Pentagon find no evidence that Saddam tried to assasinate Poppy Bush

[Diuretic]

Yes, we removed a butcher and man with ties to terrorism.

Why didn't you do it earlier? Why did you help him become what he became?

 

[jreeves]

Why didn't you do it earlier? Why did you help him become what he became?

Well I wasn't feeling up to it before 2003.....LOL
I didn't help Saddam become anything....LOL

 

[jreeves]

Well I wasn't feeling up to it before 2003.....LOL
I didn't help Saddam become anything....LOL

No really, the reason we didn't do it before. Because for #1- we were actually trying negotiate a deal through the UN, #2- We were trying to build international support for the war, #3- 9/11 changed our perceptions, no longer were we willing to stand back and ignore imminent threats.

I really don't know what your speaking of as far as helping Saddam, maybe you could enlighten me with some information and links?
I think I know where your going with the Saddam stuff, but I want to be sure first.

 

[Mr.Conley]

One more liberal talking point eliminated....Bush didn't go to war with Saddam over his daddy...

Wow

No really, WOWOWOWOWOW

I bow before the might of your intellect.

 

[Diuretic]

Well I wasn't feeling up to it before 2003.....LOL
I didn't help Saddam become anything....LOL

My apologies, I thought you were Rummy using jreeves' nick

 

[jreeves]

My apologies, I thought you were Rummy using jreeves' nick

That's ok, let me see those links on Saddam.

 

[Diuretic]

No really, the reason we didn't do it before. Because for #1- we were actually trying negotiate a deal through the UN, #2- We were trying to build international support for the war, #3- 9/11 changed our perceptions, no longer were we willing to stand back and ignore imminent threats.

I really don't know what your speaking of as far as helping Saddam, maybe you could enlighten me with some information and links?
I think I know where your going with the Saddam stuff, but I want to be sure first.

I wish I could find the source but I remember quite some years ago reading an article in The Australian (this was before all the papers went online so it must have been in the mid-1980s I think) which was reproduced from a British newspaper, about Saddam. The story was about the British expat colony in Iraq (could have been Baghdad but may have been Basra as well - I have to admit back then I didn't know much about Iraq except that here we had a real loonie lefty in a state parliament we called "Baghdad Bill"). Anyway the writer was describing a discrete cocktail party (ah it must have been Baghdad, it comes back to me now) at the British Embassy.

The function was attended by foreigners but of course a sprinkling of Iraqis were present, no doubt some of Saddam's secret police. The writer described a couple of urbane Brit types wandering about the party chattering about "Keith". One phrase I distinctly remember went along these lines:

"I see Keith has another massive portrait of himself erected [in some location]"

There was general merrriment over the gin and tonic. Apparently the Brit expat community used "Keith" as a nickname for Saddam so they could poke fun at him and not get dragged into a torture chamber. The piece in the paper was accompanied by a reproduction of a poster of Saddam with his moustache and toothy grin. Damnit if he didn't actually look like a used-car salesman who could well be called "Keith".

But my point is this. The nations with oil interests who had people in Iraq were beholden to Saddam for Iraq's oil and they would do whatever was required to keep that oil flowing for them.

It wasn't just the US, plenty of western nations were involved.

But I suppose eventually Keith's negotiating ability ran out.

 

[Diuretic]

That's ok, let me see those links on Saddam.

A link challenge! Whatever happened to simple logic?

 

[maineman]

Didn't run away I'm still here jackass, that in no way proved that was the reason for war. It was listed as an example for a reason to go to war. Learn the difference

do you also debate the meaning of "is"?

no one said it was THE reason, but only A reason. Go read post #9 again.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Didn't run away I'm still here jackass, that in no way proved that was the reason for war. It was listed as an example for a reason to go to war. Learn the difference

I might as well debate a chimpanzee.

You really aren't this stupid, are you?

 

[Paulie]

Didn't run away I'm still here jackass, that in no way proved that was the reason for war. It was listed as an example for a reason to go to war. Learn the difference

For an incident that possibly could have never even happened, it seems awful fishy that it was even cited as A reason in the official authorization for a full scale invasion of a country.

No one's trying to say it was THE reason, only that to include a CERTAIN reason that may not have even happened, is dubious.

 

[BrianH]

Bush Sr. should have invaded Iraq in 91 when he finished spanking them in Kuwait, now Bush Sr. is dealing with the jack-up from Bush Sr. And Bill. Just my opinion though.

 

[rayboyusmc]

He gives you the proof and you want other kind of proof.

What kool aid swilling folks you are.

 

[rayboyusmc]

And, in discussing the threat posed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Bush said: "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."

I love the internet.

 

[blunt]

oops

 

[BrianH]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm

 

[Gunny]

Pentagon report finds no evidence of Saddam attempt to assassinate Bush

Published: Monday March 24, 2008

In President Bush's view, former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was many things -- a developer of weapons of mass destruction, an ally of al Qaeda and "a guy that tried to kill my dad."

Recent intelligence reports have already shot down those first two notions. No WMD stockpiles were found in Iraq after the US invasion, and a just-released Pentagon assessment failed to find any "smoking gun" link between Saddam and the terror group that plotted the 9/11 attacks.

Now skepticism is newly enveloping allegations of an Iraqi plot to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush during a trip to Kuwait in 1993. Newsweek's Michael Isikoff reports that the same Pentagon report that has essentially disproved an Iraq-al Qaeda link also calls into question the 1993 plot that spurred former President Bill Clinton to launch a Tomahawk cruise-missle strike against Saddam's Iraqi Intelligence.

The review, conducted for the Pentagon's Joint Forces Command, combed through 600,000 pages of Iraqi intelligence documents seized after the fall of Baghdad, as well as thousands of hours of audio- and videotapes of Saddam's conversations with his ministers and top aides. The study found that the IIS kept remarkably detailed records of virtually every operation it planned, including plots to assassinate Iraqi exiles and to supply explosives and booby-trapped suitcases to Iraqi embassies. But the Pentagon researchers found no documents that referred to a plan to kill Bush. The absence was conspicuous because researchers, aware of its potential significance, were looking for such evidence. "It was surprising," said one source familiar with the preparation of the report (who under Pentagon ground rules was not permitted to speak on the record). Given how much the Iraqis did document, "you would have thought there would have been some veiled reference to something about [the plot]."



http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Pentagon_report_finds_no_evidence_of_0324.html

What's your point?

 

[jreeves]

do you also debate the meaning of "is"?

no one said it was THE reason, but only A reason. Go read post #9 again.

Isikoff notes that the absence of evidence does not prove the Iraqis weren't planning to assassinate the former....

Do you understand that part of the post genius?

 

[jreeves]

I might as well debate a chimpanzee.

You really aren't this stupid, are you?

You need a chimp I agree...that would match your intellect.

 

[maineman]

Isikoff notes that the absence of evidence does not prove the Iraqis weren't planning to assassinate the former....

Do you understand that part of the post genius?

I understand that you claimed it was not a reason for the war and I showed you the resolution which showed that it was...and you tap danced like a girlie man. I understand that part.