Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Saddam Accepted the American Ultimatum Before the US Invasion

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 05:08 PM
Original message
Saddam Accepted the American Ultimatum Before the US Invasion

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061030/nym224.html?.v=44

Saddam Accepted the American Ultimatum Before the US Invasion, According to Rights and Freedom International

TORONTO, Oct. 30 /PRNewswire/ -- A former political adviser to Saddam Hussein's son said today that Saddam was willing to yield to all American demands before the U.S. invasion of Iraq -- but that the Bush administration refused his offers.

The disclosure was made by Hossam Shaltout, a Canadian aerospace engineer, former American pilot, and founder of the peace organization Rights and Freedom International (http://www.rightsandfreedom.com ), who said that war could have been averted, but Bush aides blocked his efforts to announce Saddam's decision.

"Saddam was willing to yield to all American demands, announced and unannounced, to reach peaceful resolution," said Shaltout, "but the Bush administration, including Elizabeth Cheney, undersecretary of State, David Welch, the U.S. ambassador in Egypt, and Gene Cretz, his political attache, did not respond to his offers."

Shaltout said he was planning to fly from Amman to Baghdad to announce Saddam's decision, but the Royal Jordanian Airlines officials claimed that the US ordered the flight to leave five hours earlier causing him to miss the flight, preventing him from announcing on CNN that Saddam would bow to the Bush ultimatum. Shaltout said he traveled by road to Baghdad, delaying him almost one day, but raced to get the communique approved from Saddam to broadcast over international TV stations broadcasting from Baghdad.

...

It was very late at night and CNN in Baghdad was closed. So they went to al-Jazeera, and Shaltout told al-Jazeera Washington correspondent Hafez Almirazy on the air that he had the Iraqi government's official reply to the Bush ultimatum. Moments after Mirazy asked him for a brief, the plug was pulled on the transmission. Shaltout has a copy of that interrupted broadcast.



:nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
cui bono Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
1. I don't doubt it, but why is this just coming out now? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
htuttle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #1
15. It's not -- it came out back then
But the corporate media blacked it out -- they were more interested in "Countdown to Zero Hour"...

It's coming back again right now, because Saddam's trial is almost done.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thickasabrick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. Agreed - this is old news. The media was too busy reporting
"shock and awe".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anotherdrew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #15
29. BUSH will BURN IN HELL for this fucking atrocity!
and normally I wouldn't even believe in hell ;)

but one is surely being prepared for him and ALL his damned supporters, enablers and fellow psychopaths.

I too remember seeing this info AT THE TIME, another mainsham media failure to report...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BleedingHeartPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #15
30. I've heard about it several times. And the MSM covered, somewhat, all
the documents Saddam handed over to prove he no longer had WMD.

(something like 10,000 pages.) MKJ
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tuvor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #15
32. One of the many reasons I was against bush's invation in the first place.
Anyone who really gave a damn in 2002/2003 whether bush's war was necessary had opportunity to find out.

Thank Gore for the Internets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wholetruth00 Donating Member (576 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #15
35. I remember this being talked about BEFORE the invasion.
Looking now for links. Also, the story was out that Saddam was offered asylum in one of the Arab countries but the US blocked that also.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grytpype Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #15
36. It sure did.
Saddam offered to let US troops search for WMD in Iraq and to hold elections within 2 years. All without a shot being fired. That's just about what we got for invading, right? And we still aren't done paying for it.

Bush and Cheney are two of the worst villains in US history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #15
60. YUP! I was wondering why this is being treated as news now.
Media whore bastards... *ptui*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
olddad56 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
18. It is most likely only coming out in this country now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BelgianMadCow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #18
24. DIng. *sigh* ding
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GCP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
2. We know that - but don't count on our "elite media" telling anyone
Notice this is a Canadian source. We knew he'd acceded to all demands before the invasion, but that fact was never relayed to the population at large.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UpInArms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #2
25. shhhhhh! this country (USoA) still won't print that piece of truth
a classroom full of 7th graders thought that Saddam and Iraq were responsible for 911 just a month ago (sigh)....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alhena Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
3. Of course he was turned down ...
Bush had gone through his year of foreplay to get to play soldier with other peoples' lives- you think he was going to be deterred right before consummating the act?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mom cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Welcome to DU. You nailed it.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
starmaker Donating Member (520 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #3
22. like father like son
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BleedingHeartPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
33. NIcely said, I'm glad you're here! Welcome.
:toast: MKJ
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
llmart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
37. Right on!
Very succinctly put and 100% correct. These cowards in this administration would never go to war personally, but get off on watching someone else carry it out for them. They're despicable human beings and that's a stretch (calling them human beings I mean).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #3
66. Did his goat give him enough foreplay?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Up2Late Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
4. NPR listeners knew this back in March 2003...
...I had stopped watching the Cable "news" War cheerleaders, so I don't know if it make The Cable TV or "The Google."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dchill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. It WAS on...
the Internets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
librechik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. yep, it was around at the time--then buried by the busy-bee Press
after the invasion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 05:23 PM
Response to Original message
5. This is exceedingly interesting. Of course the Canadian's life will be in danger
for a long time, no doubt about it.

I'm glad he decided to risk what's left of his security to make sure as many people as possible had this information before making decisions that could REALLY screw up, or completely destroy the lives of countless more people even more.

Americans need this news fresh in their minds before making dreadful choices during the election. To prolong this reign of terror would be evil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. the question is of course, will the MSM pick up the press release?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. uh
no. Highly unlikely. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #6
26. CNN's website had an article of the lawsuit back in 2004.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WindRavenX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 05:31 PM
Response to Original message
7. So this pretty much nails * as a war criminal, correct?
Wow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brundle_Fly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. this and many other things
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
htuttle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. Actually, there's no question at all he's a war criminal
No matter how you look at it, Bush violated the Nuremburg principles and the UN Charter when he invaded Iraq. This just shows how eager he was to do so.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yorkiemommie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 05:48 PM
Response to Original message
14. sent this to my bushbot brother
who replied that saddam would agree, then renege. i need help in replying to him! i did reply that there were no wmds and no connection to al queda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #14
28. Yes, he probably would have. What's your point?
That's the same BS about North Korea: "we wouldn't get all of our demands"

No, but we'd get some, and we'd avoid a costly and dangerous war. That's how adults weigh benefits and risks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yorkiemommie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #28
41. i was asking for help in case my brother wanted
to argue. That was my point. The next thing I was going to do was point out the Downing ST. minutes and PNAC but I needed something to specifically counter his argument.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. Sorry; I got that, I was speaking as you
As in, that's how you should respond to him
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yorkiemommie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. that's what i figured as I was mulling over your response
I thought maybe that is what you were suggesting I say to him and I will! I cannot believe I demonstrated against the VN war and that I was so fearful that he and his twin brother would be drafted. Now they have both become Bushbots. This one isn't a fundie like the other one is, but he's still a macho bushbot.

Other than politics, we are very close but I was just stunned by his dismissive response. I might need more of your help in the future!

thanks and peace,
yorkie

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #14
42. Ask your bro if YOUR LIFE would be worth it to HIM to give Hussein
a chance to keep his word?


What if YOU were a US soldier, like my husband is, and if YOU were to be sent to invade Iraq, like my husband was...what is YOUR LIFE WORTH to your brother?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lyonn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #14
62. Same issue as bush pulling inspectors out of Iraq before
they had finished their mission. If Saddam had reneged what was the big loss? We had troops, ships, jets all aimed at Iraq at that time. No, bush had to have his war and this possible negotiation with Saddam might throw a monkey wrench into his war plans. Bush was a man in a hurry to have our military fight his fight. Why would anyone now believe bush wasn't manipulating intel and info to the media via his right hand men, Condi, Rummy, Cheney, Bolton, Chalibi, Wolfowitz, can't remember all his talking heads that hit the Sun. A.M. talkie shows for months. All their reasons for war were false. Prove me wrong on these issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
16. Of Course He Did...
Edited on Mon Oct-30-06 06:33 PM by stepnw1f
It's goes to see these inconvenient truths come out.... shows how full-of-shit the Republican Party is and to what length they will go for power!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stand and Fight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 06:33 PM
Response to Original message
17. I have always been surprised that this gets so little press.
I mean, just the other night I was talking to my wife about this very thing. She says she talked to her grandmother about it, and she knows nothing of this. It is saddening that so many Americans are not even aware that Bush was lying to them, and many still do not know. Saddam, for all his faults, wanted peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BreweryYardRat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 05:23 PM
Original message
Wouldn't call it "wanting peace."
More like not wanting to lose power. But yeah, we should have taken him up on his offer. Iraqi people haven't been significantly better off, thanks to BushCo's inability to handle the ground situation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BreweryYardRat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #17
61. Wouldn't call it "wanting peace."
Edited on Tue Oct-31-06 05:24 PM by seawolf
More like not wanting to lose power. But yeah, we should have taken him up on his offer. Iraqi people haven't been significantly better off, thanks to BushCo's inability to handle the war competently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 06:35 PM
Response to Original message
19. America wasn't interested in WMDs, she wanted Iraq's oil
and now we have over 685,000 dead Iraqi civilians and nearly 3,000 dead GIs to show for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovuian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 06:48 PM
Response to Original message
21. i don't doubt it either
Its just one lie after another
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zonkers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
23. This has to be a crime. Kick, Nominate.
Edited on Mon Oct-30-06 06:56 PM by zonkers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indepat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 07:53 PM
Response to Original message
27. The decider had already decided: nothing was gonna stop him EOS
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
civildisoBDence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #27
49. Like a stubborn child (or a dry drunk, or just an asshole) DUHbya will never, ever
admit to a mistake or cede one iota of power.

The Democrats had better hold this inhuman piece of shit accountable for the lives lost, treasure wasted, chaos sown, and the irreparable damage to our national reputation and integrity.

Newsprism
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gully Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 08:25 PM
Response to Original message
31. Old news that got no attention.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BleedingHeartPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. Sheesh, gully, I've got to K & R, just to keep your post from being the last.
It's a story that bears repeating to others. They may not have heard (or been listening) then, but I'm sure there are some who are all ears now. MKJ
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gully Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #34
44. I totally agree that this bears repeating.
Didn't mean to insinuate otherwise. My post was more of a "sigh" than a "why post this" statement.

It seems people are more likely to pay attention TODAY than they were before the war, so I'm glad this is getting attention finally in the print media. Now lets see if that translates into CBS evening news discussing this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 09:27 PM
Response to Original message
38. Lest we forget....just like the Taliban agreed to hand over OBL...twice
but Bush refused their only demand. Some proof of involvement. Because he had none.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. yep, people who support the Afghanistan war love to ignore that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 09:31 PM
Response to Original message
40. Yes we know that. We knew it at the time. BEFORE bush's illegal
"supreme crime" Hitleresque war of aggression invasion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
45. Not too different with happened prior to the Persian Gulf War. n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-30-06 10:32 PM
Response to Original message
47. bush did not want to be "The Great Negotiator." He wanted to be a "War (p)resident."
Edited on Mon Oct-30-06 10:32 PM by Straight Shooter
There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam could have capitulated to any reasonable demand of the bush administration, but let's not forget how much of bush's platform for the 2004 presidential campaign was based on being a war (p)resident.

Little Boots let good men and women and children die and suffer maiming injuries so he could stay in the White House and carry out the neocon agenda. I wish those Kool-Aid drinking Americans would wake the f*ck up and realize it's all about power in the current Oval Office, not about country, not about the safety of Americans, not about protecting children.

=======

Yes, this info is old news. Which makes it all the worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
48. Needs a better source to be believed. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iam Donating Member (453 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
50. The equivalent of
shooting someone with their hands up. Murdering war criminals, the POTUS is a murdering war criminal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
51. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
goforit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
52. Ouch this hurts! DEPOPULATION and OIL/MILITARY PROFITS are * goals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hosnon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
53. I wonder how this effects the international law situation:
Assuming that the invasion was legitimate under international law, does this undercut the Administration's position?

On first glance it would appear so to me: If country X is legitimately threatening to invade country Y unless country Y does A, and country Y does A, the legitimacy of the invasion is removed.

I don't know the precise law but that is what I would assume, without doing any research.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KeSs Donating Member (80 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. wow
i hate corportate media
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #53
55. Well, it wasn't legit under international law, so this makes it even WORSE for them.
To the Hague with the lot of these murderers!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hosnon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #55
57. Right...it's always more effective to be able to argue the: "Even if I accept
Edited on Tue Oct-31-06 03:10 PM by MJDuncan1982
your first point, you are still wrong" argument.

Edit: This sentence is horrible...but you get the idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
56. This is one of those inconvenient facts the bush* administration would
much prefer that you do not know. Saddam and Iraq's fate was sealed when bush* was SELECTED to be the g.o.p. nominee for POTUS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #56
58. Saddam and his Regime screwed up.
After it was obvious that the Bush Regime was going to invade Iraq they should not have put up any resistance militarily. This would have shown the world that the US was in criminal violation of Intl. Law. After the US Military succeeded the Insurgency would have been a whole lot stronger and it would have had legitimacy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-01-06 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #58
70. Did you really mean that?
> After it was obvious that the Bush Regime was going to invade Iraq
> they should not have put up any resistance militarily.

They should have shown the world that as soon as Bush says "Roll over",
a sovereign country should simply roll over?

> This would have shown the world that the US was in criminal violation
> of Intl. Law.

*cough* "The world" already knew that ... only the US public didn't/don't.

> After the US Military succeeded the Insurgency would have been a whole
> lot stronger and it would have had legitimacy.

Whilst I agree that it would have been even stronger, the Iraqi Resistance
had (and still has) a whole lot more legitimacy than the invaders ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
59. this was known at the time
I recall Bush himself commenting on it. Said something like "it's too late." Anyone else remember that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deadparrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 08:04 PM
Response to Original message
63. The man may be evil, but he's not stupid. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
64. It was all planned out in advanced - there would be war at any cost.
And really, Bush/Cheney should be jailed and stand trial for an obvious violation of international law. NO ONE gave them the authority to attack Iraq, they just did it anyway to make money.

Fuck them! Stupid greedy bastards are going to get us all killed!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 08:58 PM
Response to Original message
65. Yeah, but you can't trust Saddam!
Sure he said he didn't have WMD... but you can't trust him!
Sure he agreed to our ultimatum... but you can't trust him!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bonescrat Donating Member (227 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 11:04 PM
Response to Original message
67. This was actually reported before the invasion...
I remember it. Sorry don't remember the source but I remember yelling about it back then. * gave an ultimatum, Sadam complied, * attacked anyway...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grasswire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 11:11 PM
Response to Original message
68. Elizabeth Cheney, eh?
Isn't that special?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-01-06 12:02 AM
Response to Original message
69. I remember this. I remember telling my wife,
"bush won't take yes for an answer."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Nov 25th 2014, 10:31 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC