Hard to argue with that. In fact, looking back, the main thing you could always seem to count on Saddam to do was stand there and yell at you about how big his dick was and how hard he’d hit you with it, so to speak…
Guess it didn’t occur to him that anyone else’s might be bigger.
Or longer ranged.
So to speak.
Well, the first time, we had a UN mandate that was limited to getting Iraqis out of Kuwait, and a President with enough international savvy to stick to the script. This time, we’ve got a runaway cowboy with no mandate who’s already cheesed off the international community several times and showed no signs of getting a clue anytime soon. The fact that they’re father and son merely makes the difference all the more striking.
Good thing they nipped this in bud. We might have been suckered into a peaceful resolution of the crisis. Surely everyone can see what a bad thing *that[i/] would have been:
Americans and Iraqis not dying.
No Aircraft carrier landing for the president.
No $87,000,000,000 down the rathole.
THE HORROR :eek:
The link leads to a blank page. I’ll have to read this to believe it. Even given the disdain I bear for the Bushiviks, he can’t have said anything so profoundly stupid.
Jesus fuck a shit souffle, Dick! Accept the offer and refuse the oil concessions! Thanks, but no thanks. Don’t want it, ain’t after it. What the hell can they do, refuse an offer where they make less concessions? Huh? Where’s the risk?
And the gain? The potential gain? Enough for a grateful citizenry to elect Bush President for Life. Iraq (the dreaded imminent threat) is brought to heel at zero loss of life? Are you kidding me, a crowd would mob Mount Rushmore and carve out his image with thier bare hands!!
Nobody is this fucking stupid! It is entirely anti-Darwinistic, paramecium are smarter than this. Its a fake story, thats gotta be it. Squink is just making this shit up, thats gotta be it. We are not a nation of sheep led by retarded jackals. He’ll probably be back to apologize any minute for his fake story…
Don’t go insulting single-celled animals, luc. PETA is watching.
Hmm, that link still works for me, but I suppose the page could still be in my browser cache…
A quick search for “was intended to discredit our effort to liberate Iraq” on google news turns up the story at Wired News 6 hours ago, but the link leads only to a message saying the story isn’t there.
I’ll have to check ABC later:
Did anyone see the show? Maybe the interview was all some sort of terrible misunderstanding, and the story never meant to see the light of day ? :dubious:
I don’t get it. Why would you expect Bush & Co. to be interested in this offer if they initiated the war even though Saddam had re-admitted to UN weapons inspectors? You may disagree with the reasons for going to war (I did, too), but rejecting this proposal is entirely consistent with the Bush administration’s position leading up to the war. I don’t see what this adds to the equation.
No joy at ABC. They want $$ for transcripts. Here’s the story from Reuters:
U.S. Advisor Says Iraq Peace Offer Was a Trap
Is that story from Reuters or The Onion!?! Tom Lehrer once said that political satire became superfluous when Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize. Clearly, political satire became even more superfluous when Richard Perle started opening his mouth!
There’s a nice related piece in the Boston Globe:
War alternatives were exhausted, officials insist
So the bottom line comes down not to WMD’s, liberty for Iraqis, winning the war on terrorism, or even oil, but getting the guy who "tried to kill his dad."
Finally, I see why this war was worth fighting. 
From Squink
So the ‘bottom line’ is, no matter what it actually SAYS in your cite, you can make it read however you want it to. Too funny.
Whether it was right or wrong, the ‘bottom line’ was, there wasn’t any deal that allowed SH to stay in power. Thats the REAL bottom line. It was non-negotiable guys, and if he was unwilling to do that as part of the deal, there was no point in continued discussions. The line just up from that, the US doesn’t do that backchannel bullshit. If SH had anything new to bring to the table (i.e. his letter abdicating power and a copy of his plane ticket out to somewhere else…along with his charming son’s and his various thugs), he should have brought that to the US directly…not through some ‘businessman’…not through some third party. Why is that so hard to understand?? If SH wanted to avoid war, wanted to avoid people dieing, he could have simply folded his bad hand, taken his billions, and retired to a nice cushy exile somewhere. Not as much fun as being the king, sure, but a lot more fun than he’s having atm I’d wager.
I can feel some of you frothing now, saying that IF SH had of bolted, the US would STILL have invaded. To that I say…bullshit. It would have cut the legs right out from under any attempt at an invasion of Iraq. If the US had of initiated hostilities AFTER SH bolted, the American people would have been well and truely pissed…I know I would have been out in the streets myself foaming at the mouth just like you guys. It would have been a complete firestorm, and god knows how the world would have reacted.
I fail to understand why you guys can continue to appologize for the guy. He was a brutal man, throughly untrustworthy, completely without remorse or compassion. When did he EVER do anything that would lead one to believe that anything he said could be trusted in the least??
Ok, so Bush and Co. lied to us about the pretext of the war. I’m no more happy about that than you are (though I’m foaming a bit less at the mouth over it than some of you). How does that make SH a wronged saint, though?? Here’s a thought…could it be, just perhaps, that BOTH of them were in the wrong? Is it just possible that there was enough blame to go around? Maybe Bush is a liar and SH was a brutal man that the world is better off without. Just food for thought…
Oh nevermind…its hopeless.
-XT
Who’s apologizing for whom here ?
How long do you think Saddam and his power base would have lasted if they had caved to US inspectors and troops on their soil ? That was part of the Iraqi offer you know. Seeing their beloved leader licking Bush’s bootheels on a regular basis would have done wonders for the oppressed people of Iraq; destabilized the hell out of the regime, and encouraged the reform minded to work for their own freedom. Hell, the american soldiers would have been greeted as, and remain as liberators. Instead, because Bush just can’t see beyond one little demand on his smorgasboard of ultimatums, we have a deadly and costly war, and a messy aftermath in which any locals actually attempting to work towards a better Iraq are layed open to charges of collaborating with the American occupiers.
There’s more than one way to skin a cat, and the president’s sheer pigheadedness caused the US to do it wrong.
You’re kidding, right? S.H. was already so emasculated that he was confined to a narrow strip in the middle of his own country. Having a few inspectors from the US in would’ve been no more different than having UN inspectors roaming around.
I’m not happy about losing American lives to liberate the Iraqi people either. But your proposal that “reform from within” was possible while S.H. was still running things seems so remote as to be basically unimaginable.
The word bandied about in all the papes today is “troops” rather than inspectors. No one seems to have mentioned “a few.” Could you simply be assuming your way to the unimaginable scenario ?
I don’t think so. Can you sketch out in more detail how your “reform from within” thesis would unfold?
That depends. How much better must the “reform from within” thesis work in comparison to our current “smear yourself with hamburger and dive into a pool of piranha” thesis?
This reminds me of a bizarre comic-opera tableau that played itself out just at the very beginning of WWII. Once again, it was a busybody businessman who bustled about trying to “save peace”. Nobody trusted or believed the guy…
As regards S.H.'s alleged offer, I find it confounding that so many folks here who consistently call Bush a lier, are willing to take S.H. at his word. As much as one might hate Bush, isn’t it also possible to believe that S.H. is a brutal, scheming S.O.B. whom one should never trust? You can say that, and still hate Bush, too.
Nice rhetorical device, but I think it more aptly applies to Muhammed al’Reform, our hypothetical Iraqi dissedent, as he campaigns for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
But, in truth, I’d rather judge the “reform from within” thesis on its own merits first. Or, to extend your analogy a bit: Where’s the beef?
If your premise is such that unless one can prove that a policy of containment would lead swiftly and directly to the overthrow of SH it is invalid, no sale. If you want me to agree that the overthrow of SH was an urgent and immediate necessity, you must first convince me that he represented an urgent and immediate threat.
Recent evidence would indicate otherwise. We were as likely to be savaged by an invisible pink unicorn as Saddam’s “vast stockpiles of chemical weapons”.
This simply buggers all comment. It is too many for me. I fold.
Which part of any law anywhere gives the US the right to demand SH abdicate?