It's about time it was said

[asterism]

Hussein told the U.S. government, via its ambassador, that he wanted to invade Kuwait, and he explained why, and he asked if the U.S. was concerned. In diplomatic language, which doesn't take great wisdom to understand, he was asking permission.

Let's see some documentation of that "diplomatic language" which was in effect Hussein "asking permission." The ones I've read say no such thing. Perhaps I'm mistaken or more information has been released.

same for me, i have seen NOTHING that supports that idiotic position at all

My understanding is that Hussein was going to take action in response to Kuwait's slant drilling, occupying the neutral zone, and claiming an island near Umm Qasr. I never read anything suggesting that Ambassador Glaspie was informed of any intentions to conquer Kuwait and restore it to pre-1913 agreement status. Glaspie has never stated she thought Saddam was going to annex Kuwait.

He is partly true that a border skirmish was not something the US was concerned with at the time.

 

[DiveCon]

Let's see some documentation of that "diplomatic language" which was in effect Hussein "asking permission." The ones I've read say no such thing. Perhaps I'm mistaken or more information has been released.

same for me, i have seen NOTHING that supports that idiotic position at all

My understanding is that Hussein was going to take action in response to Kuwait's slant drilling, occupying the neutral zone, and claiming an island near Umm Qasr. I never read anything suggesting that Ambassador Glaspie was informed of any intentions to conquer Kuwait and restore it to pre-1913 agreement status. Glaspie has never stated she thought Saddam was going to annex Kuwait.

He is partly true that a border skirmish was not something the US was concerned with at the time.

exactly, not being concerned with a border dispute is not giving permission to invade

 

[asterism]

same for me, i have seen NOTHING that supports that idiotic position at all

My understanding is that Hussein was going to take action in response to Kuwait's slant drilling, occupying the neutral zone, and claiming an island near Umm Qasr. I never read anything suggesting that Ambassador Glaspie was informed of any intentions to conquer Kuwait and restore it to pre-1913 agreement status. Glaspie has never stated she thought Saddam was going to annex Kuwait.

He is partly true that a border skirmish was not something the US was concerned with at the time.

exactly, not being concerned with a border dispute is not giving permission to invade

Let's see if he's got some information we don't have. If he is indeed correct, that would be quite interesting.

 

[MikeK]

same for me, i have seen NOTHING that supports that idiotic position at all

The fact that you have seen nothing to support it is not surprising. So I'll help.

There is a very useful utility site available to you by simply typing G O O G L E.

When Google comes up, type: HUSSEIN / GLASPIE, and then go fishing.

Eventually you will come across an actual transcript of the communication between Ambassador Glaspie and Saddam Hussein. And here's what you'll find:


1) Hussein had good cause to invade Kuwait.

2) He explained that to U.S. Ambassador Glaspie and showed her geological evidence.

3) He asked her to find out if the U.S. was concerned with his intention to invade.

4) Ambassador Glaspie told him the U.S. was not concerned.


What does that sound like to you?

 

[DiveCon]

same for me, i have seen NOTHING that supports that idiotic position at all

The fact that you have seen nothing to support it is not surprising. So I'll help.

There is a very useful utility site available to you by simply typing G O O G L E.

When Google comes up, type: HUSSEIN / GLASPIE, and then go fishing.

Eventually you will come across an actual transcript of the communication between Ambassador Glaspie and Saddam Hussein. And here's what you'll find:


1) Hussein had good cause to invade Kuwait.

2) He explained that to U.S. Ambassador Glaspie and showed her geological evidence.

3) He asked her to find out if the U.S. was concerned with his intention to invade.

4) Ambassador Glaspie told him the U.S. was not concerned.


What does that sound like to you?

been there, done that, you fail

 

[SFC Ollie]

All I ask is that if you or any one else is going to call the President of the United States a Liar, then please have some actual proof of such a claim.

And the fact that you can make such a pathetic request plainly reveals the level of your indoctrination as an authoritarian submissive.

Not only do I have ample cause to believe George W. Bush is a liar, it is plainly obvious to me and many other good Americans that he is a criminal sonofabitch who deserves to spend the rest of his life in Leavenworth or to be executed by order of the World Court.

As of yet there is no such proof.

"It often takes a great deal of intelligence to see that which is right before our eyes." [ Edmond Duranty ]

And your rantings about the Hague mean nothing.

Of course it means nothing to you, which is not surprising. But to those who are capable of understanding the significance and importance of the fact that a charge has been filed with and accepted by the World Court against a former U.S. President, it means a great deal. This isn't something that happens very often.

But it means nothing to you.

And by the way, your little hidden dig that I don't read is very infantile. If you want to insult me, please just come out and say it. Your impressions mean nothing.....

No need. You do a good enough job of insulting yourself. Too bad you don't know it.

Whop di ******* da, some far left liberal professor has made a charge against Bush with a court that we do not recognize. As far as i can tell this court has done nothing and will do nothing because the charges are like your own, nothing.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You are just amazing. You provide an article that you want us to read and comment on, and then say, "it's a website I believe you idiots use." Are you really stupid enough to think any liberal is going to respond?? Apparently you are.

The thing is you idiots won't bother to read anything from a site you deem right wing and vice versa and that is ignorance at its finest. I on the other hand read all material from all websites and present an argument based on the facts or lack thereof that's been presented. In case you haven't noticed all media has bias, but it takes a critical thinker to decipher what is BS and what is factual. That's a skill set that many of you liberals do not possess.

It sounds like you are talking about right wingers, not left. And let me tell you something. You have no idea what anybody reads or doesn't read. So shut up about what you don't know. And quit bragging about how informed you are. Even if you did read everything, you sure are not comprehending it.

Mighty defensive aren't ya? Truth is, I do know what you idiots read and don't read because you idiots constantly dismiss articles from what you deem to be "rightwing" and ignore the context of the article. I never see you idiots debate the merits of the article but I do see you idiots ***** and whine about where the article was taken from.

And yes I stay informed. Does "know thy enemy" mean anything to you? I stay abreast of what the left is saying and that's why it's so easy to a) understand their insanity and b) to kick their asses in debates.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The invasion of Iraq was made possible BY 9/11... and, the invasion of Iraq was something that 9/11 should have made a non-priority. Bush sold us on the invasion of Iraq as somehow being an appropriate response to 9/11. We had been attacked. Our attackers had not been defeated or brought to justice. America was scared and angry, and Bush sold us on invading Iraq as the PERFECT and most pressing response to that attack. Bush sold us on invading Iraq because Saddam had WMD's and he was gonna give them to AQ who was gonna use them on us TOMORROW!!!!!! We couldn't wait for Blix's team to tell us what we now know... we had to invade RIGHT THIS MINUTE!!!! It was hyped bullshit.

And I ain't buyin' this, Neville Chamberlain/Saddam was a modern day Hitler which we could not ignore bullshit. We have been perfectly willing to ignore all sorts of modern day Hitlers who slaughtered WAY more of their own people than Saddam EVER did. Cambodia, Rwanda come to mind... and I don't recall ANYBODY bringing up Chamberlain when THOSE killing fields were ankle deep in blood.

We had been ATTACKED. Our president told us he would get Osama bin Laden dead or alive... and then he ******* FORGOT about him. Just imagine for a moment how debilitated Al Qaeda would be today... just imagine how many AQ leaders - probably OBL himself - would be behind bars or achieving ambient temperature in some unmarked grave somewhere after being executed for their crimes....just imagine how much good will from the rest of the world we would have been able to hold onto and perhaps translate into all sorts of other positive outcomes IF WE HAD USED OUR TRILLION DOLLARS AND 50K dead and wounded American lives in fighting our REAL enemy instead of doing EXACTLY what Osama predicted that we would do: invade and occupy an oil rich arab country.... that had nothing to do with the attack on us. Invading Iraq is the single most counterproductive foreign policy decision that our country has made in the last century.

Again, you deliberately choose to ignore context when you choose to compare dictatorial Iraq with Cambodia, or Rowanda (neither used gas, niether invaded a neighboring country, neither had SCUD missiles.....I could go on, but I doubt it matters to you).

Anyway, as you know, I agree that remaining in Iraq for 7-8 years was a terrible mistake. But disposing of Saddam certainly wasn't done in a "rush" and with no warning. And it is only with 20/20 hindsight that we KNOW that Iraq had destroyed their WMD. Niether of us KNOW what Saddam might have done during the past 7 years had he been given the opportunity.

However, I'm positive he won't be trying anything soon.

you are right. It doesn't matter to me. murderous dictators are murderous dictators regardless of whether they murder in their own country or go next door, and regardless of whether they slaughter people with gas or with machetes. THis isn't about containing murderous dictators., it's about ******* oil.

I don't care how important you might think that disposing of Saddam was... after 9/11, it was nowhere NEAR as important as finding and disposing of OBL and of grinding AQ into powder, and if we had done that, and if we had allowed the UN inspectors to do their job, we would have been WAY better off.

If it was all about oil, why aren't we swimming in it?

 

[midcan5]

The first piece is from a republican:

'The Mother of All Messes' By Paul Craig Roberts

"Republicans are sending around the Internet a photo of a cute little boy whose T-shirt reads: “The mess in my pants is nothing compared to the mess Democrats will make of this country if they win Nov. 2nd.”

One can only wonder at the insouciance of this message. Are Republicans unaware of the amazing mess the Bush regime has made?

It is impossible to imagine a bigger mess. Republicans have us at war in two countries as a result of Republican lies and deceptions, and we might be in two more wars--Iran and Pakistan--by November. We have alienated the entire Muslim world and most of the rest.

The dollar has lost 60% of its value against the euro, and the once mighty dollar is losing its reserve currency role.

The Republicans’ policies have driven up the price of both oil and gold by 400%.

Inflation is in double digits. Employment is falling.

The Republican economy in the 21st century has been unable to create net new jobs for Americans except for low wage domestic services such as waitresses, bartenders, retail clerks and hospital orderlies." Paul Craig Roberts: The Mother of All Messes

and

"President Bush inherited a peaceful, prosperous America. As he exits, Salon consults experts in seven fields to try to assess the devastation."

"After a couple of presidential terms, mismanagement in every area of policy -- foreign, domestic, even extraterrestrial -- starts to add up. When George W. Bush entered the White House in January 2001, he inherited peace and prosperity. The military, the Constitution and New Orleans were intact and the country had a budget surplus of $128 billion. Now he's about to dash out the door, leaving a large, unpaid bill for his successors to pay.

To get a sense of what kind of balance is due, Salon spoke to experts in seven different fields. Wherever possible, we have tried to express the damage done in concrete terms -- sometimes in lives lost, but most often just in money spent and dollars owed. What follows is an incomplete inventory of eight years of mis- and malfeasance, but then a fuller accounting would run, um, somewhat longer than three pages." W. and the damage done - Global warming - Salon.com

and this:

"Search hard enough and you might find a pundit who believes what George W. Bush believes, which is that history will redeem his administration. But from just about everyone else, on the right as vehemently as on the left, the verdict has been rolling in: This administration, if not the worst in American history, will soon find itself in the final four. Even those who appeal to history's ultimate judgment halfheartedly acknowledge as much. One seeks tomorrow's vindication only in the context of today's dismal performance.

About the only failure more pronounced than the president's has been the graft-filled plunder of GOP lawmakers--at least according to opinion polls, which in May gave the GOP-controlled Congress favorability ratings in the low 20s, about 10 points lower than the president's. This does not necessarily translate into electoral Armageddon; redistricting and other incumbency-protection devices help protect against that. But even if many commentators think that Republicans may retain control over Congress, very few think they should."


"Why Conservatives Can't Govern" by Alan Wolfe

 

[asterism]

same for me, i have seen NOTHING that supports that idiotic position at all

The fact that you have seen nothing to support it is not surprising. So I'll help.

There is a very useful utility site available to you by simply typing G O O G L E.

When Google comes up, type: HUSSEIN / GLASPIE, and then go fishing.

Eventually you will come across an actual transcript of the communication between Ambassador Glaspie and Saddam Hussein. And here's what you'll find:


1) Hussein had good cause to invade Kuwait.

2) He explained that to U.S. Ambassador Glaspie and showed her geological evidence.

3) He asked her to find out if the U.S. was concerned with his intention to invade.

4) Ambassador Glaspie told him the U.S. was not concerned.


What does that sound like to you?

I'd really like you to show me that because it's not what she said here:

"It is over," Glaspie said. "Nobody wants to take the blame. I am quite happy to take the blame. Perhaps I was not able to make Saddam believe that we would do what we said we would do, but in all honesty, I don't think anybody in the world could have persuaded him."

...

During the run-up to the war, the Iraqi government released a transcript of Glaspie's meeting with Hussein on July 25, 1990, which suggested that she gave tacit approval for an invasion. Glaspie managed to convince lawmakers that the transcript was inaccurate and that she had forcefully warned Hussein not to invade. But her credibility eroded after the leak of her classified cable to the State Department about the meeting, which suggested a more conciliatory conversation with Hussein.

In the interview, Glaspie insisted that the Iraq transcript "was invented by Tariq Aziz," the deputy prime minister. "Tariq was a master of words as a previous Minister of Information and editor of a newspaper," she said. Glaspie asserted that she told Hussein to "keep your hands off this country."

Ex-Envoy Details Hussein Meeting - washingtonpost.com

That is consistent with the summaries I read.

 

[MikeK]

Whop di ******* da, some far left liberal professor has made a charge against Bush with a court that we do not recognize. As far as i can tell this court has done nothing and will do nothing because the charges are like your own, nothing.

The Court has done nothing because it can't get its hands on Bush. And the reason for that is too many brainwashed Americans believe Bush was a good president. They remain willfully oblivious to his monstrous crimes and would not sign off on extraditing him.

But you won't see either Bush, or Cheney, or Rumsfeld or Tenet doing any world traveling because most nations in the developed world have extradition treaties with The Hague and would be only too happy to snatch them and turn them over.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Whop di ******* da, some far left liberal professor has made a charge against Bush with a court that we do not recognize. As far as i can tell this court has done nothing and will do nothing because the charges are like your own, nothing.

The Court has done nothing because it can't get its hands on Bush. And the reason for that is too many brainwashed Americans believe Bush was a good president. They remain willfully oblivious to his monstrous crimes and would not sign off on extraditing him.

But you won't see either Bush, or Cheney, or Rumsfeld or Tenet doing any world traveling because most nations in the developed world have extradition treaties with The Hague and would be only too happy to snatch them and turn them over.

Sure, what ever you want to believe. You really should try the conspiracy threads, you might actually fit right in......

BTW Call me a dumb ass but I cannot find anything from said court that says they want President Bush. I think maybe what you want to be true simply isn't.

 

[Trajan]

same for me, i have seen NOTHING that supports that idiotic position at all

The fact that you have seen nothing to support it is not surprising. So I'll help.

There is a very useful utility site available to you by simply typing G O O G L E.

When Google comes up, type: HUSSEIN / GLASPIE, and then go fishing.

Eventually you will come across an actual transcript of the communication between Ambassador Glaspie and Saddam Hussein. And here's what you'll find:


1) Hussein had good cause to invade Kuwait.

2) He explained that to U.S. Ambassador Glaspie and showed her geological evidence.

3) He asked her to find out if the U.S. was concerned with his intention to invade.

4) Ambassador Glaspie told him the U.S. was not concerned.


What does that sound like to you?

I'd really like you to show me that because it's not what she said here:

"It is over," Glaspie said. "Nobody wants to take the blame. I am quite happy to take the blame. Perhaps I was not able to make Saddam believe that we would do what we said we would do, but in all honesty, I don't think anybody in the world could have persuaded him."

...

During the run-up to the war, the Iraqi government released a transcript of Glaspie's meeting with Hussein on July 25, 1990, which suggested that she gave tacit approval for an invasion. Glaspie managed to convince lawmakers that the transcript was inaccurate and that she had forcefully warned Hussein not to invade. But her credibility eroded after the leak of her classified cable to the State Department about the meeting, which suggested a more conciliatory conversation with Hussein.

In the interview, Glaspie insisted that the Iraq transcript "was invented by Tariq Aziz," the deputy prime minister. "Tariq was a master of words as a previous Minister of Information and editor of a newspaper," she said. Glaspie asserted that she told Hussein to "keep your hands off this country."

Ex-Envoy Details Hussein Meeting - washingtonpost.com

That is consistent with the summaries I read.

thank you for saving me the time.

taking the word of a guy who had a 40 year relationship with and wokred for Saddam as his Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister and was a complete ba'athist, is, well , he says what his master tells him to say and when. You must be joking...

 

[asterism]

Whop di ******* da, some far left liberal professor has made a charge against Bush with a court that we do not recognize. As far as i can tell this court has done nothing and will do nothing because the charges are like your own, nothing.

The Court has done nothing because it can't get its hands on Bush. And the reason for that is too many brainwashed Americans believe Bush was a good president. They remain willfully oblivious to his monstrous crimes and would not sign off on extraditing him.

But you won't see either Bush, or Cheney, or Rumsfeld or Tenet doing any world traveling because most nations in the developed world have extradition treaties with The Hague and would be only too happy to snatch them and turn them over.

Canada

Haiti

 

[maineman]

How could Al Qaeda be defeated if we never invaded Iraq? Do you think they all stayed in Afghanistan?

THEY sure didn't GO into Iraq, that is for damned sure. The "AQ in Iraq" group was just an offshoot franchise operation that only came about AFTER we invaded.

That's not true. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi relocated to Iraq after US forces routed his camp in Afghanistan before the invasion of Iraq. He joined other elements of Afghanistan militants there. We all know how that worked out.

Zarqawi was not a member of AQ originally, and he only affiliated with AQ, in a franchise sort of relationship, after our invasion of Iraq.

 

[Samson]

Whop di ******* da, some far left liberal professor has made a charge against Bush with a court that we do not recognize. As far as i can tell this court has done nothing and will do nothing because the charges are like your own, nothing.

The Court has done nothing because it can't get its hands on Bush. And the reason for that is too many brainwashed Americans believe Bush was a good president. They remain willfully oblivious to his monstrous crimes and would not sign off on extraditing him.

But you won't see either Bush, or Cheney, or Rumsfeld or Tenet doing any world traveling because most nations in the developed world have extradition treaties with The Hague and would be only too happy to snatch them and turn them over.

Sure, what ever you want to believe. You really should try the conspiracy threads, you might actually fit right in......

BTW Call me a dumb ass but I cannot find anything from said court that says they want President Bush. I think maybe what you want to be true simply isn't.

Agreed...the more I read this thread, the weirder the wild assumptions, and revisionist history becomes...

****unsubscribe****

 

[maineman]

Again, you deliberately choose to ignore context when you choose to compare dictatorial Iraq with Cambodia, or Rowanda (neither used gas, niether invaded a neighboring country, neither had SCUD missiles.....I could go on, but I doubt it matters to you).

Anyway, as you know, I agree that remaining in Iraq for 7-8 years was a terrible mistake. But disposing of Saddam certainly wasn't done in a "rush" and with no warning. And it is only with 20/20 hindsight that we KNOW that Iraq had destroyed their WMD. Niether of us KNOW what Saddam might have done during the past 7 years had he been given the opportunity.

However, I'm positive he won't be trying anything soon.

you are right. It doesn't matter to me. murderous dictators are murderous dictators regardless of whether they murder in their own country or go next door, and regardless of whether they slaughter people with gas or with machetes. THis isn't about containing murderous dictators., it's about ******* oil.

I don't care how important you might think that disposing of Saddam was... after 9/11, it was nowhere NEAR as important as finding and disposing of OBL and of grinding AQ into powder, and if we had done that, and if we had allowed the UN inspectors to do their job, we would have been WAY better off.

Again, you're able to speculate what may have been with startling clarity.

Hey, I wanna retire in Mexico Next Year.......what are your market tips so I can start making the necessary investments?

it doesn't take an Einstein to figure out that, if our real enemies were AQ, that concentrating our efforts on THEM, instead of a nation state that have abso-*******-lutely NOTHING to do with them. would be more productive than the idiotic alternative.

Regarding mexico, I woiuld suggest that you reduce volatity in your portfolio to near zero. There are many locations in mexico where the property values are remaining constant in the face of turmoil here in the USA, and around the globe. Having a nest egg of not much more than 100K and a guaranteed monthly income of not much more than 2K can get you into the home of your dreams in a lovely city with more money to spend each month than you can find ways to spend it on.

 

[DiveCon]

THEY sure didn't GO into Iraq, that is for damned sure. The "AQ in Iraq" group was just an offshoot franchise operation that only came about AFTER we invaded.

That's not true. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi relocated to Iraq after US forces routed his camp in Afghanistan before the invasion of Iraq. He joined other elements of Afghanistan militants there. We all know how that worked out.

Zarqawi was not a member of AQ originally, and he only affiliated with AQ, in a franchise sort of relationship, after our invasion of Iraq.

then why was he INJURED IN AFGHANISTAN??????

 

[maineman]

That's not true. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi relocated to Iraq after US forces routed his camp in Afghanistan before the invasion of Iraq. He joined other elements of Afghanistan militants there. We all know how that worked out.

Zarqawi was not a member of AQ originally, and he only affiliated with AQ, in a franchise sort of relationship, after our invasion of Iraq.

then why was he INJURED IN AFGHANISTAN??????

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

that should answer your question

 

[William Joyce]

In defense of Jillian, we all knew what she meant by "pretend war of choice" before she posted what she meant. No reason to twist what she said.

Right...It was the same "pretend war of choice" that the standard bearers for her preferred party had been spoiling for, since at least 1998.

But since it ended up being prosecuted by a dude with that (R) next to his name (not to mention a Senate tally that counted in its number 29 democrat "AYE" votes) , that fact gets jammed down the Memory Hole.

*yawn* another lie....

it was cheney and his neocon loons in the PNAC who were spoiling to invade iraq.

Yes, and the neocon loons were 99 percent JEWS.

Because they thought the whole thing would be GOOD FOR ISRAEL.

Perle. Wolfowitz. Feith. The list is endless.