Wash. Congressman Questions Saddam Timing

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by jimnyc, Dec 16, 2003.

  1. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    ** Does this man realize just how stupid his accusations look? He would fit in well with a few other of the conspiracy theorists here **

    WASHINGTON - The Washington congressman who criticized President Bush while visiting Baghdad last year has questioned the timing of the capture of deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

    Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., told a Seattle radio station Monday the U.S. military could have found Saddam "a long time ago if they wanted." Asked if he thought the weekend capture was timed to help Bush, McDermott chuckled and said: "Yeah. Oh, yeah."

    The Democratic congressman went on to say, "There's too much by happenstance for it to be just a coincidental thing."

    When interviewer Dave Ross asked again if he meant to imply the Bush administration timed the capture for political reasons, McDermott said: "I don't know that it was definitely planned on this weekend, but I know they've been in contact with people all along who knew basically where he was. It was just a matter of time till they'd find him.

    "It's funny," McDermott added, "when they're having all this trouble, suddenly they have to roll out something."

    State Republicans immediately condemned McDermott's remarks, saying the Seattle Democrat again was engaging in "crazy talk" about the Iraq (news - web sites) war.

    "Once again McDermott has embarrassed this state with his irresponsible ranting," GOP state Chairman Chris Vance said in a news release. "Calling on him to apologize is useless, but I call on other Democrats to let the public know if they agree with McDermott — and Howard Dean (news - web sites), who recently said he thought it was possible that President Bush had advance knowledge about 9/11. The voters deserve to know if the entire Democratic Party believes in these sorts of bitter, paranoid conspiracy theories."

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...u=/ap/20031216/ap_on_go_co/saddam_mcdermott_3
     
  2. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    OK, a little local info for you.

    Jim McDermott represents Seattle and a few outlying areas, and his district has about a 55% Democratic base. So he can represent the Loony Left and not worry about getting his reelection. He was once a hopeful for state governor, but his view are far too left for the entire state of Washington.
    In a debate last year, he spouted out all the liberal lines about how the war was immoral, unjust, how Bush didn't know what the hell he was doing, etc. He was heckled and booed repeatedly (the event was hosted by a talk radio station, and the audience was fairly conservative).
    This is the same Jim McDermott that went to Baghdad right before the war and denounced the war effort. Basically, he's to the left of Howard Dean, but his district will never vote for a Republican, and the Democrats won't abandon him.
     
  3. jon_forward
    Offline

    jon_forward Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2003
    Messages:
    2,436
    Thanks Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    nashville.tn
    Ratings:
    +5
    this guy got elected? maybe a few more statements like this will fix him up good! Im thinking outlimits music.....
     
  4. Moi
    Offline

    Moi Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,859
    Thanks Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    The ONLY GOOD place
    Ratings:
    +11
    Well, that's actually good news. This way, President Bush will arrange for the capture of Osama on November 1, 2004 and I can be there to shoot the jerk! Call Delta airlines....
     
  5. Palestinian Jew
    Offline

    Palestinian Jew Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Messages:
    903
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Fayetteville
    Ratings:
    +18
    Dear God! how do people like this get elected? Wouldn't it be much better to have Saddam caught in October or November? I think that now Howard Dean, who would never have been elected, wil not get the nomination as the dems see just how extremist he is and an actually presidential contender will get the nom.

    So I think the timing of this won't really help the republicans b/c they won't race against the one man they were sure to loose against.
     
  6. Johnney
    Offline

    Johnney Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2003
    Messages:
    4,330
    Thanks Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    IOWA
    Ratings:
    +141
    If they arent pissin and moanin about catching someone, they have to piss and moan when they catch them. dammed if ya do, dammed if ya dont
     
  7. NightTrain
    Offline

    NightTrain VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,425
    Thanks Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Wasilla, Alaska
    Ratings:
    +87
    Yeah, "Baghdad Jim" needs to alienate more people from the Dems... I really think the Libs are off course with all the bullshit that's getting spouted, and they're going to lose heavily next year.

    Time will tell, but I think people are about fed up with this sort of wacky behavior.
     
  8. Adams
    Online

    Adams Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I can't confirm that Saddam's capture was timed or not (but it *was* fortuitous timing as Halliburton story was gaining real traction, James Baker was leaving next day to importune funds, U.S. casualties were at record high, etc.) but you likewise cannot prove it wasn't and anyone who believes that this bunch of mendacious liars didn't do anything for political reasons are truly the "whacky" soles. I can however prove that Dubya knew of the impending 9-11 attacks as it's now public record that on August 6th, 2001 George Tenant hand-delivered a special intel document to Dubya titled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.". After all, Dubya's hand-picked Gov. Keane (R) even concluded that 9-11 was preventable as chair of the 9-11 commission! When are we going to hold these clowns (Bush, Clinton, Freeh, Cohen, Rice, Hadley, Cheney, Rummy, et. al.) accountable for their gross incompetence and sedition???
     
  9. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    posted by Adams


    Welcome Adams.

    Perhaps you would be surprised that most of us do want to hold those responsible for 9/11 accountable. I just don't see where you get Bush et al in this immediate group, other than by 'wishful thinking.' The previous administration not only had the information, they also had actual attacks, they responded to weakly, if at all. (yeah, I know it's a run-on, I have to clean the house and don't have time for corrections.)

    I will agree that the Bush administration should have been focusing more on the terror aspects, but they should have been concentrating on foreign affairs in general more than was happening at that time-which in my opinion they failed to do. There is ample evidence that Bush meant his campaign rhetoric of 'compassionate conservative' which translated to 'BC without the extramarital sex, but even more government spending, but at home'. His emphasis right up through 9/10 was Mexico, Canada, and the good ole' USA.

    9/11 did change the focus, BIG TIME. However, he is STILL focusing on domestic front, thus the huge deficits, higher than they should be for just war spending.
     
  10. nbdysfu
    Offline

    nbdysfu Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    829
    Thanks Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +29
    originally posted by Adams
    I can't confirm that Saddam's capture was timed or not (but it *was* fortuitous timing as Halliburton story was gaining real traction,
    ____________________ ____________________
    I heard anything and everything about the Halli case, and it would not have been sufficient justification for using such a valuable single-use distraction. Since you can't even confirm that the capture was a distraction, can you confirm otherwise on the seriousness of the Halliburton case?

    originally posted by Adams
    James Baker was leaving next day to importune funds,
    ____________________ ____________________
    If you're referring to James Baker leaving to negotiate the removal of debt incurred by Saddam's government from the Iraqi people, that has been placed by other nations, and the fact that he has already succeeded with one country, then that would be good news.

    originally posted by Adams
    U.S. casualties were at record high, etc.)
    ____________________ ____________________
    What do you mean by this? The casualty rate is not at a high, so the only thing I can find that you would be suggesting is that the total number of u.s. servicemen has gone up only about one or two per day in the last two weeks, an improvement in the rate. Certainly not bad news. There were some bombings that killed a lot of Iraqis, but those occurred in the day's after the news of Saddam's capture had been aired. What major casualties have you found in the days before Saddam's capture have you found that would warrant the use of distraction?

    originally posted by Adams
    but you likewise cannot prove it wasn't and anyone who believes that this bunch of mendacious liars didn't do anything for political reasons are truly the "whacky" soles.
    ____________________ ____________________
    Can we ascertain your mendaciousness from the insincerity of your arguments? You really should be a little more assertive/specific/informative if you're going to go around calling everybody who doesn't side with you a 'whacko'. Politicians do everything for political reasons, as that is the task of a politician. Unless you're referring to the people trying to shovel this 'timing' bs onto the grave of american media, I don't know of any 'mendacious liars' that you could be referring to.

    originally posted by Adams
    I can however prove that Dubya knew of the impending 9-11 attacks as it's now public record that on August 6th, 2001 George Tenant hand-delivered a special intel document to Dubya titled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.". After all, Dubya's hand-picked Gov. Keane (R) even concluded that 9-11 was preventable as chair of the 9-11 commission!
    ____________________ ____________________
    There was no specific information that could have allowed anything to be done about stopping the WTC bombings, without shutting down the airlines within the us for months and profiling every person of middle eastern origins in the US. Even now the US will not resort to such tactics, as they would be self-defeating. There simply wasn't substantial info for them to go on. There was plenty of time before the bush admin for this hole in intelligence to have been filled. The first WTC bombing happened in 1993. Don't you think Clinton had similar evidence that some sort of hijacking might occur in the US? Don't you realize he had an ample six years of presidency afterwards to try to close the intelligence gap?

    originally posted by Adams
    When are we going to hold these clowns (Bush, Clinton, Freeh, Cohen, Rice, Hadley, Cheney, Rummy, et. al.) accountable for their gross incompetence and sedition???
    ____________________ _____________________
    Well, Clinton's already gone to trial for anything and everything from wagging the dog to lying under oath in court, and has been convicted on several counts.
    The rest just aren't accusable of being incompetent or commiting acts of sedition. Care to link something that would show me otherwise?
     

Share This Page