Find this interesting.

14 December 2003 Saddam Hussein arrested in Iraq
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3317429.stm

20 December 2003 Libya to give up WMD
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3335965.stm

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Nikolay,

“It is not Saddam talking, but Bush. A fact that Bush says something doesn’t make it so.”

Can’t give Bush any credit…sigh.

This reminds me of the recent Senate Intelligence Report. The Committee allowed Saddam and his side kick to testify for the Report and they sounded like innocent little lambs.

Saddam is a extortionist thug. UN Resolution 1441 is unconditional not a bargining chip. Saddam was trying to extort another day to stay in power.

Are you saying Mubarak and Ghadaffi were making up the conversations with Saddam?

Why did Ghadaffi give up his WMD program right after Saddam’s arrest?

If Saddam left Iraq he would of been assassinated because he has threaten other Middle Eastern countries leaders during the Sanction years. Many Middle Eastern leaders did not like Saddam especially when they brokered Peace Treaty with Israel and went along with the First Gulf War.

Saddam caused many problems in the region more than we know.
This current war did not start on March 2003.

http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/oct2002/a101802a.html

You only like the fact Saddam wanted 1 billion dollars from USG if he left in exile….and ignore rest of the story.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

It was US policy to overthrow Saddam — regime change — BEFORE Bush took office.

Don’t get mad at Bush for enacting a law the Clinton administration put in place. There’s another sinister side — you kook leftists who continue to shill for Saddam and long for his return. The man was a mass murderer and brutal tyrant…taking him out was a must given the global climate after 9/11.

Get that through your thicks skulls you left wing numb nuts!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Oh really? The left never said that either now? Gore, Clinton and the rest never believed Saddam had WMD’s. It’s only the right.

Talk about re-writing history.

Somehow, you didn’t bold the important part:

If some country vetoes [the resolution] we’ll go in.

Sounds like someone who “doesn’t want war” to me.

Because he understood that no second resolution was needed.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“Interesting that Saddam wanted to take his WMD plans huh?”

Interesting that Bush discussed with Aznar his *claim* that he *heard* from the Egyptians that it *seems* that Saddam *hinted* at negotiating a deal to be paid off to leave the country, that might have included taking with him some *information* about WMDs.

“I mean if we are to believe the left then Saddam really never wanted WMD’s and any WMD program he had was no danger to anyone.”

Why conflate Saddam’s desire for WMDs and the level of danger of his existing WMD program at the time of the invasion?

Since you’re comfortable ascribing motives to your political opponents, I’ll just point out that, “If we were to believe the right, then Saddam had extant WMDs all over the place (not just ‘information’ or ‘plans’), and was about to use them any second.”

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Just because some other countries are complete pussies or suckled at Saddam’s teat doesn’t mean war is something that doesn’t need to be done, whether you want to do it or not.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Somehow, you didn’t bold the important part:

If some country vetoes [the resolution] we’ll go in.

Sounds like someone who “doesn’t want war” to me.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

But here he is insisting that he wanted to take his WMD plans with him.

It is not Saddam talking, but Bush. A fact that Bush says something doesn’t make it so.

Like or Dislike: 0  0