And the truth will set you free...

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Richth76, Nov 6, 2003.

  1. Richth76

    Richth76 New Member

    Jul 22, 1999
    Washington, D.C.
  2. Dante

    Dante Moderator
    Staff Member

    Nov 19, 1998
    Binghamton, NY
    Juventus FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Here's a pretty good article about that

    To be honest, I wouldn't support the guy either. It seems that the CIA actually went to a meeting that was set up, but the Iraqi's never showed up.

    I'm a bit suspicious about the whole thing, and I'm against the war too.
  3. Matrim55

    Matrim55 Member+

    Aug 14, 2000
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Ditto. This seems about as legitimate as the Hannity memo.

    EDIT: That came out wrong... This seems as legitimate a concern as the Hannity memo.
  4. verybdog

    verybdog New Member

    Jun 29, 2001
    What's the word 'hell-bent' mean?

    Hell-bent on war, no matter what.

    That's why we get the Iraq mess today.
  5. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    talkingpointsmemo discusses this very nicely. He thinks it's part of a bureaucratic fight. Check it out.
  6. Malaga CF fan

    Malaga CF fan Member

    Apr 19, 2000
    Fairfax, VA
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I saw this on ABC Nightly news last night, and I admit it was interesting, but I'm skeptical to say the least. I have no doubts that this administration was hell bent on war, but I think most people already knew that. Wesley Clark on NPR (interview on New Hampshire Public Radio) yesterday said that the Pentagon was making Iraq war plans as far back as 97-98 following the US-UN action in Kosovo. I wouldn't be surprised if this got lost in the shuffle leading up to the war. Either way, it points out a) incompetence in the administration for not following all of their leads for a peaceful settlement, b) this guy isn't a credible source, he couldn't have gotten the job done and brought about peace in Iraq or c) the administration just wanted war and weren't going to stop once the war machine got rolling.

    Options a and c are ominous, they can only hope b ends up being the real reason.
  7. mannyfreshstunna

    mannyfreshstunna New Member

    Feb 7, 2003
    Naperville, no less
    Saddam was playing us for a bunch of fools. Him and Tariq were sitting around the fire chuickling becuase they thought there was no way their number was up.

    They survived us before and they were positive it could be done again.

    If this is true, then he simply freaked when he realized we weren't *#*#*#*#ing around. Too bad too sad. Have a nice life Saddam. Satan is waiting for you. (south park movie rules in this respect.)
  8. csc7

    csc7 New Member

    Jul 3, 2002
    So you're willing to say "Too bad, too sad," to the fact that we could have accomplished the goal of eliminating the potential 'threat' of Saddam's WMDs and gotten rid of him in 2 years in a much more stable way without losing a couple hundred American lives? Good I'm glad you Republicans love those serving in our military so much.

    I don't know if this is true or not, there is a lot to still find out. However, your flippant attitude towards death and destruction is pathetic.
  9. monop_poly

    monop_poly Member

    May 17, 2002
    Q: How does a Lebanese businessman, post-9/11 trying to get on a plane with a pistol and four stun guns wind up being let go by FBI after a quick investigation?

    A: It might be embarrassing to the DoD or CIA to hold him.

  10. Richth76

    Richth76 New Member

    Jul 22, 1999
    Washington, D.C.
    If this is true, I want my $87 billion back.
  11. afgrijselijkheid

    Dec 29, 2002
    AFC Ajax
    this is hardly a shock - when i began reading these articles, i viewed it as another stall... but the covert communication is probably a face-saving type thing among arabs - now i'm just wondering about the continued insistence that "Every lead that was at all plausible, and some that weren't, were followed up." - hmmm doesn't sound like it...
  12. iman

    iman New Member

    Apr 29, 2003
    Tucson, Az, USa
    I see that the issue has already been brought up
  13. iman

    iman New Member

    Apr 29, 2003
    Tucson, Az, USa
    I find it odd that they put so much faith in Chalibi but wouldn't persue this even if it was very weak.
  14. DJPoopypants

    DJPoopypants New Member

    Oh come on now. The Bush administration's diplomatic skills and negotiating teams could not convince a crack addict to take a free hit.

    But they'd be able to negotiate Saddam off the throne or away from his "weapons"?

    That's gotta be the funniest thing I've heard all day.

    The only coherant foreigjn policy of this administration is invading countries, killing people and destroying things. They stuck to what they were good at. That was bleeding obvious after Afghanistan, was it not?
  15. Garcia

    Garcia Member

    Dec 14, 1999
    Castro Castro
    To be fair, there was not much to blow up in Afghanistan that already hadn't been hit decades before.

    I could have sworn that NPR was reporting this morn that this guy was Richard Perle's friend and that Perle confirmed this fact.

Share This Page