Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
do you mean that he didn't?
Saddam most certainly DID acquiesce and let the inspectors back in...he certainly could have prevented them from entering his county but did not do so.....
And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in.
bush says:
"And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power"
Right and by February there were two UN inspector reports, with a 3rd in March that reported there was not unfettered access. Same deal as years earlier, though with less nastiness on the part of Iraq. Truth is, there is ample reason to think France may have assured Saddam they could head the US led coalition off.http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iraqchron.asp
from that link:
"September 12, 2002: Amid increasing speculation that the United States is preparing to invade Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein, Bush delivers a speech to the United Nations calling on the organization to enforce its resolutions on disarming Iraq. Bush strongly implies that if the United Nations does not act, the United States will-a message that U.S. officials make more explicit the following week.
September 16, 2002: Baghdad announces that it will allow arms inspectors to return "without conditions." Iraqi and UN officials meet September 17 to discuss the logistical arrangements for the return of inspectors and announce that final arrangements will be made at a meeting scheduled for the end of the month."
The white house link I provided shows Bush lying and rewriting history by saying this:
No where in the CNN link you provided does it state that Saddam would not allow inspectors in. The statement in bold is an accusation by the United States, Britain and Spain that Iraq was in violation of resolution 1441.
If Bush were to have told the truth his answer would been more like this: We accused Iraq of violating resolution 1441 and we disagreed with France, China and Spain to give the U.N inspection more time.
The fact is Bush lied as his own website shows.
Again, like MM's, Glock's Chomsky moments, chalk it up to a literal understanding. Yes, they received visas. Yes, we agreed that more time was pointless, as the summer was upon the forces in year 1.
who is this "we" of which you speak? Who "agreed that more time was pointless"? do you have a mouse in your pocket?
LOL! I'm a 'citizen' of the US. In this case I was using the royal 'we'.
I would suggest that to suggest "agreement" among the citizenry on that point is not really very accurate.
Again, like MM's, Glock's Chomsky moments, chalk it up to a literal understanding. Yes, they received visas. Yes, we agreed that more time was pointless, as the summer was upon the forces in year 1.
More time wasn't pointless. More time meant the lost of public support for the war if it became obvious that the inspectors cannot find any imminent threat.
Bush claimed an imminent threat which didn't pan out and so now he is lying and rewriting history by claiming it was Saddam that wouldn't let the inspectors in.
But 'we' don't get to have our individual agreement on policies, just as a 'nation', which seems to be more than a bit splintered.
Again, I think this splintering is a problem from the left and right, but when 'reasonable' opposition members disagree on the President's authority to act as CIC or head of state, we truly are looking into an abyss. Doesn't matter the party of the president, when national unity is gone, which is seems to be, so is the nation. Scary that more citizens, not to mention leaders are not pointing this out.
)
With all due respect Kathianne
(Please don't ding me again!!
When have we had "national unity?"
I get the impression you think Congress' job is to support the president, possibly by rubber stamping all his policy decisions?
That is the total opposite of the checks and balances our government was designed on.
I see Congress finally doing it's job lately. It's a shock to Bush but he'll get used to it eventually.
Think of it as presidential potty training.....it's a little hard at first but he'll be better off in the long run having to answer to Congress and so will our nation.
Libs will never join the war on terror - they are to busy with their war on Bush
Libs have opposed every method to fighting and defeating the terrorists. From tracking their money, to arresting them, detaining them, how they question them, listening to their phone calls, and having their allies in the liberal media printing classified documents on HOW the US is trying to find them
To the libs the only threat to America is Pres Bush and those who support him
that's just wrong. I am hoping that we actually start fighting the war on terror here real soon.... and I will be totally supportive when we do. The fact remains: Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on us, it had no weapons of mass destruction, and it had no alliance with the people that attacked us. Even though he was an asshole, Saddam did a better job at three things than we have been able to do: 1. keep sunnis and shiites from slaughtering each other, 2. keep islamic extremists out of Iraq, and 3. keep a lid on Iranian regional hegemony. We would be better served in our war against islamic extremists, if we could do a better job at those three things....
To bad the people of Iraq do not agree with you and want the US to stay and finish the job
Last I checked, the role of the US military was to provide security to the United States. SInce when do we commit men to combat because the residents of foreign countries want us to?
We now go after the terrorists before they come after us again. Perhaos libs would be more supportive of the people of Iraq if they were black
To bad the people of Iraq do not agree with you and want the US to stay and finish the job
