Possible Deal Aborted?

[jimnyc]

Now ask yourself if I care! I'm not here to be your friend, and your obviously not here to make friends either.

You don't like what I have to say, get the fuck out.

Not really hard, is it?

 

[leeg]

I just don't see the point of someone in the White House leaking the whole story. The internal memos were bound to surface in the intelligence probe, but without a context, they wouldn't have made much sense.
Now even loyalists will be inclined to ask if the war and the deaths and the staggering cost might have been avoided.
Perhaps the people involved were judged not to be credible - but they appear to be.
And we have to hope that as more details emerge, we can sort the idiots from the rascals.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by leeg
I just don't see the point of someone in the White House leaking the whole story. The internal memos were bound to surface in the intelligence probe, but without a context, they wouldn't have made much sense.
Now even loyalists will be inclined to ask if the war and the deaths and the staggering cost might have been avoided.
Perhaps the people involved were judged not to be credible - but they appear to be.
And we have to hope that as more details emerge, we can sort the idiots from the rascals.

Ok, I'll agree with that.

Most is speculation at this point and I'm sure we'll learn more as the investigation continues. I'm just not buying into it too much yet since I think Saddam should have stepped down to begin with, or at least given in to 'all' of the UN demands.

The fact that this hasn't surfaced until now gives it a shady appearance. I'm not sure of the background and security involved. It could bite the administration in the ass if it's found out that they purposely suppressed information that might have swayed opinion.

If I had read this prior to the war I still would have backed the invasion, but that's just my opinion.

Welcome to the board, leeg.

 

[spillmind]

it's natural to to react the way you do when the truth comes out.

maybe it's sexual frustration? try xanax- it works for the first lady

maybe you just missed your valium dose? it happens, man.

if i offended you, are hurt your feelings or whatever, i'm sorry.

it's kind of enigmatic that someone so apparently intelligent with no reason for an agenda can she things so narrowly sometimes. that's all.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by spillmind
it's kind of enigmatic that someone so apparently intelligent with no reason for an agenda can she things so narrowly sometimes. that's all.

Please, let's not discuss intelligence.

Isn't it ironic that those who want to pick on my intelligence can rarely get through a sentence without a mistake.

 

[leeg]

thanks jimnyc -

But here's the 150 billion dollar question - Would you have backed the invasion then knowing what you do now?

regards

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by leeg
thanks jimnyc -

But here's the 150 billion dollar question - Would you have backed the invasion then knowing what you do now?

regards

Without a doubt. There would now be some tactical moves changed to avoid loss of life, but that regime had to be stopped. I'm tired of debating the WMD point for now, but there's added incentive in knowing they won't have the capabilities to use them (if they had them) or acquire them.

Unfortunately, those calling the shots don't have the benefit of hindsight.

 

[leeg]

"Unfortunately, those calling the shots don't have the benefit of hindsight."

And not much in the way of foresight either.
Here's a truly seditious thought. I wonder if it might have been safer for the United States to transform a secular dictatorship into an open society rather than starting from scratch?
It would have taken enormous pressure and adroit diplomacy, but we had the bastard boxed in. Can you rule it out as a viable alternative?

 

[spillmind]

glad to see you've calmed down, jim your arguements are much more compelling in your relaxed frame of mind.

i'm far from perfect, and niether are you.

back to the topic:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&e=11&u=/nm/20031107/ts_nm/iraq_usa_offer_dc_5

know i know that NT believes that we exhausted every available option for diplomacy, but myself and millions globally disagree. there is a reason there was a large protest to the invasion of iraq, and NOT afghanistan.

i really wish we DID use all the means possible to settle this in a non-violent matter. however, this is in the past

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by spillmind
i'm far from perfect, and niether are you.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[NightTrain]

Hi, Leeg. Welcome aboard.

"Unfortunately, those calling the shots don't have the benefit of hindsight.

And not much in the way of foresight either.
Here's a truly seditious thought. I wonder if it might have been safer for the United States to transform a secular dictatorship into an open society rather than starting from scratch?
It would have taken enormous pressure and adroit diplomacy, but we had the bastard boxed in. Can you rule it out as a viable alternative?"

It was tried - that was attempted by the demand made to Saddam to vacate his position & to accept exile somewhere else in return for a promise to leave him alone. He outright refused the offer, so ended that option.

 

[Mark K]

Sounds like, judging from this article, that Saddam Hussein & Co. had suddenly and finally done the 180 that the whole world was waiting for, and they simply weren't given enough time to bring about the peace they desired. If that's not tragic enough, they were also willing to play Santa Claus, with Perle & Hage as elves, and bring all these stocking-stuffers (UN-supervised free elections, oil concessions to U.S. companies, turn over a top al Qaeda terrorist, etc.) to the world, to show their hearts were in the right place. And the US blew it for no other reason except we are impatient. We were going to have Christmas again in March! But not only did we ignore a virtually iron-clad peace offer, but the top al Qaeda terrorist escaped during our invasion and is now believed to be leading attacks against US troops in Iraq...

Nah. This is reading like a well crafted movie script. If Hage, Perle & Co. had a true solution to an impending conflict of this magnitude, would they really just go sit down after being rebuffed once? If you or I had a key to a burning building full of trapped people and a fireman told us to get across the street, that they would handle it, would we just go sit on the curb? And why come forth now?

This story is just a big sloppy mudball someone has tried to hide under a nice (but thin) new layer of snow.

 

[jimnyc]

Thats what I was trying to say, Mark. If these guys were so determined to release this information, why did it take so long?

The Pentagon might be able to ignore them, but the press would have eaten this up.

Welcome to the board.

 

[dijetlo]

>>Santa Claus, with Perle & Hage as elves, and bring all these stocking-stuffers<<
The only reason this thing is got any legs is the presence of this elf >>Perle<< on the sled. Perle is a PNAC founding member and the peanuts don't favor regime change without military intervention (thier goal in Iraq are military bases from which they can control the rest of the middle east without interference from an arab government).

PNAC 2000 Plans for Iraqi bases
>>the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein....From an
American perspective, the value of such bases >>The are reffering to bases in independent states they wanted to set up in the Southern and Northern "no-fly zones" in Iraq << would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region.<<
If Perle spoke with "someone at the CIA" I think he needs to produce him and get some kind of confirmation that the CIA nixed the peace deal. Otherwise, expect the critics to point out this connection between the stated goals of the PNAC agenda and Perles refusal of a peace deal with Hussein (since the offer didn't include a permanent military base for the US, neccessary for PNACs agenda in the region), without consultation from our top elected officials.
Politicaly, GWBs' opponents will use this as further evidence he is a hapless baffoon, a weak puppet for an unelected cabal. Evidence for this argument is developing into a strong case for "Regime Change" in the US in 2004.