Granted Saddam hasn't exactly held up his end in many deals, but at least we would have got Yasin who is suspected of planning the attacks on Americans in Iraq.
posted on November 6, 2003 06:25:39 AM new
This article just discusses old news. All the information, in this article, was being reported before we went to war. Many were doing all they could to advert this war, but Saddam wasn't cooperating.
And at the end of your article I think it's sums up why it didn't work out that way. Saddam was given plenty of time to have changed the course of action, if he had chosen to. It was reported, at that time, that Russia and France were working to broker a deal for Saddam to step down to avoid this war. Now we read they may have been assuring Saddam that by their votes in the UN, Bush would not get the support to go to war, just as they had prevented Clinton from getting UN agreement to bomb him in 1998.
From your article:
"Iraq and Saddam had ample opportunity through highly credible sources over a period of several years to take serious action to avoid war and had the means to use highly credible channels to do that — nobody needed to use questionable channels to convey messages," Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Larry DiRita told ABCNEWS.
And a senior White House official said the United States exhausted every legitimate opportunity to resolve it peacefully and it was "Saddam Hussein's unwillingness to comply after 12 years and some 17 United Nations Security Council resolutions, including one final opportunity, that forced the coalition to act to ensure compliance."
The official also added that Saddam was given 48 hours notice to leave before the United States initiated military action.
posted on November 6, 2003 07:08:21 AM new
Linda you read and even quote, but don't listen.
You said "Many were doing all they could to advert this war"
Whereas what the writer was actually attempting to convey in this article was an accusation that 'Many were doing all they could to NOT avert this war'.
As American soldiers massed on the Iraqi border in March and diplomats argued about war, an influential adviser to the Pentagon received a secret message from a Lebanese-American businessman: Saddam Hussein wanted to make a deal.
Iraqi officials, including the chief of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, had told the businessman that they wanted Washington to know that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction, and they offered to allow American troops and experts to conduct a search. The businessman said in an interview that the Iraqis also offered to hand over a man accused of being involved in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 who was being held in Baghdad. At one point, he said, the Iraqis pledged to hold elections.
The messages from Baghdad, first relayed in February to an analyst in the office of Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy and planning, were part of an attempt by Iraqi intelligence officers to open last-ditch negotiations with the Bush administration through a clandestine communications channel, according to people involved.
posted on November 6, 2003 07:23:11 AM new
Yes, austi, and what I'm saying is that IF you go back and read news reports, during the time before we sent troops over there, you will read WHY this opinion was not considered. This article brings no NEW discussions into play.
See where I highlighted "nobody needed to use questionable channels to convey messages."
posted on November 6, 2003 07:28:16 AM new
Oh, so the New York Times is also rehashing old reports too.
You guys are going to have to get over this. We're there already.
Reporting, once again, that some questionable person wasn't used to broker a peace deal, is laughable. Especially when Saddam could have stepped down, rather than try to get those on his side to make 'deals' OR rather than just give the UN what it was requesting at that time.
Would have been VERY simple for Saddam to have prevented this war.
posted on November 6, 2003 07:34:39 AM new
So Linda says,......
Sorry...WRONG DEPARTMENT...NO REFUNDS.....WAR IS GO.
desquirrel...
We didn't say that at all...
Infact we all knew he USE to have WOMD because Dumbya's Daddy had the rceipts to prove it.
But at the time of Iraq WarII, at best, they were X-WOMD (past shelf life).
Bush (Dumbya) said he had evidence of WOMD @ start of I.W.II because he didn't know he had none.
posted on November 6, 2003 07:42:15 AM new
On Feb. 19, Mr. Hage faxed a three-page report on his trip to Baghdad to Mr. Maloof in Washington. The Iraqis, he wrote, "understand the days of manipulating the United States are over." He said top Iraqi officials, including Mr. Habbush and Tariq Aziz, the deputy prime minister, wanted to meet with American officials.
The report also listed five areas of concessions the Iraqis said they would make to avoid a war, including cooperation in fighting terrorism and "full support for any U.S. plan" in the Arab-Israeli peace process. In addition, the report said that "the U.S. will be given first priority as it relates to Iraq oil, mining rights," and that Iraq would cooperate with United States strategic interests in the region. Finally, under the heading "Disarmament," the report said, "Direct U.S. involvement on the ground in disarming Iraq."
This was not reported before the war.
Helen
Read the entire article. It's not "old news" on the front page of the New York Times and other major newspapers throughout the country today, November 6, 2003.
posted on November 6, 2003 07:46:20 AM new
austi - I have seen that argument used so many times it makes my eyes roll each time I re-read it.
Maybe you can explain, your views, on why IF Saddam had no weapons did he then continue the 'farse' and game playing with the UN? What was all the reluctance to cooperate with UN inspectors all about? Why would he not have wanted to end this conflict years ago so all the embargos could be lifted?
posted on November 6, 2003 07:58:53 AM new
Yeah, Like Linda says,"You guys are going to have to get over this. We're there already."
Lets stay longer and give them some better reason to bring it on.
Now you guys on the left need to realise something.
Voters have a short memory.
If we leave now Bush will have a better chance of winning the next elections.
But as long as we stay and American soldiers keep suffering and the US economy suffers as result of the war too, then the voters won’t have a chance to forget.
Koffi Annan may come in and help after the next US election. For lest US voters forget.
Voters like the (protected species, never far from the nest) yella-belly-gosh-chicken-hawk cheerleaders seem to be loving it at the moment.
posted on November 6, 2003 08:03:17 AM new
helen - The first article posted in this tread was old news. You're good at doing google searches. I'm sure you can verify what I'm saying is true.
This is just another attempt by the far left to rehash how Bush could have done something different to prevent this war. The far left is out of their minds to side with Saddam's 'plea' brokered though this source, when he had other options to avoid this war. But....then the far left would rather blame this President for not doing all he could, while they place ABSOLUTELY NO BLAME ON SADDAM FOR NOT COOPERATING with the UN.
When to you lay any blame for preventing this war at Saddam's feet? Never. He was trying to do all he could....yeah right.
posted on November 6, 2003 08:11:59 AM newThe report also listed five areas of concessions the Iraqis said they would make to avoid a war, including cooperation in fighting terrorism and "full support for any U.S. plan" in the Arab-Israeli peace process.
And you can't see how absolutely absurd that statement is? lol cooperating in fighting terrorism when he's still handing our $25,000. checks to the families of suicide bombers. 'full support' could have been given by cooperating with the UN agreement he signed.
In addition, the report said that "the U.S. will be given first priority as it relates to Iraq oil, mining rights," and that Iraq would cooperate with United States strategic interests in the region.
An OIL deal, and BUSH didn't just jump on it? lol I'm in shock....there was his chance to get what YOU all claim is the only thing he wanted.
Finally, under the heading "Disarmament," the report said, "Direct U.S. involvement on the ground in disarming Iraq."
Disarming WHAT exactly? Thought your position was there was nothing to be disarmed. And he could have done so anyway with the UN inspectors
posted on November 6, 2003 08:12:01 AM new
In answer ti your question Linda, “Maybe you can explain, your views, on why IF Saddam had no weapons did he then continue the 'farse' and game playing with the UN? “
The best way to give you a good understanding is
1./__To get you to explain to me WHY if Saddam, as you put it, continued a farse and played games with the UN;
_____does it naturaly follow that he had WOMD?
2./__Remind you that you are yet to show me evidence that you have not concealed WOMD somewhere in Texas.
3./__Ask you if me and some lads come into your home tomorrow and start searching?
posted on November 6, 2003 08:21:52 AM new
austi said:
1./__To get you to explain to me WHY if Saddam, as you put it, continued a farse and played games with the UN;
_____does it naturaly follow that he had WOMD?
See....answers a question with a question. Just like helen, she won't give an answer to that quesion either.
If he didn't have them, he could have easily proved it to the world. He had agreed to remember.
2./__Remind you that you are yet to show me evidence that you have not concealed WOMD somewhere in Texas.
[b]NOT an issue on this topic. The UN had NOT been trying for 12 years to disarm the US. Nor were there any UN sanctions that ordered it to do so. Totally irrelevant.
3./__Ask you if me and some lads come into your home tomorrow and start searching? [b]again, there were NO 12 UN orders to do so.
So....you still haven't really said why Saddam didn't choose to open up and end this. Guess that means you have no answer. Just want to blame the US.
posted on November 6, 2003 08:32:56 AM newWhatever he did years ago is not the issue. We are learning today that he made an effort to avoid the war and that effort was suppressed.
Years ago? I said before the war, that wasn't 'years ago'.
Yes, what he said before this war started IS the issue. This same guy came out to try to point out he had offered to 'try and prevent' this war before he started, at that time. His nose was out of joint that our government didn't want to broker any special deal with him. He was whining about being 'tossed aside' then. And now this is being present as NEWS by those who oppose Bush.
It's laughable.
It's all old rehashed news. Nothing new about it. You democrats are going to have to come up with some new stuff....lol
And helen....you continue to support those who are our enemies. Our government gave their reasons for NOT using this quesionable person when he first made this offer to them. Their decision. Their reasons. And if you want to read what they were, google it.
-------
Typical of you, however. Just like with NK....you bitched Bush was ignoring the NK situation because he wasn't willing to go one on one with JongII. [read - wanting us to do what the dictators want] But meanwhile you were bitching because he WAS going alone on Iraq. AGAIN....[now siding with Saddam because, after all, he was willing to offer all these things to prevent this war - again siding with another dictator against your own country] there's just no pleasing you.
posted on November 6, 2003 08:38:11 AM new
helen - The question is basically why you place no blame for preventing this war at Saddams feet? And here were my questions to austbounty that he wouldn't answer either.
Maybe you can explain, your views, on why IF Saddam had no weapons did he then continue the 'farse' and game playing with the UN? What was all the reluctance to cooperate with UN inspectors all about? Why would he not have wanted to end this conflict years ago so all the embargos could be lifted?
posted on November 6, 2003 09:07:17 AM new "And helen....you continue to support those who are our enemies. Our government gave their reasons for NOT using this quesionable person when he first made this offer to them. Their decision. Their reasons. And if you want to read what they were, google it."
Same sh!t different day. Another linda LIE. What a ludicrous remark.
Linda, You trust that somewhere in their paternalistic secrecy they had a reason to ignore this possibility to avoid a war that killed over 7,000 people and continues to lead to the death of our troops. If Bush is going to lead the most secretive administration in years, he needs to demonstrate that he is capable of making good decisions. So far that's not the case. His lies and secrecy have led to one of the biggest debacles that this country has known.
"Typical of you, however. Just like with NK....you bitched Bush was ignoring the NK situation because he wasn't willing to go one on one with JongII. [read - wanting us to do what the dictators want] But meanwhile you were bitching because he WAS going alone on Iraq. AGAIN....[now siding with Saddam because, after all, he was willing to offer all these things to prevent this war - again siding with another dictator against your own country] there's just no pleasing you"
Another linda LIE.
Linda, Bush is waging a unilateral war with Iraq. I never suggested that Bush should unilaterally attack North Korea.
I suggested that he pay attention and negotiate with North Korea. That kind of one on one diplomacy is a little different than a unilateral war.
posted on November 6, 2003 09:30:31 AM new
But just to show you how dumb a conclusion your question is leading to.
If I were to follow your logic, then:
the fact that you have failed to show me evidence that you have not concealed WOMD in Texas along with your failure to invite me and some lads into your home for a search;
would lead me to believe that you have WOMD.
posted on November 6, 2003 12:33:04 PM new
helen - You and austi have once again proven my point. You will not answer direct questions put to you on how you see Saddam's role in this war. No surprise there to me.
And on going to war with NK, I did not say that. I said you were among those INSISTING/criticizing Bush for not being willing to speak one on one with jongII to avoid more conflict.
posted on November 6, 2003 01:17:29 PM newA possible negotiated peace deal was laid out in a heavily guarded compound in Baghdad in the days before the war, ABCNEWS has been told, but a top former Pentagon adviser says he was ordered not to pursue the deal.
All allegation, with no substantiation. More from the rumor mill.
"Another plague upon the land, as devastating as the locusts God loosed on the Egyptians, is "Political Correctness.'" --Charlton Heston
posted on November 6, 2003 01:31:40 PM new
so true bear. Plus it's OLD news. But as you can see they won't answer questions about Saddams role in this war.
