Saddam miscalculated

Originally posted by Marinkatomb
Rec'd!!! 😵😵😵

You're as stupid as he is.

Originally posted by Marinkatomb
Yeh, so conveniently it wasn't the fault of the US finding any old excuse to invade, it was the dead guys fault for tricking them. Why don't don't we go ask Saddam to verify that, oh wait he's dead. Guess we should just take this guys word for it then...

Quite right. I'm tired of hearing the complaint/excuse that mean ol' Saddam tricked all those intelligence agencies into believing he had nukes. A leader has the right to defend his nation with a pack of lies if he so chooses. (Kinda like saying that Area 51 doesn't exist, or claiming that it wasn't OUR U-2 that got shot down over the Soviet Union...). The onus is on the OTHER nations and their intelligence to separate fact from fiction. We blew it; now, let's leave the dead guy alone.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Quite right. I'm tired of hearing the complaint/excuse that mean ol' Saddam tricked all those intelligence agencies into believing he had nukes. A leader has the right to defend his nation with a pack of lies if he so chooses. (Kinda like saying that Area 51 doesn't exist, or claiming that it wasn't OUR U-2 that got shot down over the Soviet Union...). ...[text shortened]... nce to separate fact from fiction. We blew it; now, let's leave the dead guy alone.

I quote the mantra of the memory challenged left (with a significant name change) “Clinton lied – people died.”

I now quote SVW’s post of 26 Jan:

”dateline 1996 - Bill Clinton establishes the official US policy of "Regime Change In Iraq" and then attacks Iraq ten times in two years including a raid into downtown Baghdad on the secret police ministry! Sheesh! Are people so stupid as to think that Bush established this US policy? The origination of the policy had very little to do with Bush, except that Clinton used the attack on Bush Senior by Iraqi agents as a pretext for establishing the "Regime Change" policy and declaring war on Iraq. Stupid revisionist. Are you really this lazy or just plain stupid? I'm guessing the latter. svw “


President Clinton's decision to attack Iraq has brought him a substantial boost in approval ratings for handling both foreign policy and his overall job as President and has diminished uncertainty over his leadership on the world stage, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

The poll found that two-thirds of Americans surveyed supported the weekend air strike on the Iraqi intelligence headquarters in Baghdad, and six out of 10 approved of Mr. Clinton's general dealings with Iraq, more than approved of Mr. Clinton's handling of the crises in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Somalia.

As Mr. Clinton prepares to travel to Tokyo next week for a meeting of the Group of Seven industrial democracies, White House officials seized on the air strike as evidence that the President is sure-footed in international affairs. The Administration sent out its top military officials, most notably Gen. Colin L. Powell, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on a series of television and newspaper interviews in the past two days to praise Mr. Clinton as a tough leader who would not be bullied by the Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein. A 'Lesson' for Iraqi”

Originally posted by MacSwain
I quote the mantra of the memory challenged left (with a significant name change) [b]“Clinton lied – people died.”

I now quote SVW’s post of 26 Jan:

”dateline 1996 - Bill Clinton establishes the official US policy of "Regime Change In Iraq" and then attacks Iraq ten times in two years including a raid into downtown Baghdad on the secret po ...[text shortened]... would not be bullied by the Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein. A 'Lesson' for Iraqi”[/b][/b]

So it's Clinton's and not Bush's fault Iraq is how it is now?

Originally posted by zeeblebot
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080124/ts_nm/iraq_saddam_interrogator_dc_1

Saddam admitted he miscalculated, FBI agent says

Thu Jan 24, 5:01 PM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein kept up the illusion that he had weapons of mass destruction before 2003 because he did not think the United States would invade, an FBI agent who questioned him said.

ah, the FBI said it....must be true then.

Originally posted by treetalk
So it's Clinton's and not Bush's fault Iraq is how it is now?

Anyone can read this and draw their own conclusion, if capable. I posted a bit from the speech, but go to the site - there is much, much more. I’m sure Clinton wishes there were someway he could have Sandy Berger steal these speeches, as they are impossible to refute.

Point being; If Bush is a lying misleading bastard, because no one would believe that intelligence rubbish...What was his predecessor and where was the outcry? Only difference a decerning person can see is: one was liberal the other is almost conservative.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike - 16 Dec, 1998

CLINTON: "Good evening."

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world."

"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."

Originally posted by MacSwain
Anyone can read this and draw their own conclusion, if capable. I posted a bit from the speech, but go to the site - there is much, much more. I’m sure Clinton wishes there were someway he could have Sandy Berger steal these speeches, as they are impossible to refute.

Point being; If Bush is a lying misleading bastard, because no one would believe tha ...[text shortened]... oubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."

I was asking about the current state of Iraq - not past actions of Clinton or irrelevant insinuations towards Berger.

What has the current war in Iraq got to do with anyone other than the Bush administration? They've been in power for the last seven years, haven't they? Who ordered the troops into Iraq?

Originally posted by treetalk
So it's Clinton's and not Bush's fault Iraq is how it is now?

After reading Clinton's speech, I come to 2 conclusions: 1) He talked a tough game that day, but he never intended to go to war over something that unimportant. 2) The proof is in the pudding. Clinton had ample opportunity to launch a war, a police action, or give Saddam a good tongue lashing and then, taunt him a second time 😛, if he had felt it necessary. But he knew better. Like most people, he decided that the ravings of a lunatic and the lunatic's failure to obey some UN directive (Horror of Horrors! He didn't play fair with the sanctions on him!! Foul, I say!) did not rise to the level of requiring a military action. In short, it JUST wasn't that important. Saddam isn't playing fair; he won't let our inspectors in! Big Fat Hairy-Ass Deal.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
After reading Clinton's speech, I come to 2 conclusions: 1) He talked a tough game that day, but he never intended to go to war over something that unimportant. 2) The proof is in the pudding. Clinton had ample opportunity to launch a war, a police action, or give Saddam a good tongue lashing and then, taunt him a second time 😛, if he had felt it ne ...[text shortened]... tant. Saddam isn't playing fair; he won't let our inspectors in! Big Fat Hairy-Ass Deal.

According to General Tony Zinni, Clinton had Tomohawks spinning in their tubes and were about to launch when Hussein submitted to Clinton's demands.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
According to General Tony Zinni, Clinton had Tomohawks spinning in their tubes and were about to launch when Hussein submitted to Clinton's demands.

timeline vs. monicagate?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
According to General Tony Zinni, Clinton had Tomohawks spinning in their tubes and were about to launch when Hussein submitted to Clinton's demands.

So Clinton made Hussein back down...? The warrior president!

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
After reading Clinton's speech, I come to 2 conclusions: 1) He talked a tough game that day, but he never intended to go to war over something that unimportant. 2) The proof is in the pudding. Clinton had ample opportunity to launch a war, a police action, or give Saddam a good tongue lashing and then, taunt him a second time 😛, if he had felt it ne tant. Saddam isn't playing fair; he won't let our inspectors in! Big Fat Hairy-Ass Deal.

You miss the main object of my post entirely! I have continuously seen posts of how Bush manufactured false intelligence reports so he could attack. That is simply not true, he was in Texas herding cows when Clinton made his speech in 1998.

I repeat myself: If Bush is a lying, misleading bastard, because no one could believe that rubbish intelligence ... What was his predecessor and where was the outcry regarding his rubbish intelligence? Only difference a decerning person can see is: one was liberal the other is almost conservative.

Re-read the speech and tell me who manufactured the phoney, made-up intelligence (no one could believe) Clinton was acting on.

Originally posted by MacSwain
Anyone can read this and draw their own conclusion, if capable. I posted a bit from the speech, but go to the site - there is much, much more. I’m sure Clinton wishes there were someway he could have Sandy Berger steal these speeches, as they are impossible to refute.

Point being; If Bush is a lying misleading bastard, because no one would believe tha oubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."

😲 Well that just can't be Mr. MacSwain!!! Iraq did not have any wmd's since Bush Sr. destroyed them all in the early 90's. This has to be another one of your brainwash tatics right? And if intelligence stated Iraq had wmd's in 98', they must have destroyed them all when Warrior Pres Clinton scared the bejesus out of them, so they couldn't have had them in 2001' when the evil lier(Bush) and his goonies and thier false intel told Americans that they still had them.
Your part of the evil American gov that brought down the WTC buildings with all the explosives they planted in the walls aren't you?