So now, BUSH caused ISIS?

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11643547

I don't know... You've not posted any source link to this and I never heard the story before. It sounds like something liberals have fabricated inside the vacuum of their anti-Bush blogoshpere or something. Hey, maybe it was in one of them Micheal Moore "documentaries?"

More of your rejection of facts and reality that don't fit your your twisted view of the very dumb invasion of Iraq when there was no threat to justify it at the time.

Saddam Extends Invite to CIA Fox News

BBC NEWS Middle East Iraq challenges US and UK on arms

BBC NEWS Middle East Washington rebuffs Iraq s CIA offer

 

[flacaltenn]

flacaltenn 11610236

So why are you still arguing about Bush in this thread? I applaud him for doing SOMETHING --- even if it was by accident. Because 12 years of locking up the Iraqi economy and BOMBING them for 12 years and killing 100s of THOUSANDS of them in the process thru collateral damage or disease was NOT an acceptable alternative.

Burns my hide that the left criticizes Bush for DOING SOMETHING -- but never would actually step up to leaving Saddam in power OR offering a smarter plan. Pox on both sides...

You applaud Bush for doing SOMETHING called the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003? HRC announced that better plan when she voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq if necessary in October 2002. That was when there were no UN inspectors inside Iraq. She explained the better plan and she decided that something needed to be done about Saddam Hussein's violation of international laws regarding WMD and inspections. Would it be too much trouble for you to read it. in full and try to understand what she was saying?

In quotes is the full speech. No parts of it should be taken out of context. Here is one of several key paragraphs.

"If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition' HRC October 10, 2002.

October 10, 2002 Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq' Delivered

Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.

I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.

Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.

As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.

In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.

In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.


Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.


But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.

In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.

So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?

While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.

I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.

President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.

And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Bush got UN Res 1441 and disarmament was proceeding according to plan.. And you applaud Bush for lying about his preference to avoid war and disarm Iraq peacefully. That is a strange viewpoint because in the end Bush chose war when inspections were working to prepare the way for sanctions to be lifted. You have expressed interest in having those sanctions lifted. Would you not prefer they be lifted without getting 100,000 + Iraqis and 4484 US troops killed in the process? Could you justify your applause for Bush's bad decision that got so many killed wounded and displaced and helped to bring about huge deficits that greatly hindered recovery from the Great Bush Recession of 2008.

Not a single word from Clinton about the 12 years (8 under her husband) of DEADLY failed policy of "containing" Iraq which included depriving them of food, medical supplies, and trade in general.. NOT A CONCERN from Senator Clinton about the 100,000 to 200,000 Iraqis that DIED because of that embargo and the daily bombings for 12 years. What Madeleine NotSoBright (her husband's sec state) called "acceptable"..

And you're not gonna impress me with her plan to dick around for ANOTHER 8 yrs thru the UN and senseless negotiations. The embargo HAD TO END. Our air bases in Saudi NEEDED to close down. And Iraqis needed to stop suffering AT OUR HAND.

The Euros already were there. Talking trade with Saddam and lobbying US/UK for the "containment" to end. Neither HILLARY or most any other American politician had the balls to do what we NOW KNOW was the right thing.

So yes -- ending the embargo/containment/bombing/torture by invasion was DOING SOMETHING. It was done -- very badly... As was EVERYTHING else about our Iraq policy for 30 yrs..

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11646090

You can make all the excuses you want for SH here but he simply didn't abide by UN1441 as he was so required

Who are you to say what he was required to do under a UNSC Resolution? Are you King of the United Nations or something?

 

[Boss]

Boss 11643547

I don't know... You've not posted any source link to this and I never heard the story before. It sounds like something liberals have fabricated inside the vacuum of their anti-Bush blogoshpere or something. Hey, maybe it was in one of them Micheal Moore "documentaries?"

More of your rejection of facts and reality that don't fit your your twisted view of the very dumb invasion of Iraq when there was no threat to justify it at the time.

Saddam Extends Invite to CIA Fox News

BBC NEWS Middle East Iraq challenges US and UK on arms

BBC NEWS Middle East Washington rebuffs Iraq s CIA offer

OMG... This is the SAME GUY who got up there and claimed Saddam's regime was not under attack and in no danger of falling while our troops stormed Baghdad! They had NO INTENTION of allowing CIA agents to come to Iraq and poke around.

The "THREAT" was Saddam's WMD programs which he refused to disclose information about. Blix states this information was still not being provided by Iraq at the time they evacuated. So there's no more to say, really. This was SH's last chance to come clean and fully disclose and he defiantly refused.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11646777

OMG... This is the SAME GUY who got up there and claimed Saddam's regime was not under attack and in no danger of falling while our troops stormed Baghdad!

Who do you think Amir Al Saadi is? Your ignorance is shining brightly now.

.

Saddam's science adviser turns himself in
Coalition designated him 'seven of diamonds' on deck of wanted Iraqis
Saturday, April 12, 2003 Posted: 12:40 PM EDT (1640 GMT)

This is the playing card handed out to coalition troops depicting al-Saadi. He was also one of the Defense Department's most-wanted Iraqis.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Lt. Gen. Amir al-Saadi, Saddam Hussein's top science adviser and Iraq's point man for the last round of U.N. weapons inspections, surrendered to coalition troops Saturday in Baghdad, according to a senior military official at U.S. Central Command.

German television network ZDF helped arrange al-Saadi's surrender and filmed it at the general's request to assure his safety.

ZDF said al-Saadi left his Baghdad home with his German-born wife Helga and surrendered to an American officer, who escorted him away. Al-Saadi also granted the network an interview, and told its reporter that he had no information about other members of the dictatorial regime -- including Saddam Hussein -- and insisted, as he had during the inspections regimen, that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction.

"Al-Saadi also granted the network an interview, and told its reporter that he had no information about other members of the dictatorial regime -- including Saddam Hussein -- and insisted, as he had during the inspections regimen, that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction."

He was right. Bush was wrong. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. He was falsely imprisoned by the U.S. coalition - and they had to secretly and quietly release him when it became clear that he was telling the truth the entire time.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11646777

The "THREAT" was Saddam's WMD programs which he refused to disclose information about. Blix states this information was still not being provided by Iraq at the time they evacuated. So there's no more to say, really. This was SH's last chance to come clean and fully disclose and he defiantly refused.

Weeks before the Inspectors were forced to be evacuated by Bush, Blix clearly reported that the Iraq regime was active and even pro-active on substance. They had no weapons to document. That's why SH wanted in December 2002 to pro-actively and directly with the US allow the CIA to come in to prove to the world that the accusations by Bush and Blair were false.

So now you are saying Bush invaded Iraq over paperwork issues after Iraq offered for months to let the CIA come in to show the inspectors where they suspected the WMD was being hidden.

How do you allow Bush to blame the CIA for faulty intelligence when Bush would not allow the CIA go directly In to get a first hand look as the SH offered?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

flacaltenn 11610236

So why are you still arguing about Bush in this thread? I applaud him for doing SOMETHING --- even if it was by accident.

flacaltenn 11646566

So yes -- ending the embargo/containment/bombing/torture by invasion was DOING SOMETHING. It was done -- very badly... As was EVERYTHING else about our Iraq policy for 30 yrs..

Was Bush41 right or wrong to lead an international coalition to drive the Iraqi Army out of Kuwait by use of military force?. Was Bush41 right or wrong to stick to the UN authorization and coalition plan and not send the troops all the way to Baghdad and take out Saddam Hussein in 1991?

I am not sure how you would applaud a "badly" done invasion causing severe loss of Iraqi lives plus 4484 US troops killed and 40,000 US troops wounded and cost at least a trillion of US taxpayer dollars that US taxpayers could not spare. That is problematic for me because I can see that the better way out of sanctions and NFZ operations was the way that all fifteen permanent members of the UNSC voted in favor to go when they passed UN Res 1441. Sanctions were a few months away from being lifted because Blix and el Beradai could do it by recognizing that Iraq was disarmed of WMD and being watched in the future under the UN long term monitoring program.

I would have thought you would applaud that plan over a badly done invasion that has left Iraq in such horrific turmoil that they now suffer the onslaught of ISIS after all the death pain and suffering that the badly done invasion for no reason at all caused to them.

 

[Boss]

He was right. Bush was wrong. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.

Then Saddam Hussein was even MORE stupid than YOU!

If there were no WMDs or WMD programs, why not comply with the 17 UN resolutions? If there was nothing to hide, why not cooperate immediately, proactively, actively and unconditionally as proscribed by UN1441? Why harass UN inspection teams? Why protest their unannounced inspections? Why pull every trick out of the book to obstruct their inspections until the US has troops in the Gulf waiting to deploy and invasion into your country?

Sheer stupidity is the only reason I can think of.

You cited ONE Saddam loyalist who maintained the talking point they had no WMDs. And you believe this proves something but it doesn't. It's just a Saddam crony repeating what Saddam told him to say. It doesn't mean anything and is totally worthless.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11647280

You cited ONE Saddam loyalist who maintained the talking point they had no WMDs. And you believe this proves something but it doesn't. It's just a Saddam crony repeating what Saddam told him to say. It doesn't mean anything and is totally worthless.

It was not a talking point. It was the truth. They had no WMDs to disclose. That is why SH offered to let the CIA come in to prove there were none. Now you have to admit the offer was made by Iraq - a pro-active act - and that the offer was rejected by the USA - a true act of obstructing inspections.

You cannot apparently explain why Bush should not have let the CIA go in.

 

[Boss]

Boss 11647280

You cited ONE Saddam loyalist who maintained the talking point they had no WMDs. And you believe this proves something but it doesn't. It's just a Saddam crony repeating what Saddam told him to say. It doesn't mean anything and is totally worthless.

It was not a talking point. It was the truth. They had no WMDs to disclose. That is why SH offered to let the CIA come in to prove there were none. Now you have to admit the offer was made by Iraq - a pro-active act - and that the offer was rejected by the USA - a true act of obstructing inspections.

You cannot apparently explain why Bush should not have let the CIA go in.

Saddam didn't offer to do anything. This one "official" did, and it was bullshit. There was never a serious gesture of this nature made by Saddam and he didn't intend to ever let the CIA roam around in Iraq searching for WMDs. This crony went out there and made a bogus statement that Iraq never intended on honoring, and it was for the express purpose of the propaganda you are spreading now.

Again, IF there were no WMDs and no WMD programs, it was extremely boneheaded to give up your dictatorship by being defiant. As Hans Blix said, all Iraq ever had to do was cooperate and assist in confirming what the UN needed to know. If he had done it in 1991, he could have avoided a decade of sanctions. So if there really was nothing to hide, you have to ask, was he mentally retarded or something?

And of course, we NOW know, through intelligence sources in Syria, THAT'S where the WMD technology went. It was all shuttled out the back door as Bush pussyfooted around with the UN and more useless resolutions.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11647527

Saddam didn't offer to do anything. This one "official" did, and it was bullshit. There was never a serious gesture of this nature made by Saddam and he didn't intend to ever let the CIA roam around in Iraq searching for WMDs.

Amir Al Saadi was the equivalent to Iraq's counterpart to,Colin Powell in SH's regime. He was SH's only envoy, spokesman, negotiator and liaison to the UNSC on the resumption of UN inspections and the signatory on all documents pertaining to the agreements made and formed under UN Res 1441. So you are a know nothing blowhard when it comes to understanding what happened during this time in Iraq.

That you actually stated that you know the offer was not serious proves that you have no ability to deal with this honestly or with the use of meaningful thinking or reasoning.

The offer had to be tried and tested to make the claim you have made.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11647527

Again, IF there were no WMDs and no WMD programs, it was extremely boneheaded to give up your dictatorship by being defiant.

You have lost your mind if you think Saddam Hussein by sending his top official and spokesman on UNSC matters. out very early in the inspection process, Offering to allow the CIA to come so he could prove directly to the nations that were making false accusations against his regime that he had no WMD, was being defiant.

 

[JoeB131]

Not a single word from Clinton about the 12 years (8 under her husband) of DEADLY failed policy of "containing" Iraq which included depriving them of food, medical supplies, and trade in general.. NOT A CONCERN from Senator Clinton about the 100,000 to 200,000 Iraqis that DIED because of that embargo and the daily bombings for 12 years. What Madeleine NotSoBright (her husband's sec state) called "acceptable"..

And you're not gonna impress me with her plan to dick around for ANOTHER 8 yrs thru the UN and senseless negotiations. The embargo HAD TO END. Our air bases in Saudi NEEDED to close down. And Iraqis needed to stop suffering AT OUR HAND.

This is kind of illogical. Besides the fact the worst effects of the embargo were mitigated by the "Oil for Food" program that allowed food and medicine to get into Iraq by the late 1990's while still blocking weapons technology, how exactly was making war on these people that brought down any order or economy they did have helping them.

It was bad that 100,000 Iraqis died because of the embargo, but it's suddenly okay that we killed half a million of them in a war and left the country in ruins? Seriously?

Again, IF there were no WMDs and no WMD programs, it was extremely boneheaded to give up your dictatorship by being defiant. As Hans Blix said, all Iraq ever had to do was cooperate and assist in confirming what the UN needed to know. If he had done it in 1991, he could have avoided a decade of sanctions. So if there really was nothing to hide, you have to ask, was he mentally retarded or something?

Well, no, it really wasn't. The threat of WMD's was what kept Iran from doing exactly what it is doing now. So Saddam played a pretty slick game of keeping the Iranians at bay by pretending he had WMD's, while playing the UN insisting he hadn't.

Because he probably figured that because Bush's father was smart enough to not change the balance of power by overthrowing him, he wrongly concluded his son was as smart.

 

[Boss]

Boss 11647527

Saddam didn't offer to do anything. This one "official" did, and it was bullshit. There was never a serious gesture of this nature made by Saddam and he didn't intend to ever let the CIA roam around in Iraq searching for WMDs.

Amir Al Saadi was the equivalent to Iraq's counterpart to,Colin Powell in SH's regime. He was SH's only envoy, spokesman, negotiator and liaison to the UNSC on the resumption of UN inspections and the signatory on all documents pertaining to the agreements made and formed under UN Res 1441. So you are a know nothing blowhard when it comes to understanding what happened during this time in Iraq.

That you actually stated that you know the offer was not serious proves that you have no ability to deal with this honestly or with the use of meaningful thinking or reasoning.

The offer had to be tried and tested to make the claim you have made.

I find it extremely odd that Iraq and Saddam were so cordially inviting of the US and CIA yet they had defied 17 previous UN resolutions. It's also odd that the UN felt compelled to pass UN1441 if Saddam was already willing to cooperate to this extent. Strange that the US Congress authorized use of force on a man who was so welcoming of our CIA... Don't you find this a little peculiar?

What this proves is, like your username, you're obsessed with whatever propaganda puts Bush in a bad light. It doesn't matter if you have to support one of the most murderous tyrants of our time. You'll suspend common sense as well as disbelief in order to justify your Bush derangement. All you are doing here is spewing propaganda that wasn't even taken seriously at the time.

 

[Boss]

Well, no, it really wasn't. The threat of WMD's was what kept Iran from doing exactly what it is doing now. So Saddam played a pretty slick game of keeping the Iranians at bay by pretending he had WMD's, while playing the UN insisting he hadn't.

Because he probably figured that because Bush's father was smart enough to not change the balance of power by overthrowing him, he wrongly concluded his son was as smart.

Oh well... Guess it wasn't as smart of a plan as he thought, eh?

 

[Boss]

Boss 11647527

Again, IF there were no WMDs and no WMD programs, it was extremely boneheaded to give up your dictatorship by being defiant.

You have lost your mind if you think Saddam Hussein by sending his top official and spokesman on UNSC matters. out very early in the inspection process, Offering to allow the CIA to come so he could prove directly to the nations that were making false accusations against his regime that he had no WMD, was being defiant.

No, I would say the UN had lost their mind... passing resolutions demanding he cooperate when he was so willing to cooperate... I would also say the US Congress had lost their minds, passing an agreement to use force against Saddam if he didn't comply while he was so openly willing to comply. Furthermore, the 27 coalition nations who joined us in the invasion... they had lost their minds too. In fact, I have to believe the whole entire world besides you, Amir Al Saadi and Saddam Hussein had lost their fucking minds!

 

[JoeB131]

Well, no, it really wasn't. The threat of WMD's was what kept Iran from doing exactly what it is doing now. So Saddam played a pretty slick game of keeping the Iranians at bay by pretending he had WMD's, while playing the UN insisting he hadn't.

Because he probably figured that because Bush's father was smart enough to not change the balance of power by overthrowing him, he wrongly concluded his son was as smart.

Oh well... Guess it wasn't as smart of a plan as he thought, eh?

Well, it was as dumb as ignoring all of our allies and invading the place.

 

[Boss]

Well, no, it really wasn't. The threat of WMD's was what kept Iran from doing exactly what it is doing now. So Saddam played a pretty slick game of keeping the Iranians at bay by pretending he had WMD's, while playing the UN insisting he hadn't.

Because he probably figured that because Bush's father was smart enough to not change the balance of power by overthrowing him, he wrongly concluded his son was as smart.

Oh well... Guess it wasn't as smart of a plan as he thought, eh?

Well, it was as dumb as ignoring all of our allies and invading the place.

But we didn't ignore our allies. The Iraq War had the second largest coalition in history next to the Gulf War.

As has been stated, invasion could have been avoided if Saddam had complied with UN resolutions. All we wanted was absolute confirmation he had no active WMD programs. We couldn't afford to turn our heads the other way after what happened on 9/11. He was given every opportunity to cooperate with the international community and he remained defiant until the end. Again, if he had nothing to hide, it was kinda stupid and a really stupid plan.

I think it's astounding that you are trying to claim that he didn't cooperate because he was afraid of Iran... as IF we would have ever allowed radical Islamic nutcases to take over Iraq. You know good and well that was never going to happen. So using that as an excuse for not coming clean about his WMD programs is just plain dumb.

 

[JoeB131]

But we didn't ignore our allies. The Iraq War had the second largest coalition in history next to the Gulf War.

Uh, it really didn't. France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, most of the countries that helped us inthe Gulf War all told us this was a bad idea.

 

[flacaltenn]

flacaltenn 11610236

So why are you still arguing about Bush in this thread? I applaud him for doing SOMETHING --- even if it was by accident.

flacaltenn 11646566

So yes -- ending the embargo/containment/bombing/torture by invasion was DOING SOMETHING. It was done -- very badly... As was EVERYTHING else about our Iraq policy for 30 yrs..

Was Bush41 right or wrong to lead an international coalition to drive the Iraqi Army out of Kuwait by use of military force?. Was Bush41 right or wrong to stick to the UN authorization and coalition plan and not send the troops all the way to Baghdad and take out Saddam Hussein in 1991?

I am not sure how you would applaud a "badly" done invasion causing severe loss of Iraqi lives plus 4484 US troops killed and 40,000 US troops wounded and cost at least a trillion of US taxpayer dollars that US taxpayers could not spare. That is problematic for me because I can see that the better way out of sanctions and NFZ operations was the way that all fifteen permanent members of the UNSC voted in favor to go when they passed UN Res 1441. Sanctions were a few months away from being lifted because Blix and el Beradai could do it by recognizing that Iraq was disarmed of WMD and being watched in the future under the UN long term monitoring program.

I would have thought you would applaud that plan over a badly done invasion that has left Iraq in such horrific turmoil that they now suffer the onslaught of ISIS after all the death pain and suffering that the badly done invasion for no reason at all caused to them.

I applaud the decision because it ended 12 yrs of EXTREMELY policy that was going nowhere. And you're speculation about "clearing" Iraq of the WMD charges in 6 months is JUST speculation.. Anyone watching the devastation goin on in Iraq and reducing it daily to rubble and strife at OUR HAND, would be anxious to end it. Not to mention the ability to close the Saudi Air Bases and stop tying up naval support for the containment.

France was sponsoring "trade shows" with Iraq while we were hopelessly mired in "inspections". We had run out of bombs at one point and started to drop concrete bombs. Time to end all that. Not another of killing Iraqi children for lack of medicine and sanitation..

Not productive to 2nd guess Bush41. Don't know if the Arabs would have left the coalition if he brought down the central govt. And THAT was NOT the objective at that time --- was it?

It ALL sucks... Every bit of it. From the abandonment of the Kurds to the Monica Lewinsky bombing to what we got today to show for it. BUT ---- WE are not killing any more Iraqis daily today. We just empowered all of the radicals that Saddam Hussein managed to keep in check for all those yrs. CLEARLY -- the best decision would have been to follow the Euros and lift the containment.. Not many Americans agreed with me then -- and not many still understand how bad our policy was during those years.