Tapes reveal WMD plans by Saddam - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

sfloriII · #1 03-13-2006, 10:44 AM

I always felt that sly dog had hidden the stuff. Long lines of trucks heading for Syria..... makes you wonder.

"Audiotapes of Saddam Hussein and his aides underscore the Bush administration's argument that Baghdad was determined to rebuild its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction once the international community had tired of inspections and left the Iraqi dictator alone."

By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
March 13, 2006

Full Washington Times article here:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060313-123146-7380r.htm

Honus · #2 03-13-2006, 11:54 AM

The irrelevance of those tapes is apparent from the very first sentence of the Washington Times article: "Audiotapes of Saddam Hussein and his aides underscore the Bush administration's argument that Baghdad was determined to rebuild its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction once the international community had tired of inspections and left the Iraqi dictator alone."

So now the argument is that W had to invade because the international community would get tired of inspections? That has to be the silliest in a long ling of silly justifications for the war.

Anyone could see that Saddam, if left to his own devices, would try to rebuild his WMD. But who in their right mind would ever have left him alone to do that?

TimFreeh · #3 03-13-2006, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

But who in their right mind would ever have left him alone to do that?

Gee I don't know...

Maybe all the people that say we don't have a right to interfere with the affairs of a foreign state even when that state is directly responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people, violates international sanctions, invades other soverign nations and threatens the worlds oil supply.

Honus · #4 03-13-2006, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimFreeh

Gee I don't know...

Maybe all the people that say we don't have a right to interfere with the affairs of a foreign state even when that state is directly responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people, violates international sanctions, invades other soverign nations and threatens the worlds oil supply.

Name one.

elau · #5 03-13-2006, 01:56 PM

So Saddam one day said to his council, "I am thinking of rebuilding my arsenal, what do you think?" When was thinking a crime that warrants the lives of ten of thousands of people?

Even in our self proclaimed "advanced" court system, you are not guilty till you are proven.

Why can't people, after 3 years of this BS, admit W had a hard on with Saddam, and took the country to the cleaner? Really, how hard is it to admit that?

elau · #6 03-13-2006, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimFreeh

Gee I don't know...

Maybe all the people that say we don't have a right to interfere with the affairs of a foreign state even when that state is directly responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people, violates international sanctions, invades other soverign nations and threatens the worlds oil supply.

Are you sure those are the correct numbers? Or are you taken with W's liken to exaggerate?

H2O2 · #7 03-13-2006, 04:21 PM

It's like NeoCon alchemy--try try and try again to justify the unjustifiable.

Botnst · #8 03-13-2006, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

The irrelevance of those tapes is apparent from the very first sentence of the Washington Times article: "Audiotapes of Saddam Hussein and his aides underscore the Bush administration's argument that Baghdad was determined to rebuild its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction once the international community had tired of inspections and left the Iraqi dictator alone."

So now the argument is that W had to invade because the international community would get tired of inspections? That has to be the silliest in a long ling of silly justifications for the war.

Anyone could see that Saddam, if left to his own devices, would try to rebuild his WMD. But who in their right mind would ever have left him alone to do that?

France, Russia, and China had all informally informed the USA and UK that they were unable to support the continuation of sanctions. France and Germany had already begun hacking-away at the edges of the sanctions and were building international support to pressure the USA and UK to cease the overflights and to declare Saddam weapon-free. Look it up.

We all know of Saddam's bribery of Chirac's closest confident, at least one member of Parliament in England, and numerous connected people in Germany and Russia.

I recall one of the major gripes of the 9/11 Commission was that there was a "failure of imagination" and a "failure to connect the dots." I agree with that. I think that anybody who takes the time to read the 9/11 Report would come away with the same conclusion. Don't let nearsighted partisan politics prevent you from using your imagination or connecting the dots that are plainly present.

B

boneheaddoctor · #9 03-13-2006, 09:05 PM

Certain political parties which shall remain unnamed but are way left of center would not believe anything even if it was stuffed down their shorts.

everyone knows he had them...Saddam admits he had them..there was proof he used them, several times...the only people who are arguing he didn't are that certain unnamed left leaning political party.

Honus · #10 03-13-2006, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

France, Russia, and China had all informally informed the USA and UK that they were unable to support the continuation of sanctions. France and Germany had already begun hacking-away at the edges of the sanctions and were building international support to pressure the USA and UK to cease the overflights and to declare Saddam weapon-free. Look it up.

Don't have to look it up. The sanctions were opposed by lots of people on the basis that they penalized the Iraqi people more than they penalized Saddam. What's your point? That opposition to sanctions gave us no choice but to invade?

Quote:

...I recall one of the major gripes of the 9/11 Commission was that there was a "failure of imagination" and a "failure to connect the dots." I agree with that. I think that anybody who takes the time to read the 9/11 Report would come away with the same conclusion. Don't let nearsighted partisan politics prevent you from using your imagination or connecting the dots that are plainly present.

B

What does that have to do with Saddam's desire for WMD?

Honus · #11 03-13-2006, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

Certain political parties which shall remain unnamed but are way left of center would not believe anything even if it was stuffed down their shorts.

everyone knows he had them...Saddam admits he had them..there was proof he used them, several times...the only people who are arguing he didn't are that certain unnamed left leaning political party.

Of course Saddam had WMD. Name a single person who says otherwise. The problem for Bush is that Saddam's capabillities had been eroded to the point that he was no longer a threat in 2003 when Bush invaded.

boneheaddoctor · #12 03-13-2006, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Of course Saddam had WMD. Name a single person who says otherwise. The problem for Bush is that Saddam's capabillities had been eroded to the point that he was no longer a threat in 2003 when Bush invaded.

Kennedy was arguing he didn't have them...so were any number of prominant democrats. After we took Sadam out that is....

Had Saddam provided proof of destruction and complied fully with the terms of the cease fire agreement none of this would have been neccesary. Saddam brought this on himself.

Honus · #13 03-13-2006, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

Kennedy was arguing he didn't have them...so were any number of prominant democrats. After we took Sadam out that is....

That's all meaningless without a timeframe. I still say that you will not find a single elected Democrat who has said that Saddam never had WMD.

Quote:

...none of this would have been neccesary.

That's what's wrong with this war - it was unnecessary. Maybe something good with come of it, but it was an optional war.

Quote:

Saddam brought this on himself.

True, but beside the point.

Botnst · #14 03-13-2006, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Don't have to look it up.

1. The sanctions were opposed by lots of people on the basis that they penalized the Iraqi people more than they penalized Saddam.

2. What's your point? That opposition to sanctions gave us no choice but to invade?What does that have to do with Saddam's desire for WMD?

#1 Saddam's Djinn stayed in the lamp for only so long as the sanctions remained in place. Agreed?

#2 If sanctions were no longer in place then Saddam could resume WMD development and deployment unimpeded by the fecklessness of the UN. Agreed?

Bot

boneheaddoctor · #15 03-13-2006, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

That's all meaningless without a timeframe. I still say that you will not find a single elected Democrat who has said that Saddam never had WMD. That's what's wrong with this war - it was unnecessary. Maybe something good with come of it, but it was an optional war.True, but beside the point.

Time frame...I am talking Democrat retoric SINCE we invaded....

Pick nearly any prominant democrat.(except Joe Lieberman)..they all were backpeddling from their PRE-WAR speaches.

It was needed...12 years oh Saddam effectively mooning us and the world demanded it.

And it proved why France and Germany were sucking up to Saddam...he was bribing half the UN.