Is A Dead Republican


At the time, the battle (or slaughter depending on P.O.V.) was waged during a debate on whether they were actually complying with UN resolution 660 or not. Some interesting things to note are the pictures of the aftermath--gross as they may be (War isn't pretty). There are Iraqi soldiers burned to death who were obviously frozen in time mounting an anti-aircraft gun. That goes against the "they we defenseless" claim. Others died with AK's in their hands. There were caches of rifles and other Iraqi military equipment mixed in with stolen goods. They didn't just "lay down" their arms, they were carrying them and driving them. A "let's see what they do with them" attitude could have, most likely would have, caused additional casualties. We'll never know. What we know is that 200 to 20,000 (or more) died in the assault/war crime. That's a wide range of possible dead.

I read it - now what? It's still not a war crime, and the article has no supporting evidence beyond one advocate calling it a war crime. It was investigated, and the troops were retreating with a lot of military equipment. Hussein did not surrender. They were enemy combatants WITH MILITARY EQUIPMENT. If they would have retreated and left their equipment, behind, and carried a white flag with them or something else to convey they were withdrawing in peace, then you'd have an argument.

The German's withdrew from Russia in World War II, as well -- after committing an untold number of atrocities and war crimes (just as the Iraqis had). Should the Russians have left them withdraw with their Panzers and 88s and have them counter-attack or use the same equipment to defend Germany when the Russians invaded? Your argument and the argument in your article are both weak.

I have all kinds of problems with 43 and the lies he and his admin told to get us into Iraq, but that's not 41. That "highway of death" attack, called a "turkey shoot" by Colin Powell, was not a war crime. How do you figure it was a war crime? Those troops were in a FOREIGN COUNTRY that THEY INVADED, and they did NOT SURRENDER. How is that in any conceivable way a war crime under the Geneva Convention? The military was in uniform, and was transporting military equipment. They were not surrendering. That was not a war crime.

I've never been a fan of the Bushes, but I don't find it odd that upon the death of a former President - someone who was President long ago and for whom the stink of partisanship has had time to dissipate - people would look back, have a little nostalgia, and reassess his legacy.

It's been a little strange to see so many conservatives get really angry at the fact that the media has covered the deaths of John McCain, Barbara Bush, and George HW Bush.

I'm as much against conservatives as anyone but have found the coverage to be entirely appropriate.

Kurt Schlichter is a butthurt idiot to write this trash which isn't based on fact.

All presidents are criticized over their policies by the opposing party as was President Bush 41, but pure unadulterated hatred of a president didn't fully enter the arena of politics until President Obama was elected and the right wing lost their minds.

Bush 41 had a high approval rating of 89% at the end of the Persian Gulf war, Bush 43 was called a dumb a lot and many people didn't support his going to war in Iraq, but Bush 43 held a high approval rating of 90% after 9/11 because he was able to bring the country together during a dark chapter of our country's history. For either of these past Republican presidents to have had very high approval ratings during periods of their terms in office, they obviously they weren't hated by Democrats or liberals, nor was there a wish of death of Republicans.

Furthermore there's a number of Republican politicians and pundits who are also drawing comparisons on Trump's vile, uncouth, indecent behavior in office, versus Bush 41's era. I call bs on this article.

What are you even talking about? The UN Security Council did pass resolutions requiring Iraq to leave Kuwait -- The US and other UN members enforced the resolution. You're just completely wrong here... only Yemen and Cuba opposed.

The United Nations Security Council, invoking Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, offered Iraq one final chance to implement Resolution 660 (1990) which demanded that Iraq withdraw its forces unconditionally from Kuwait to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990, the day before the invasion of Kuwait began.
On 29 November 1990, the Security Council passed Resolution 678
which gave Iraq until 15 January 1991 to withdraw from Kuwait and
empowered states to use "all necessary means" to force Iraq out of
Kuwait after the deadline. The Resolution requested Member States to keep the Council informed on their decisions. This was the legal
authorisation for the Gulf War, as Iraq did not withdraw by the deadline.

Really? The war in the Gulf, Desert Storm, was a military conflict. The UN Resolution stated that the Iraqi invasion was a crime and that Iraq needed to leave Kuwait. Kuwait was given an opportunity to leave PRIOR / BEFORE the January 15, 1991 deadline... they ignored the demand!!! After that date, all bets were off -- the US staged HALF A MILLION troops in Saudi Arabia. Saddam did not get the message. It was NOT a surprise attack -- Saddam ignored a UN Security Resolution to leave, the US staged over 500K troops and machines of war in Saudi Arabia prior to Desert Storm... Iraq had plenty of time to leave PRIOR to the commencement of military conflict.

I can't even believe I'm having this debate with you -- you're effing clueless.