Obama Explains How World Would Be Much Better If Bush 43 Had NOT Toppled Saddam Hussein in Iraq War.  

June 18, 2014 (OPE - TPC)

By Jim Wrenn, Editor PoliSat.Com ; PoliticalXray.Com 

          Obama's argument that  we and the world would be better-off if Bush 43 had NOT toppled Saddam Hussein in the Iraq War is demonstrably specious-- It's virtually indisputable that by now Saddam would have reconstituted his chemical and biological weapons and also by now have at least a "dirty" nuclear bomb.  And, it's also virtually indisputable that Moumar Qadhaffi would still be in power in Libya because he would have completed his nuclear-weapons program and thus would not only still be in power but also be sitting atop a nuclear arsenal.

         Obama and his acolytes conveniently ignore that Libya's Qadhaffi revealed, and surrendered, his highly-advanced nuclear weapons program soon after he learned US troops had captured Saddam Hussein-- i.e., Qadhaffi feared he'd be "next" before he could complete his nuclear program.

Obama apparently deludes himself into believing that he would have been able to "charm" Saddam Hussein and Libya's Qadhaffi into surrendering the nuclear weapons they both would by now have if Bush 43 had not toppled Saddam.  See also reminder that absent Bush 43 toppling Saddam, both Saddam and Libya's Qadhaffi would have nuclear weapons:  

Ostensibly, Obama thinks he would have persuaded them to give up the idea of supporting juhadists against the West and instead joined Obama's jihad against Man-Made-Global-Warming "Deniers" also known as "Climate Apostates."

Permanent link to this installment:

http://PoliSat.Com/Obama-Says-World-Would-Be-Better-If-Bush-43-
Had-NOT-Toppled-Saddam-In-Iraq-War.htm  

OR

http://polisat.com/DailyPoliticalSatire-Commentary/Archives2014/du20y14m06d18-01.htm 

end.