Comments on: Saddam Tried to Bribe WMD Inspectors

By: likwidshoe

likwidshoe — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:20:18 +0000

Hal spits out, "I swear yâall are raving paranoid lunatics."

So what are you saying? That Saddam wasn't a threat? Excuse me for suggesting that you're a little insane for suggesting that.

By: Hal

Hal — Sun, 13 Mar 2005 19:26:20 +0000

Right. . . A guy with a third rate army who was barely able to keep Iran off his butt and had is ass soundly kicked in Kuwait and who's straight in the cross hairs of Israel was a major threat to the US because he was trying to bribe people to get the UN off his back.

I swear y'all are raving paranoid lunatics.

By: zz

zz — Sun, 13 Mar 2005 10:35:29 +0000

The containment policy was a failure because it was destined to put the US in harms way indefinitely. What is the probablity of 9/11 occurring if the US had simply walked away from containment and allowed Saddam to run amok in the ME during the 90s? It's significantly lower. Whether you like it to admit it or not, containment policies are intimately intertwined with al Qaeda's grievances against the US, regardless of whether Saddam provided any sort of aid to al Qaeda. Sure containment kept Saddam at bay, but a containment policy that leads to over 3000 dead Americans over the course of a decade as a side effect is a failed containment policy. A containment policy ought to have an order of magnitude fewer casualties than a regime change policy, and at the rate we are going, we will certainly meet that criteria.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Sun, 13 Mar 2005 05:12:49 +0000

One of the main problems here is that people still misunderstand the term "WMD", which was a deliberate ploy by Dubyah to overemphesize Saddam's abilities. The fact is that the weapons inspections DID work, and they worked precisely because the inspectors were allowed to do their jobs. Not by Saddam, of course, but by the UN Security Council. The argument was never "Did Saddam ONCE have weapons that could hurt people" but "Is Saddam an immediate threat to our country or allies?" and of course, the answer was no. The answer was no because the weapons he DID have were destroyed and we know he had no factories to produce new ones. People are very ignorant about weapons and how they're produced and assume that EVERY country has the same facilities that we do, for some strange reason. The fact that Condi Rice could speak about a smoking gun being a nuclear cloud over NY should have made EVERY American do the same thing that I did- immediately go "WHAT? How would he deliver a payload? What a crock." But people think that missles all have 20,000 mile ranges, apparently. 1500+ soldiers died under the guise of stopping Saddam from doing us harm, even though we knew for a fact that he could not do any. Even if it WASN'T oil, shouldn't that piss a few people off? How do you Bush supporters that supposedly support our troops sleep at night knowing that you were lied to and yet you voted him in again? I guess it doesn't matter what you DO as long as you tell the American people that you're a swell guy.

By: Bizblogger

Bizblogger — Sun, 13 Mar 2005 00:54:30 +0000

Saddam's $2 Million Bribe - Who Else Did He Buy? Why hasn't Ekeus come forward sooner with this information? Given the importance of this information on world opinion, it's surprising that this bribery attempt wasn't documented sooner.

By: Bizblogger

Bizblogger — Sun, 13 Mar 2005 00:54:03 +0000

By: kenny

kenny — Sun, 13 Mar 2005 00:10:39 +0000

What do you mean âSaddam had no capability [of WMDs]â

What i meant was that Saddam had,post 1991, no capability to produce WMD's. He had an interest in producing them (thus the claimed bribes) but no means of doing so.
I was commenting on james comment about "as everyone knows, Saddam had no interest in WMDs and the U.S. only invaded because of the o-i-i-i-i-l."
as I don't believe anyone ever claimed that saddam didn't want to (re)acquire wmds.

By: Bizblogger

Bizblogger — Sat, 12 Mar 2005 23:46:08 +0000

By: Clint Lovell

Clint Lovell — Sat, 12 Mar 2005 22:37:07 +0000

I gather we are supposed to be surprised by this revelation?

The only thing that would surprise me out of this whole sorry mess is that if it turns out Kofi didn't personally take money from the Saddamizer.

His kid traded on his name and position and now we find out his nephew did too.

When are we going to say enough is enough and kick these leeches out of our country and out of our lives forever?

By: likwidshoe

likwidshoe — Sat, 12 Mar 2005 22:06:22 +0000

What do you mean "Saddam had no capability [of WMDs]" kenny? He was bribing and paying off the UN inspectors. Why would he bribe the UN inspectors and UN officials if he "had no capability"? He had scientists under his belt. He had the cooperation of neighbor countries. And we all know his history.

By: Say Anything

Say Anything — Sat, 12 Mar 2005 17:41:49 +0000

Saddam Tried To Bribe Weapons Inspectors
Hmm...

The Telegraph - Saddam Hussein's regime offered a $2 million (ÃÂ£1.4 million) bribe to the United Nations' chief weapons inspector to doctor his reports on the search for weapons of mass destruction.

Rolf Ekeus, the Swede who led the UN'...

By: Blogs for Bush

Blogs for Bush — Sat, 12 Mar 2005 16:58:30 +0000

Saddam Tried To Bribe Weapons Inspectors The London Telegraph reports that the Saddam Hussein regime offered a $2 million bribe to the UN chief weapons inspector "to doctor his reports on the search for weapons of mass destruction." Rolf Ekeus, the Swede who led the UN's...

By: kenny

kenny — Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:13:30 +0000

Did anyone actually claim that saddam had "no interest" in WMDS after 1991 ?

The fact is that saddam had no capability.
Which is a big difference.

By: InTheBullpen.com

InTheBullpen.com — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

[...] will be the symbol of the CIA’s ineptitude for at least the next decade. Hat tip: Outside the Beltway

Permalink ::
Trackbacks (0) ::
Co [...]