Election 2004 is a wrap..they got Saddam
 

Captured recently. Regardless of the circumstances and any arguments of if it is really him or if he was really a boogie-man, this will fuel the reelection.

I suppose it will help. I think Bush was going to win anyways though.

I think Bush will win but the only wrap would be if we get Osma.

Something I agree with Ustwo about! weird!

This is not even close.
It's a good thing, but American memories are short.

It comes down to in the end is "what have you done for me lately?"
and who's got the momentum and the best spin.

I'm an idealist & a romantic at times, but I'm also a cynical realist.
I'll be surprised if it's a cakewalk...people get distracted and pissed off too easily.

So true, if people had longer memories Clinton would have never survived Somalia or for that matter, he would have never been elected in the first place.

Re: Election 2004 is a wrap..they got Saddam
 

Unless Saddam's body was converted from flesh/bone to WMDs in that hole the 2004 election is still on.

I think Bush will be re-elected, simply cause everytime I watch anything about the Democratic candidates on any news channel, all I can say is "Fuck, not another one of these elections!"

Bush didn't capture Suddam. He shouldn't take credit for it.

Agreed, but he did launch the campaign that lead to his capture. Bush is going to piggy back on that and claim he captured him.

I am glad we caught Saddam. I hope he ends up in front of a WORLD court. Lets get the whole story out of him, including his business deals with Bush the Elder, and Rumsfeld, and Haliburton, and Bush Juniors oil company as well.
I am also glad we picked him up when we did because this is a year before the election. This far away, it won't be any help. If we caught him a month or so before the election, that would be bad for Democrats. But as it is we are ok.

Now, the problem in Iraq isn't over. The rebels aren't fighting for Saddam. They are using him as a figurehead, and it will weaken them. But they are fighting against us primarially. I expect to see a rise in attacks actually. And possible some soldier kidnappings.

If I were Hussein I'd stay away from small aircraft. The Bush administration can not let him talk freely to any media. Too many receipts from the 1980's for gas and other weapons.

All that history gets out and paints the previous two Republican administrations as ends justify means type people won't help the Crawford cowboy.

If Hussein does get to talk be prepared for the term 'blowback' to make a come back.

2Wolves

Some of these responses, I think, should be filed in the tilted paranoia section. But other than that:

1. This is good news
2. It does not make the election unwinnable for the Dems
3. There's a lot of time left till the ballots are cast
4. It will be interesting to see what spin comes from the Dems in the am.

Nice of you to turn this into a hate Bush event. BTW it wouldn't be right to go to a WORLD court since a WORLD court wouldn't have the death penality.

I'll assume you are not interested in learning about France or Germany's under the table dealings, or what happened to Scott Speicher. Mass graves be damned, its Bush that is evil!

Bah

Actually, Lieberman has come straight out and said he wants Saddam executed.

He doesn't want him going to the World Court for that reason.

Pretty ballsy to say that.

And personally, I agree...but no stoning or pain...do it fast.
Get it over & done with.

It would be right to go to the World Court because Saddam's sins extended beyond Iraq's confines and includes Genocide. No, the world court does not have the death penalty. But myself, and the vast majority of the developed world are against it anyway. I believe there are worse punishments than immediate death. Let the man rot in an 8 x 8 drafty cell for the next 30 years eating bland food and having the rest of the prison ignomies heaped upon him.

I didn't turn this into a hate Bush thread. I stated some opinions, such as how this won't help Bush get elected much if at all. I did that becuase that is the theme of this thread. The business deals are facts and should be public knowledge. I was hoping for this outcome all along. I want a full and fair trial.

I think that, in general, the court that anyone faces for any crime (including dictators charged with genocide) should be determined by a process that does not take into account potential punishment. His punishment is not for us to determine before his trial, but for his court to determine after he is proven guilty.

I think that if he can get a fair trial within Iraq, he should be tried there for his crimes first.

That’s why I respect Lieberman. Its really a shame he had to flip flop so much when he ran for VP. Personally I think Lieberman is in the wrong party and if not a Republican should be an independent.


What arrogance you have. The people who were brutalized should be the ones to pass judgment. Its not up to his European enablers, nor even his UK and US captors, but the Kurds, Sunis, Kwuaities, and Iranians who he had murdred by the 10's of thousands.

Perhaps such a life would make you wish you were dead, but if I were given that choice today, I wouldn't kill myself, I'd be thinking of how I could escape.


Yea, you did. You focused on the Bush's possible dealing with Saddam, and ignored the proven and obvious links with others. Your goal is 'how can this be used to hurt Bush' and has nothing to do with justice. Had people like you been in the Whitehouse Saddam would still be happily killing, most likely with sanctions lifted so he would be free to rebuild his army.

Taking bets on the "Capture of Osama bin Laden" coming 1-2 months prior to next years election.


MB

Bush Senior is just like me?

Anyway, I don't think it's arrogant. As I seem to recall, and feel free to correct me if I am wrong, those who join in filing charges against Saddam are secured a spot in determining his fate at the World Courts trial.

I didn't start hate Bush, you just cannot talk about Saddams crimes without Bush & Co being dragged in because we enabled him. He would not have been the threat he became without our direct assistance, and with us fully knowning what he was doing. Also, I don't really care about the links Saddam had with others such as France and Germany. I am focused on my own country and the dealings Saddam had here. I want the full justice for America.

I would today to plead with our rulers, as an homage to the toppling of Saddam finally, to stop propping up murderous dictators or undemocratic regimes to serve our interests.

Cut the strings to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Uzbekistan and Equatorial Guinea. For starters.

Saddam not "hiding" but "held captive" for the money.



http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=743

"The World" can go defeat his army, fend off terrorists, find his hideout and drag him out of a hole to hold him accountable for his actions then.

It's a shame they acted like a bunch of nagging women when it came time to do something about him though. His ass is ours now.

Actually, I think his ass belongs to the Iraqi people and we need to stay somewhat removed from the judical process.

We may have got much more of the world, plus the UN to join us Phaenx. We could have done that if we made our case for war based on humanitarian reasons rather than the poor case made to find nonexistant weapons.
Hell, if we had gone in there for humanitarian reasons I would be a proponent of the war rather than detractor.

I somehow get the feeling though that Saddam won't get anything other than jail or whatever wherever. I bet he'll be tried and all for various things but theres that nagging feeling that no matter who tries him, chances are he'll be living the rest of his life in some cell in an 'undisclosed location.'

As for the elections - nothing is ever for sure. You can't predict what people will be thinking a year from now - for all we know, we could all be voting Bush for defeating some massive alien armada that suddenly appeared tomorrow bent on conquering the world - or perhaps we could all be screaming to hang Bush for selling out to a suddenly resurgent communist movement...

Of course those are stretches, but its simple, you don't know whats going to happen.

8 posts earlier.....

:rolleyes:

Anyway, the only options for where Saddam would be tried are in an Iraqi court, or in the World court, right? It's not like the U.S. can personally set up a trial against him, since he didn't break and *American* laws.... right?

edit: whoops, I got my threads mixed up... my question doesn't really belong here. oh well, I guess I'll leave it.

Hate Clinton is always ok. No fouls for riding Clintons Cock.

The flip side of this would be that he shouldn't be bashed for not finding him or Osama, and i would bet prior to this event you had uttered the words "Bush is incompetent, he can't even find Hussein" (or something to that effect).

Anyway, on a side / personal note:

It was hard to admit this, untill someone called in to a radio station and articulated exactly how i felt upon seeing the pics of Saddam: "I hate that man with every fiber of my being, he is evil personified, etc, etc, but for some reason I can't explain, when I saw those pictures of him i felt a small hint of pity for him."

I felt the same way and it really surprised me.

Bush is incompetent. He got the US governement to spend billions of dollars on this war only to neglect the social and economic issues back at home. If people are just going to vote him because he handled the war then his supporters have their priorities fucked up.

Saddam should be tried in a "neutral" World court.

As it stands, he will likely be tried by the Iraqi Governing Council. A council appointed by the US and made up of people who have had members of their family killed by Saddam's regime.

1) This is not a group of people who are going to giving him a "fair" trial.
2) It smacks of US involvment and influence on the outcome. This is a sure-fire way of feeding the anti-US sentiments in Iraq and other hot spots.

We need the neutrality so that ALL of his links to the US, France, Germany, etc. will be exposed. We need to see how he was supported by MANY nations.

We also need to see the extent of his activities in Iraq.

Yes, the people Iraq need to see justice done to this mad man, but it needs to be done in such a way that is fair and just.

You forgot to add "US-enablers".

Wow.. very much like the US until they got attacked by the japs in WW2... Didn't care until then, right?

It has not been the US who has tried to get sanctions lifted to do bussiness with Iraq for the last 10 years my friend.

We have no right to bitch about any current enablers when we watched Saddam execute his own legislative body in '79 and sat back and watched Saddam Mustard Gas tens of thousands of his own people for over a decade, even giving his artillery crews ballistics information so their mustard gas volleys were targetted better.

But it was the US that took Iraq of the terrorist-list and it was the US, alone, that borrowed Iraq a lot of money. The US was very mcuh aware of what was happening in Iraq, but did nothing. Also, a lot of US-companeis sold stuff to Iraq during this period.

"The January 1, 1984 Washington Post reported that the US had “informed friendly Persian Gulf nations that the defeat of Iraq in the three-year-old war with Iran would be ‘contrary to US interests' and has made several moves to prevent that result”.

Central to these “moves” was the cementing of a military and political alliance with Saddam Hussein's repressive regime, so as to build up Iraq as a military counterweight to Iran. In 1982, the Reagan administration removed Iraq from the State Department's list of countries that allegedly supported terrorism. On December 19-20, 1983, Reagan dispatched his Middle East envoy — none other than Donald Rumsfeld — to Baghdad with a hand-written offer of a resumption of diplomatic relations, which had been severed during the 1967 Arab-Israel war. On March 24, 1984, Rumsfeld was again in Baghdad.

On that same day, the UPI wire service reported from the UN: “Mustard gas laced with a nerve agent has been used on Iranian soldiers … a team of UN experts has concluded … Meanwhile, in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, US presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld held talks with foreign minister Tariq Aziz.”

The day before, Iran had accused Iraq of poisoning 600 of its soldiers with mustard gas and Tabun nerve gas.

There is no doubt that the US government knew Iraq was using chemical weapons. On March 5, 1984, the State Department had stated that “available evidence indicates that Iraq has used lethal chemical weapons”. The March 30, 1984, NYT reported that US intelligence officials has “what they believe to be incontrovertible evidence that Iraq has used nerve gas in its war with Iran and has almost finished extensive sites for mass producing the lethal chemical warfare agent”.

However, consistent with the pattern throughout the Iran-Iraq war and after, the use of these internationally outlawed weapons was not considered important enough by Rumsfeld and his political superiors to halt Washington's blossoming love affair with Hussein.

The March 29, 1984, NYT, reporting on the aftermath of Rumsfeld's talks in Baghdad, stated that US officials had pronounced “themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the US and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name”. In November 1984, the US and Iraq officially restored diplomatic relations.

According to Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward, in a December 15, 1986 article, the CIA began to secretly supply Iraq with intelligence in 1984 that was used to “calibrate” mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. Beginning in early 1985, the CIA provided Iraq with “data from sensitive US satellite reconnaissance photography … to assist Iraqi bombing raids”.

Iraqi chemical attacks on Iranian troops — and US assistance to Iraq — continued throughout the Iran-Iraq war. In a parallel program, the US defence department also provided intelligence and battle-planning assistance to Iraq.

The August 17, 2002 NYT reported that, according to “senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program”, even though “senior officials of the Reagan administration publicly condemned Iraq's employment of mustard gas, sarin, VX and other poisonous agents … President Reagan, vice president George Bush [senior] and senior national security aides never withdrew their support for the highly classified program in which more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb-damage assessments for Iraq.”

Retired DIA officer Rick Francona told the NYT that Iraq's chemical weapons were used in the war's final battle in early 1988, in which Iraqi forces retook the Fao Peninsula from the Iranian army.

Another retired DIA officer, Walter Lang, told the NYT that “the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern”. What concerned the DIA, CIA and the Reagan administration was that Iran not break through the Fao Peninsula and spread the Islamic revolution to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Iraq's 1982 removal from Washington's official list of states that support terrorism meant that the Hussein regime was now eligible for US economic and military aid, and was able to purchase advanced US technology that could also be used for military purposes." from this article (http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/506/506p12.htm ). The article may be biased, so I only copied the things that are from newspapers/media.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=39109

Even if yours is biased, I have the same stuff in my mega-post and I have dozens of good sources to go along with it.

Whoah, okay, back to the topic.

Will the capture of Saddam help Bush? Yes, of course. Is the 2004 election a wrap? No, far from it. There is still plenty of time for the election to swing either way. However, at the very least Bush will not be a pushover. But, neither will the Democratic candidate (whoever he/she may be).

Personally, I'm waiting for the Democrats to extract their claws from each other, pick somebody, and run a campaign against Bush. For example, if Lieberman wins, Saddam's capture isn't going to hurt him (or help Bush) -- he was pro-war from the start. It might hurt Dean and Kerry. Clark -- who knows, depends on which position he eventually settles on, I guess. How much it will hurt them, I'm not sure. It still depends on how Bush intends to club them with it, I think

-- Alvin

EDIT: Added the last sentence, "How much..."

rogue49's got it right, Americans are very "What have you done for me lately?" I certainly think that the capture of Saddam will lead to an edge that Bush will be able to have come next November. He will be able to use it, but if that's the only thing then he may not win, but I don't forsee that seeing as how the economy is back on again after the recession.

What I would really like someone to explain to me is why we give a rat's ass what the UN thinks or does? I'd really like to see the look on some of yall's faces when all the nonexistant shit shows up.

Because some of us haven't given up on the ideas of international community and laws. Especially when it comes to international matters, like the war in Iraq. Yes, the UN can be frustratingly impotent, I don't like it either. But I think there's different ways to handle that dislike, besides belilltling it and its members. The right diplomacy would have started this war with UN and its member's support.

As for the "nonexistant shit", sure, it may very well exist, but some of us wanted to make sure it wasn't just "nonexistant shit" before we started a conflict... My dislike for the war is very much a case of procedure.... gah I could go on, but it's all been said before.

What facts do you have to support your continuing faith in the existance of Weapons of Mass Destruction?

2Wolves

Is anyone concerned about the 80+ BILLION dollars we are spending in Iraq?

Almost as good of ones as you have for saying they don't exist. You'd probably have trouble finding weapons of mass destruction in the US at this instance ifd someone didn't tell you exactly where to look and what to look for - But! If ya' really want to know come by and I'll show you where to look - they're about a hundred miles south of where I'm sitting right now.

Any one who can seriously deny that Iraq both had and used them is only kidding themselves. You don't possess something like that and suddenly wake up one morning and decide to turn over a new leaf and get rid of every single thing you had! Not unless you replaced them with something better. The stuff still exists - while it hasn't been found neither has any evidence that it was destroyed other than the small quanitities that were destroyed on television for public consumption just before the war started. I believe that when the fear of Saddam and his henchmen no longer exists that someone will have the guts to come forward and spill the beans.

All the experts say they don't have them. Scott Ritter says they don't, so does Blix.
Atomic experts say they didn't even have close to the expertise to build a bomb.
Biological agents have a short lifespan and without support that program gets scrapped.
Saddam was severely restricted in chemicals he could bring in and we have ways of detecting if chemical weapons have been made in an area. Also chemical weapons break down over time. They have short lifespans as well.

Best explanation is that Saddam lost all his weapons abilities after Clintons "Desert Fox" campaign.
Scared of looking weak to his enemy, the Iranians, Saddam bluffed his way through resolutions to appear to still be a threat.

So, by Bush taking these bluffs seriously, he is in the wrong? Choices were according to this theory: err on the side of caution and view Iraq as a potential wmd threat or just throw these bluffs out the window and ignore them with no solid evidence that they are no longer viable weapons. Seems like he made the right decision to me.

We had solid evidence that they had nothing.

Erring on the side of caution is to not invade and risk lives if you aren't anywhere near sure.

If it was solid it was based on half-ass searching cause Saddam stood in the way at every corner for 10 years, and as such we had too take the position (again, why does everyone forget this) "It is not up to us to prove he has them, it's up to him to prove he doesn't."

Noone had a problem with that statement when it was made, and Saddam certainly made no efforts to prove he didn't have them...........so, here we are today.

Solid evidence he had nothing? How is that possible?

Why didn't Saddam use any of his vast storehouses of WMD on our troops when we invaded? Or how about use them after he was deposed? They would have really helped and we know he had a propensity for actually USING them too.

Maybe because he had nothing.

So, the "solid evidence" came post invasion in the fact that he did not use them? Quite compelling evidence indeed.

A very interesting question.

On one hand, I'd agree that the US couldn't have had "solid evidence" that something didn't exist.

On the other hand, I seem to recall the US demanding that Saddam prove that he had no WMDs -- that failure to provide such evidence would be grounds for war.

There was, at a minimum, evidence that wmds existed in the past. If it was, as proposed by superbelt, that these weapons fell into disrepair and the agents became inactive, why not present them for inspection? All the experts pointed to also say that they had not been presented with enough material to account for all previously known weapons.

So, in effect, the question was not "prove that you have nothing" but "prove that the weapons we know you had are no longer in existence".

I don't do research in the morning. Perhaps I can get to some stuff tonight.

You really needn't bother (but I'm sure you will **edit, okay, you won't as stated below** :) ) since the point I am making is one that we apparently fundamentally disagree on. You believe that we could risk the possibility that these weapons exist if there is a preponderance of evidence that says they don't. I believe that even a small amount of evidence that suggests these weapons exist and could end up being used against us outweighs any amount of evidence that it doesn't.

Ok, good. Cause that type of research is boring and tedious. I wasn't looking forward to it. That kind of stuff has been buried under all the other Iraq stories over the past year.

Resolution 1441 called for "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations," failure of which would result in "serious consequences." On January 30, 2003, Hans Blix determined that Iraq was indeed not fully compliant. On February 17, 2003, Hans Blix determined that Iraq was still not fully compliant. On March 7, 2003, Hans Blix could still not determine that Iraq was fully compliant. Shortly thereafter, the coalition inflicted serious consequences.

-- Alvin

You hit the nail right on the head. People seem to forget the REAL reason we went to Iraq, to find these weapons, and 9 months later, to this date, we haven't found a single one. People are still dying for a cause they don't understand, one I'm not even sure if our own President understands.

Getting Saddam is the last saving grace Bush had in this political disaster known as the War in Iraq.

A question (because I don't remember): What specific actions on Iraq's part were demanded for it to be "in compliance?"

EDIT: nevermind, I decided to befriend Google.

Cooperation with the UN inspectors would probably have been enough. The made it appear as if they had something to hide by their refusal to allow inspection - Now there are two ways you can look at that - you can assume they had them and were hiding them, or, you can assume they were such total dumbasses that they would allow their government to be brought down by trying to create the illusion that they had them - either way - it was and is quite obvious that they had no intention of complying with anything.

lordjeebus,

While you're googling around, you will hopefully pull up the stories right before the war in regards to the so-called uncooperation of the Iraqi's.

That is, the inspectors were claiming that they were receiving the most cooperation that they had ever had before, the US government was giving them shitty intel, and they wanted more time.

The US admin stated that we couldn't wait, we were in too much danger, and we knew exactly where the weapons were. Subsequently, we moved the timeframe up and declared a new demand: Saddam had to not only give up the weapons, he had to leave.

It's interesting to speculate what would have happened had Saddam given up the weapons he supposedly had. Then the atrocities we are so inflamed about now would have never even come into public discourse and he would have continued to rule in whatever fashion he chose. It wasn't until after he decided to thwart the will of the US that he became the boogeyman--we were going to let him do whatever the hell he wanted as long as it didn't bother us.

So, you know, what can you do...

Or perhaps he thought he could escape and wait for anti-war activists to force the US out of Iraq. Otherwise known as the Vietnam (or Somalia) strategy.

Then he could loudly proclaim that he was unjustly ousted from power and snicker behind the world's back, while still retaining WMD.

Hans Blix said they were not even trying to fully disarm on January 30, February 17, and March 7. Scott Ritter appeared on Saddam's payroll.

In 1997, the IAEA wrote about Iraq's nuclear expertise: "Iraqi programme documentation records substantial progress in many important areas of nuclear weapon development, making it prudent to assume that Iraq has developed the capability to design and fabricate a basic fission weapon, based on implosion technology and fueled by highly enriched uranium." (IAEA, Fourth Consolidated Report of the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency under Paragraph 16 of Security Council Resolution 1051 (1996), October 8, 1997, S/1997/779,)

Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."

Hillary Clinton, September 24, 2003:

"The intelligence from Bush 1 to Clinton to Bush 2 was consistent" in concluding Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was trying to develop a nuclear capability, Clinton said this morning. And Saddam's expulsion of weapons inspectors and "the behavior" of his regime "pointed to a continuing effort" to produce WMD, she added.

-- Alvin

Bullshit, Scott Ritter was never on Saddams payroll, where did you hear that? Newsmax?

1997 IAEA was before Desert Fox. After Desert Fox that assessment was revised. Clinton done blew it all up.

Hillary Clinton is not my goddess and there is no substantiation to what she said.

Scott Ritter himself. From Slate:

"By his own admission, Ritter accepted $400,000 in funding two years ago from an Iraqi-American businessman named Shakir al-Khafaji. Ritter used the money to visit Baghdad and film a documentary purporting to tell the true story of the weapons inspections (which in his telling were corrupted by sinister American manipulation). As Hayes has reported, al-Khafaji is openly sympathetic to Saddam and regularly sponsors anti-American conferences in Baghdad. Al-Khafaji seems to have gotten his money's worth: The documentary was so anti-U.S., says one of Ritter's former U.N. colleagues, that Iraqi officials were passing out copies of it on CD-ROM at a recent international conference."

And yes, I do equate taking money from a curiously pro-Saddam businessman who regularly sponsors anti-American conferences in Baghdad with being on Saddam's payroll. Methinks this businessman may be getting more than a little cash from the deposed dictator.

You asked for expertise. You can't blow that up.

You would think Hillary would know something about it. But okay, how about Bill Clinton?

"Clinton also said Tuesday night that at the end of his term, there was 'a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for' in Iraq.

"So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say, 'You got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.'"

Clinton told King: "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

"it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons." -- Bill Clinton, July 22, 2003.

-- Alvin