Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Saddam could've gone into exile" DOESN'T HAVE LEGS!?!?!

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 » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
mrgorth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 01:29 PM
Original message
"Saddam could've gone into exile" DOESN'T HAVE LEGS!?!?!
I was watching Larry King last night and Bob Woodward says that there was contact made that Hussein could've gone into exile in Egypt, negating the need for war. WHY THE FUCK ISN'T THIS DISCUSSED MORE?!?!?! This is a smoking fucking gun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
1. We would have gone in anyway
Edited on Tue May-25-04 01:31 PM by jpgray
Ari said sometime after the Azores summit that Saddam's exile would still require US troops to come in and oversee the 'disarming' of Iraq and the establishment of 'democracy'. In other words, same thing, maybe with fewer things blowing up initially.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
candy331 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
2. I don't trust Woodward
I don't see him as being genuine, more like playing games.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcane1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
3. Bush had said before the invasion that if Saddam & Sons stepped down..
there would BE NO INVASION

a year later, all 3 are gone, but now we need 200k troops in there for years

the reason is, of course, something we all know, but I agree that the media should be hammering these ideas
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. That isn't true--he said that Saddam could 'choose peace'
But US troops would have gone into Iraq anyway, per Ari Fleischer. Found this with a quick Google:

If the Iraqi dictator were to go into exile, there is the hope that coalition forces would be able to enter Iraq peacefully, "because Iraqi military would not be under orders to attack or fire back," White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters.

The President "knows that the chances are slim, that Saddam Hussein will leave," but he continues to hope that he will, Fleischer said.

But whether he leaves or not, "The bottom line is a coalition of the willing will disarm Saddam Hussein's Iraq no matter what," said Fleischer.

http://tokyo.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20030319a1.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcane1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. well, Bush, that Iraqi military isn't under their orders now!
Bring ours Home!!! :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. The point is, this was never about Saddam
If it were, then exile would have stopped the invasion. As Ari said, nothing could have stopped it. This is why the 'we were liberating them from Saddam!' bullshit is so fake--we would have invaded no matter where Saddam was at the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Didn't the war start inside the 48 hour time limit?
or the 72 hour time limit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. I think it started afterward
But Ari definitely laid out our policy--no matter where Saddam went, US troops were going into Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skypilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Saddam certainly isn't giving any orders now...
...but Iraqis are still attacking and firing back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skypilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
4. That whole "exile" thing had me baffled from the start.
If the Bush administration thought that Saddam was so dangerous and had links to al Qaeda then why the hell would they think that it was a good idea to have him go into exile where we might lose track of him and he could end up planning or doing God knows what? That never made any sense to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Because they knew he WASN'T a danger. They knew
that what they were selling as evidence was bogus and that Saddam was just a defanged puppet so they weren't worried about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
8. i know
saddam said he would get out, his people would work with bush and take 2b.

but bush wanted to fight, after all he had all his troops over there and was ready to go. i heard it way back then and bushco's were denying it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-04 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
12. That sorta sounds like what they WERE saying about Zarqawi
Remember his leg amputatioin was PROOF of a Saddam alQaeda connection.
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 Wed Oct 01st 2014, 05:49 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) 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