Saddam's capture faked

Post-9/11 Era Forum

Looks like Bush has a little more explaining to do. Saddam was being held as a prisoner for months before he was 'captured'

http://www.mtvdance.com/pages/News/...as%20saddam.htm

Best wishes

K

As I said before. I personnally know a wittness to his capture LAST WEEK.

While a certain level of skepticism is healthy and NECESSARY, I think some people have a degraded genetic makeup (also Bush's fault BTW), that make them better suited for medication and supervised treatment.

The deeply ingrained paranoia required to make such a claim is definitely pathological.

While both sides probably have a pathological (clinically) defective fringes, I think the left has more. The right also has its racial/religous purist fringe groups.

From a very high level, I think there are more maladjusted people on the left who are inclined towards paranoid delusion. They have difficulty separating reality from fantasy. They never quite fit in. They would blame the world and the establishment for this, rather than just see a doctor to refill their prescription.

On the other hand, the left has plenty of intelligent, successful, and wealthy elitists who would impose their good natured morality on the rest of us. I think its a Kennedy - the guy who has obviously taken way to many bong hits - dude - who represents some environmental group and flies around the world in a private jet, drives an SUV, and has a huge house ten times bigger than he needs...

"But "duuuuuude" - we muuuuust save the creatures and the treeeeees. its like, sooooooo important."

kula this article is as bad as the ones these supporters post. It's based on conjecture and no facts.

But don't feel badly, because it appeals to your opinion of this war, just as moronic right propeganda appeals to the war supporters.

It doesn't take any articles or websites for us to know that Bush was less than truthful. Only those in complete denial will say that. Bush will indeed prove himself to be less than truthful because those weapons were never there like he promised they would, and unless he's David Copperfield (a well known magician here in the states for you overseas people) he will not be able to produce anything close to the magnitudes he proclaimed were there.

The ridiculous will deny it. The frustrated will insult you. The reasonable, whether agreeing with this war or not, will question why we don't have what we said we did at the very least.

To simply assert that Bush never lied and that we are "fighting terror" as he said we were is simply denial in its purest form.

IN HIS INITIAL COMMENTS on Saddam Hussein's capture, President Bush didn't mention the main reason we went after the brutal dictator in the first place. Not that Bush needed to go into the principal justification for invading Iraq. But the matter is worth bringing up--especially since Howard Dean, whose candidacy has been fueled by his opposition to the president's decision to go to war, is the odds-on favorite to capture the Democratic presidential nomination.

Bill Kristol and Bob Kagan have succinctly captured, the main reason for the war--"the strategic threat posed by Saddam Hussein because of his proven record of aggression and barbarity, his admitted possession of weapons of mass destruction, and the certain knowledge of his programs to build more." Hussein was a threat to the Middle East but also to our allies and to us.

Now, Hussein didn't only recently become such a threat. Indeed, his possession of chemical and biological weapons had been an intense concern since 1991, when, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf war, Hussein had agreed to reveal and destroy all such weapons. Years of diplomacy ensued in which the United Nations Security Council passed all manner of resolutions and hundreds of weapons inspectors went to Iraq to oversee the disarmament. To no avail.

By 1998, on the basis of Iraq's own admissions, the world knew that Iraq had VX, a deadly nerve gas; anthrax; bombs fitted with parachutes designed to deliver poison gas or germ payloads; artillery shells filled with mustard gas; aerial bombs filled with germ agents; and missile warheads containing such germ agents as anthrax and botulinum.

Yet Hussein's regime had failed adequately to account for those weapons. Most, it said, had been "secretly" destroyed. But no evidence was offered to support that claim. And when Iraq limited the movement of U.N weapons inspectors, refusing a request for full access to the "palaces," the only fair inference was that the regime had something to hide.

President Bill Clinton was prepared to use force. "It is obvious," he said in February 1998, "that there is an attempt here . . . to protect whatever remains of [Hussein's] capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. . . . What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop . . . weapons of mass destruction?"

Raising the possibility that Saddam Hussein might provide weapons to terrorist groups, Clinton said the Iraqi dictator was a threat to "the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us." He warned, "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."

President Clinton eventually ordered a missile and bombing attack on suspected facilities and stockpiles--after which Hussein closed the door to further inspections. What he did with his weapons programs wasn't and indeed, with the inspectors shut out, couldn't be known.

Four years later, Bush essentially perceived Iraq as the same strategic threat Clinton had. Yet because of September 11, he was determined not to let Saddam Hussein off the hook. Bush worked the United Nations, whose Security Council passed Resolution 1441. The resolution found Iraq in material breach of its obligations and vowed serious consequences if it failed to fully and immediately disarm. But the Security Council, as we know, was unwilling to act.

Nine months later, Hussein's regime overthrown, his two sons dead, and Hussein himself in custody--we still haven't found actual stockpiles of the deadly weapons. Of all people, Hussein should know what happened to his weapons.


Yet whatever weapons eventually are found, there can be no doubt that the world is hugely better off now that Saddam Hussein is in our hands. And that fact makes less credible Dean's anti-war position. For if Dean were president, Hussein wouldn't have become the haggard man we saw pulled from a darkened spider hole over the weekend. He still would be the ruthless dictator of Iraq, and yet we would have no reason to think about him other than the way Clinton did--as a threat to his own people, the Middle East and America. What the capture of Saddam Hussein proves is that the president we have indeed had the will to act.


Terry Eastland is publisher of The Weekly Standard. This column originally appeared in the Dallas Morning News.

Charles did you ever ask yourself

Why didn't the UN object to the Gulf War
Why didn't the UN object to the Afghan War
Why IS the UN objecting to this Iraq War?

There were resolutions passed through the UN's history. Many against Israel, some even against the US for our embargo against Cuba. The only resolution in history that gave a nation an ultimatium and it had the US written all over it.

Cut me another break here will ya. The inspectors just got into that country and wasn't even well organized since they had to get there hastedly to try and advert a invasion the the US was hell bent on. Bush didn't give them any time because if they had come back with a report of no WMD and no violations, we would not be justified to do so. This is why Bush refused their request. I mean you honestly believe that in March we had no other recourse?

Don't cite Resolution 1441 by the UN, then turn around and do not abide by their wishes. Bush said he would reject anything giving Saddam an extention. The inspectors barely got their feet on the ground and Bush chased them out of there.

And now they have proof that the supposed captured was faked by the US right from the start, he was in US custody since the start of the conflict.

www.mtvdance.com/pages/News/news%20where%20was%20saddam.htm

It just wasnt the best time for him to be 'captured' it makes it obvious when you read the article.

Best wishes

K

Three letters for ya, Kula, glykia mou: M T V

Xeris to noima: Go pound sand?

Apo pio nisaki eisai xriso mou?

Have you read the article or are you making assumptions as to it's value merely by the address ?

I know it's a trait, or a fashion at the moment to read into things or to see what you are told to see, but come on, the article speaks for itself.

http://www.mtvdance.com/pages/News/...as%20saddam.htm

Best wishes

k

This is great, you are solidifying our reasons for going to Iraq.
When this is all over and done, those of you anti-war people can move to Canada or Mexico where life is better for you.

Kula - Please read your private messages - I'm growing tired of following you around the site and validating your SPAMMED links from a web site you clearly have association with. Much thanks.

Thats a shame, as the article is rather tongue in cheek. But it does help to show that people will read into things what they are told to. The media is a powerful tool when used in conjunction with non thinking machinery.......click, click, click. Does not compute, accesss data banks, file not found, resorting to emergency backup. 'You are happy, you enjoy the governmet, all is fine, you are superior, repeat, "I am superior"
There is more to a chip sandwhich than chips !
best wishes
k