Saddam Wanted Out, Bush Lied About It

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
Nov 19, 2005
15,892
7,914
1,743
37
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
#1
Saddam Wanted Out, Bush Lied About It

How much money does Bush think a US soldier’s life is worth? How much money does Bush think the lives of our allies’ soldiers or innocent Iraqis are worth?

As we’re finding out, not very much. On March 17, 2003 President Bush issued the warning: “Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict commenced at a time of our choosing ,” yet now thanks to a transcript leaked to the Spanish newspaper El Pais, we learn that more than three weeks prior to that Bush had told former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar that “The Egyptians are speaking to Saddam Hussein. It seems he’s indicated he would be prepared to go into exile if he’s allowed to take $1 billion …” When confronted about the leaked transcript yesterday, Whitehouse spokeswoman Dana Perino did not dispute its accuracy.

Just last week we learned from former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan that the real reason behind the war in Iraq was oil , and now we are finding out that the entire war could have been averted for letting him get away with $1 billion. That’s just than one tenth of 1% of what this insane invasion and occupation of Iraq, that continues claim the lives of our country’s bravest men and women, has now been forcast to cost. Think about that just for a second. Every single death, Iraqi and American coalition alike, could have been saved and Bush could have had Saddam’s oil, but apparently he didn’t even seriously consider it. Topping that, he then lied in public to the entire world about it just so he could have his war regardless. How’s that for compassionate conservatism?
 

RoVerto Solo

Lifetime Ban
Banned
Feb 10, 2007
0
0
0
#2
Saddam Wanted Out, Bush Lied About It

How much money does Bush think a US soldier’s life is worth? How much money does Bush think the lives of our allies’ soldiers or innocent Iraqis are worth?

As we’re finding out, not very much. On March 17, 2003 President Bush issued the warning: “Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict commenced at a time of our choosing ,” yet now thanks to a transcript leaked to the Spanish newspaper El Pais, we learn that more than three weeks prior to that Bush had told former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar that “The Egyptians are speaking to Saddam Hussein. It seems he’s indicated he would be prepared to go into exile if he’s allowed to take $1 billion …” When confronted about the leaked transcript yesterday, Whitehouse spokeswoman Dana Perino did not dispute its accuracy.

Just last week we learned from former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan that the real reason behind the war in Iraq was oil , and now we are finding out that the entire war could have been averted for letting him get away with $1 billion. That’s just than one tenth of 1% of what this insane invasion and occupation of Iraq, that continues claim the lives of our country’s bravest men and women, has now been forcast to cost. Think about that just for a second. Every single death, Iraqi and American coalition alike, could have been saved and Bush could have had Saddam’s oil, but apparently he didn’t even seriously consider it. Topping that, he then lied in public to the entire world about it just so he could have his war regardless. How’s that for compassionate conservatism?
kaje, do you hate President Bush?
 

Pokefan

Territorial Marshal
Aug 3, 2004
8,661
39
1,678
68
Between Pryor and Adair on Beautiful Lake Hudson
#3
Kaje you are going to get called all kinds of names for stating that opinion.. Damn you for thinking we should not waste a TRILLION dollars and A few hundred thousand lives. You damn dirty liberal. There, hows that for a quick warm up exercise? I am sure the neocon idjits on this board will rip you soundly now. :D

BTW in her Book Bushworld Maureen Doud talks about an envoy to Washington by Saddam prior to the invasion, He was sent to speak to Bush about averting war. He was told, "See you in Baghdad", by a Bush aide and not allowed to see Bush.
 

RoVerto Solo

Lifetime Ban
Banned
Feb 10, 2007
0
0
0
#10
What does that have to do with it? Did Lincoln go to war causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people for oil or something? If so, yes, I hate him too.
There was no oil back then, but the North did not want the federal government to lose control of Southern resources.

Are there any US Presidents that put a member of our armed services in harms way that you don't hate?
 

Pokefan

Territorial Marshal
Aug 3, 2004
8,661
39
1,678
68
Between Pryor and Adair on Beautiful Lake Hudson
#12
So we should let someone like Saddaam just have a billion dollars?

We said he could leave, he did not do that.
And again our Justification for telling the leader of a sovereign Nation to leave? WMD? Not so. Don't say 9/11 or you'll look like an idiot, Don't say "to stop terrorism", again you'll look stupid, Don't say to give the Iraqi people freedom as that was the excuse two years after the fact and then we have to go to war with about half the nations of the world. Burma anyone? N. Korea? Saudi Arabia? So again the ustification besides Bush wanting to make himself look non-wimpish?
 
Mar 3, 2004
3,705
54
1,678
35
OKC
#13
I'm not trying to justify it. I just don't see out is okay to let him take whatever he wants with him?

Also, we may not have found "piles of" WMDs, but I know one of my good friends in the army has been around these things that they supposably didn't and don't have.
 

Pokefan

Territorial Marshal
Aug 3, 2004
8,661
39
1,678
68
Between Pryor and Adair on Beautiful Lake Hudson
#14
I'm not trying to justify it. I just don't see out is okay to let him take whatever he wants with him?

Also, we may not have found "piles of" WMDs, but I know one of my good friends in the army has been around these things that they supposably didn't and don't have.
I can guarantee that as much heat as the Bush Administration has taken over WMD, if they found them, they would be Broadcasting it over every media outlet possible. Your friend is more than likely telling you a fish story.

What reason would the Bush administration have to NOT disclose that they were found? It would be their AHA ! WE WERE RIGHT!!! moment.
 
Sep 15, 2007
91
0
0
#16
Why do I have too much time on my hands? Great rebuttal to the topic of thread, though. Nice way to sidestep the issue. :rolleyes:
The point was not this particular thread. All you do is post political stuff on here and the point was that you need a life. But if you want to get all liberal and defend your right to annoy the hell out of everyone then by all means, go for it.
 
Feb 7, 2007
1,015
0
166
#17
The point was not this particular thread. All you do is post political stuff on here and the point was that you need a life. But if you want to get all liberal and defend your right to annoy the hell out of everyone then by all means, go for it.
So talking about football all day long is acceptable, but discussing something as irrelevant as our country means you need to get a life? That's the best you could come up with? Did it ever occur to you that maintaining your discussion here is only propagating what you wish would go away? Let me give you a little tip here - if you see a thread with a title on a subject you don't like, DON'T ENTER THE THREAD AND POST IN IT. It's a freaking message board, what do you expect?

And where are the rest of our neocon friends in response to the story that Kaje posted? It's typical that they either have nothing to say, resort to insults, or try to sidetrack away from the subject at hand.

But here's the thing about this topic, which is huge: There have been 3 reasons given for our occupation of Iraq - Link to 9/11 (Proven LIE), WMD's (Proven LIE), and the 3rd which they used after the other two were false - Saddam was a tyrannical dictator and he had to be removed. Well this story has just been proven invalid as well.
 

Pokefan

Territorial Marshal
Aug 3, 2004
8,661
39
1,678
68
Between Pryor and Adair on Beautiful Lake Hudson
#18
So talking about football all day long is acceptable, but discussing something as irrelevant as our country means you need to get a life? That's the best you could come up with? Did it ever occur to you that maintaining your discussion here is only propagating what you wish would go away? Let me give you a little tip here - if you see a thread with a title on a subject you don't like, DON'T ENTER THE THREAD AND POST IN IT. It's a freaking message board, what do you expect?

And where are the rest of our neocon friends in response to the story that Kaje posted? It's typical that they either have nothing to say, resort to insults, or try to sidetrack away from the subject at hand.

But here's the thing about this topic, which is huge: There have been 3 reasons given for our occupation of Iraq - Link to 9/11 (Proven LIE), WMD's (Proven LIE), and the 3rd which they used after the other two were false - Saddam was a tyrannical dictator and he had to be removed. Well this story has just been proven invalid as well.
Minor correction Desertpoke, had to be removed by force. Apparently he was willing to leave. Price is always negotiable.
 

RoVerto Solo

Lifetime Ban
Banned
Feb 10, 2007
0
0
0
#19
Do you hate President Lincoln too for the civil war?
How is that relevant?
What does that have to do with it? Did Lincoln go to war causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people for oil or something? If so, yes, I hate him too.
There was no oil back then, but the North did not want the federal government to lose control of Southern resources.

Are there any US Presidents that put a member of our armed services in harms way that you don't hate?
bad example. You're comparing slavery in America to the intention of oil control.
Lincoln did not make the war a slavery issue until after the North's win at the Battle of Antietam in September 1862, when he freed the slaves in the South. Until then the war was about states rights and the control of economic resources.

Please remember that kaje's candidate does not believe that the American Civil War should have ever been fought over slavery. I was just wondering what wars kaje would have supported and why?
 

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
Nov 19, 2005
15,892
7,914
1,743
37
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
#20
The point was not this particular thread. All you do is post political stuff on here and the point was that you need a life. But if you want to get all liberal and defend your right to annoy the hell out of everyone then by all means, go for it.
So you entered my political thread that is posted on the miscellaneous forum that you did not have to enter, did not have to read, did not have to reply to and you're annoyed? Sounds like that's YOUR PROBLEM you ****ing moron.

So now expressing your opinion on something is "liberal." If that's the case, nice liberal response there! You're annoying me. You must be liberal. :rolleyes: