Looks like Baghdad imploding

[NotfooledbyW]

11018124

Are you claiming Saddam wasn't trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes?

I am not personally claiming anything. I am directing you to the FACT that the discussion you keep citing Is dated in context to June 2000. The facts from the FBI transcripts show that after 9/11/01 Saddam decided at some point to allow the UN inspectors back in (which he did) in order to avert war with the US. The facts are clear when you read the full FBI transcript that sometime around October 2002 SH quit trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes including GWB and the UNSC that he had WMD.

You are stuck by your self imposed ignorance on a June 2000 conversation that openly becomes outdated after the 9/11/01 al Qaeda attacks.

Events and actions change over time. But you are stuck on a time 15 years ago.

Read Post 160 in full - before posting another brainless knee jerk response would you please?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

George W. Bush was right about Iraq pullout - The Washington Post

From your link:

At a White House news conference on July 12, 2007, Bush declared: “I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we’re ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda.

If he was right - two questions for you:

(1) why did Bush43 permit Malik three months later to request to the UNSC in December 2007 to end the US troop presence by the end if 2008 unless a SOFA could be negotiated allowing troops to stay on Iraq's conditions beyond 2008?

(2) why did Bush43 having been boxed in by Maliki authorize and approve the 2008 SOFA which dictated Iraqi approval of all US military operations; and to be out of Iraq cities by June 2009; and entirely out Iraq by the end of 2011, if indeed those date were premature?

(3) And do you have any evidence that Iraq will ever surrender it's future to al-Qaeda or to its offshoot gang of Daesh terrorist scum?

And regards to (3) Bush was wrong again about Iraq like he was wrong going in. Wrong occupying Iraq. But probably right to agree to leave when we did as that is what the Iraqis wanted.

 

[ChrisL]

11017253

He even told the interrogator that he wanted Iran and everyone to think that he had chemical weapons. Do you deny that?

.

Did you read this in the Pelly/Piro interview that you cited? They were discussing a speech from June 2000. Don't you have any concept of time?

. And he was kind of surprised. And he asked me what speeches. And I said, 'Well, funny you should ask. And in June 2000 you gave a speech in where you said Iraq would not disarm until others in the region did. A rifle for a rifle, a stick for a stick, a stone for a stone,'" Piro recalls.

So I don't deny what you asked (11017253) that prior to the spring and summer of 2002 when the US and Brits stepped up their bombing runs on Iraq after the 09/11/01attacks. SH decided to allow the inspectors back in. From the Piro FBI transcript:,


[QUOTE]. The fact is shown in Para 5: "Even though Hussein claimed Iraq didn’t have WMD, the threat from Iran was the major factor as to why he did not allow the return of the UN inspectors." [/QUOTE]

In summary what you cited was a clear discussion about what SH was thinking and doing in 2000 not 2002.

ChrL 11013525

So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks.

"It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.

You are the one lying by omission because you refuse to provide the critical fact about the date in order to lead your feeble mind and the feeble minds of others that SH kept his 2000 charade ongoing by not having inspectors back in right up to the March 2003 invasion. We all know that is not the case except for you apparently.

Are you aware that SH openly and publicly decided to allow the inspectors back in around October 2002?

Fact from Piro FBI transcipts: "the threat from Iran was the major factor as to why he did not allow the return of the UN inspectors."

More that destroys your argument and verifies mine:

Interview with FBI agent who interrogated Saddam Archive - AnandTech Forums. US Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Baghdad Operations Center June 11, 2004.

This is from the official full transcript not a 60 minutes ten minute interview.

Para 1: While engaging SSA George L. Piro in casual conversation, Saddam Hussein providing the following information regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD

Para 3: Hussein replied this (June 2000) speech was meant to serve a regional and an operational purpose. Operationally, Hussein was demonstrating Iraq's compliance with the United Nations (UN) in its destruction of its Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

It's clear SH did not have WMD.

Para 4: [Hussein discusses Iran’s threat to Iraq & other nations in the region are too weak in the face of Iran.]

Para 7: Hussein recognized that Iran continued to develop its weapons capabilities, to include its WMD, while Iraq had lost its weapons capabilities due to the UN inspections and sanctions.

SH lost his weapons capabilities.

Para 7 cont'd: Hussein was asked how Iraq would have dealt with the threat from Iran once the UN sanction were lifted. Hussein replied Iraq would have been extremely vulnerable to an attack from Iran, and would have sought a security agreement with the United States to protect it from threats in the region. Hussein felt such an agreement would not only have benefitted Iraq, but its neighbors, such as Saudi Arabia.

To let inspectors in and verify no WMD in Iraq SH wanted a security deal wit the US.

Para 9: Hussein commented he allowed the UN inspectors back into Iraq to counter allegations by the British Government. Hussein stated this was a very difficult decision to make, but the British Government had prepared a report containing inaccurate intelligence. It was this inaccurate intelligence on which the United States was making their decisions.

SH let inspectors in because of bad US and UK intelligence.7

para 9 cont'd; However, Hussein admitted that when it was clear that a war with the United States was imminent, he allowed the inspectors back into Iraq in hopes of averting war. Yet, it became clear to him four months before the war that the war was inevitable.

SH wanted to avert war like Bush claimed he did also.

Para 10: Hussein reiterated he had wanted to have a relationship with the United States but was not given the chance, as the United States was not listening to anything Iraq had to say.

SH wanted a relationship with US to counter Iran's threat to the region.

I tried to make it as fool-proof for dummies for you as it can be. But I know I cannot force facts into your mind that prefers the make-believe world of the right. But Im trying.

Do you think Saddam did not let the inspectors back in after November 2002 when UNSC Resolution 1441 was passed? Perhaps that is the problem you are having when you argue that dates and timing do not matter.

No, once he had made everyone suspicious of him, he could not be trusted. This is world security we're talking about here. This isn't some silly game.

 

[ChrisL]

11018124

Are you claiming Saddam wasn't trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes?

I am not personally claiming anything. I am directing you to the FACT that the discussion you keep citing Is dated in context to June 2000. The facts from the FBI transcripts show that after 9/11/01 Saddam decided at some point to allow the UN inspectors back in (which he did) in order to avert war with the US. The facts are clear when you read the full FBI transcript that sometime around October 2002 SH quit trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes including GWB and the UNSC that he had WMD.

You are stuck by your self imposed ignorance on a June 2000 conversation that openly becomes outdated after the 9/11/01 al Qaeda attacks.

Events and actions change over time. But you are stuck on a time 15 years ago.

Read Post 160 in full - before posting another brainless knee jerk response would you please?

Who was to say he didn't hide them? The bottom line, Saddam Hussein was an untrustworthy, murdering psychopath. Just like the mullahs who run Iran. These kinds of "people" (if that's what you want to call them) cannot be trusted. It's pretty simple really.

Also, don't even try to tell me that Saddam was all of the sudden some nice cooperative guy after a couple of years. Gee whiz.

Hey, I've got a bridge to sell you.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ChrL 11020907

Who was to say he didn't hide them?

.

Cornered again you are! First you cite Piro's version on 60 Minutes as gospel truth - now when that doesn't work for you we are not to believe anything SH told Piro. And Agent Piro is a sucker too according to you. I was not the one that cited the Pelly/Piro interview. That was you. I was criticizing your false interpretation of what was on the actual FBI transcripts since I bother to go to the primary source of things to be best informed than casually listening to a newscast.

 

[ChrisL]

ChrL 11020907

Who was to say he didn't hide them?

.

Cornered again you are! First you cite Piro's version on 60 Minutes as gospel truth - now when that doesn't work for you we are not to believe anything SH told Piro. And Agent Piro is a sucker too according to you. I was not the one that cited the Pelly/Piro interview. That was you. I was criticizing your false interpretation of what was on the actual FBI transcripts since I bother to go to the primary source of things to be best informed than casually listening to a newscast.

No, the point is, he did not interview Saddam until AFTER he was captured. The bottom line here, Saddam was a lunatic and nothing he said could be taken as the truth. He was liar. WTH is WRONG with you?

I did no "false interpretations." I quoted HIS own words.

 

[ChrisL]

ChrL 11020907

Who was to say he didn't hide them?

.

Cornered again you are! First you cite Piro's version on 60 Minutes as gospel truth - now when that doesn't work for you we are not to believe anything SH told Piro. And Agent Piro is a sucker too according to you. I was not the one that cited the Pelly/Piro interview. That was you. I was criticizing your false interpretation of what was on the actual FBI transcripts since I bother to go to the primary source of things to be best informed than casually listening to a newscast.

Look at you, defending Saddam Hussein. Yet, you will claim the US is bad.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

11021195.

I did no "false interpretations." .

Sure you did when you did not note that Piro said the conversation he was referring to was regarding a speech that took place in 2000. In 2002 SH was very public about the fact that he had no WMD and was quite willing to let UN inspectors as well as the CIA FBI and US Military WMD experts come into Iraq to search for for WMD that Bush and Congress and the CIA suspected might be there. That was a peace offer that did not rely on trusting Saddam one bit. The UN went in. Bush43 would not test the offer. Bush said the UN could handle that global security matter and then he told the UN to get out. In March 2003 it was Saddam and the UN that were right. It was Bush43 that was wrong.,

Sorry to break the news to you but S.Hussein as evil as he was in the past was not lying about having not WMD as you verified by citing your belief in the Pelly/Piro interviews.

So why did Bush go to the UN and get a unanimous vote to give SH a final opportunity to comply on the WMD matter if it was a national security threat to the world and SH had to absolutely be removed from power and the Baathist Party destroyed and turn Iraq into a Shiite Iran friendly place when Saddam said in 2002 that he did not have WMD to all the world and he offered all the world to come in and see.

You make no sense.

 

[Unkotare]

George W. Bush was right about Iraq pullout - The Washington Post

From your link:

At a White House news conference on July 12, 2007, Bush declared: “I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we’re ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda.

If he was right - two questions for you:

(1) why did Bush43 permit Malik three months later to request to the UNSC in December 2007 to end the US troop presence by the end if 2008 unless a SOFA could be negotiated allowing troops to stay on Iraq's conditions beyond 2008?...

For Malik's political purposes. A real leader understood that, and a real leader would have renegotiated at the right time. Grow up, junior.

 

[Unkotare]

(3) And do you have any evidence that Iraq will ever surrender it's future to al-Qaeda or to its offshoot gang of Daesh terrorist scum?...

Like the fact that it is happening right fucking now? Idiot.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ChrL 11020907

Who was to say he didn't hide them?

.

Cornered again you are! First you cite Piro's version on 60 Minutes as gospel truth - now when that doesn't work for you we are not to believe anything SH told Piro. And Agent Piro is a sucker too according to you. I was not the one that cited the Pelly/Piro interview. That was you. I was criticizing your false interpretation of what was on the actual FBI transcripts since I bother to go to the primary source of things to be best informed than casually listening to a newscast.

Look at you, defending Saddam Hussein. Yet, you will claim the US is bad.

Telling the truth is never bad. You should try it sometime. Saddam said he had no WMD's a he was right. Bush said he gets sick to his stomach every time he thinks about the WMD not being there. At least Bush has somewhat of a conscience. You don't . You prefer to pretend it doesn't matter that so many died because Bush was wrong - Obama was right and unfortunately for those in self/denial S.Hussein was right on WMD.

Now for you Iranaphobes you really should read what SH said about Iran and him wanting to reach a deal with the US for security after sanctions were lifted for WMD compliance.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Like the fact that it is happening right fucking now? Idiot.

Iraq is surrendering it's future to Daesh Terrorist scum? When did or will the surrender of Iraq to Daesh ever happen? Iraq is predominately Shiite and Kurd and Daesh is being driven back by them right now.

You are a bigger idiot than Bush - he was wrongly predicting the future in 2007 but you got it wrong when all you need to do is read a news report or two.

 

[Unkotare]

Saddam said he had no WMD's a he was right.....

Wrong and wrong.

 

[Oldstyle]

Saddam wouldn't have let that happen. Nice going, Dubya! Our interests lie in a stable world. Saddam's actions towards his people were the interest of the Iraqis and it was THEIR responsibility to do something about it. At some point Rumsfeld understood that.

View attachment 31064

Dude, when Bush left office Iraq was generally stable. Six years of Barry have gotten us to the point we're at now. If you REALLY wanted a stable Iraq then you should have followed the advice of your military leaders and left enough troops in Iraq to keep ISIS from taking over.

 

[Oldstyle]

Now we're tucking tail and running from Yemen as well because that's become to dangerous for us to have Special Forces troops there.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ChrL 11017253

He even told the interrogator that he wanted Iran and everyone to think that he had chemical weapons.

Of course SH wanted Iran to think that. Because that is what he told Piro as to why he gave a specific speech in 2000. In 2002 the documented public record is that Saddam was no longer as concerned about Iran as he was with the US because the US and UK were lying about CW he was supposed to producing and stockpiling.

So he let UN inspectors in to avoid war and quit pretending he had WMD.

Do you deny Saddam let inspectors in during 2002 and are you calling Piro a liar for reporting why SH said he did so?

You are a complete knucklehead on such a simple truth to understand.

SH didn't have WMD so he let the inspectors in to prove it. Bush chased the inspectors out. SH was cooperating before Bush launched his dumb war. Just the truth - sorry if the truth pains you Republican Iranaphobes.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

OS 11022504

If you REALLY wanted a stable Iraq then you should have followed the advice of your military leaders and left enough troops in Iraq to keep ISIS from taking over.

No military leader ever gave advice to Obama to leave one single US soldier in Iraq after the Bush 2012 January first deadline, unless they got the same exact immunity that Iraq gave them up to that deadline. You know that is the truth - why lie about it now?

 

[Oldstyle]

OS 11022504

If you REALLY wanted a stable Iraq then you should have followed the advice of your military leaders and left enough troops in Iraq to keep ISIS from taking over.

No military leader ever gave advice to Obama to leave one single US soldier in Iraq after the Bush 2012 January first deadline, unless they got the same exact immunity that Iraq gave them up to that deadline. You know that is the truth - why lie about it now?

Two separate issues...

Obama's military advisers told Obama that taking out all the troops would leave Iraq vulnerable. They suggested leaving a minimum force of 25,000 US troops to stabilize the Iraqi army.

We needed a new Status of Forces Agreement to replace the one that was expiring.

Barack Obama used the expiring Status of Forces Agreement as an excuse to pull troops out. He never made a serious attempt to get a new one because he didn't REALLY want to leave US troops in Iraq.

That was his CHOICE, NotFooled...a choice that he made for political reasons.

 

[ChrisL]

OS 11022504

If you REALLY wanted a stable Iraq then you should have followed the advice of your military leaders and left enough troops in Iraq to keep ISIS from taking over.

No military leader ever gave advice to Obama to leave one single US soldier in Iraq after the Bush 2012 January first deadline, unless they got the same exact immunity that Iraq gave them up to that deadline. You know that is the truth - why lie about it now?

Oh, look at you defend Saddam Hussein and Barack Obama. Lol. What a bunch of partisan crap.

If Obama is so smart, he would have negotiated to stay. He was in WAY over his head as a community organizer. Why don't you admit that he is no better a president than Bush.

 

[ChrisL]

OS 11022504

If you REALLY wanted a stable Iraq then you should have followed the advice of your military leaders and left enough troops in Iraq to keep ISIS from taking over.

No military leader ever gave advice to Obama to leave one single US soldier in Iraq after the Bush 2012 January first deadline, unless they got the same exact immunity that Iraq gave them up to that deadline. You know that is the truth - why lie about it now?

More lies.

Obama ignored general s pleas to keep American forces in Iraq - Washington Times