is right.

hmm. only one post. greenlit 'n' everything. this is kind of big news, i think. what gives?

Never underestimate the US's ability and desire to play war.

submitter: Saddam Hussein pretended to have WMD

Wait... So, he pretended to have WMD by denying that he had WMD and allowing UN inspectors to search and find no evidence for WMD??

/my head asplode

FlashHarry: hmm. only one post. greenlit 'n' everything. this is kind of big news, i think. what gives?

Most people already knew this.

Fark needs a "No shiat, Sherlock!" tag.

He had WMD, The US has the receipts somewhere.

1. United States (FY08 budget), $623 billion
2. China (2004), $65 billion
3. Russia, $50 billion
4. France (2005), $45 billion
5. United Kingdom, $42.8 billion
6. Japan (2007), $41.75 billion
7. Germany (2003), $35.1 billion
8. Italy (2003), $28.2 billion
9. South Korea (2003), $21.1 billion
10. India (2005 est.), $19 billion

World total military expenditures (2004 est.), $1,100 billion
World total (minus the United States), $500 billion

Saddam actually sent an emissary to the US immediately before the invasion to explain that there were no WMD and that Hussein would leave if we would be willing to let him keep $1 million.


Think about that - $1 million dollars and no invasion. At all. And BushCo flatly refused. Sweet.

Shaggy_C: Saddam actually sent an emissary to the US immediately before the invasion to explain that there were no WMD and that Hussein would leave if we would be willing to let him keep $1 million.


Think about that - $1 million dollars and no invasion. At all. And BushCo flatly refused. Sweet.

In another day and age, half the administration would be swinging from trees for just a tiny bit of the shenanigans they've pulled over the last eight years.

Next time, I'd like to be around for the rise part of the empire, and not the fall part.

Interesting article, but hearsay doesn't constitute a reasonable argument.

As usual, another potshot at the Presidency. But this late in the game, I ask you liberals "why do you still do it?" You have reached the bottom of the barrel on this one.

We have a list of countries that harbor terror. We are dealing with them one by one. Iraq's number came up, we acted. Thanks to the ever-annoying politically-correct liberal fascism, it's useless to point out any more that Bush could not approach the nation with this simple truth.

Bush was driven to push the WMD scenario, and of course liberals miss the point that it wasn't what Saddam supposedly had, but his longterm goal of attacking US interests.

Shaggy_C: Think about that - $1 million dollars and no invasion. At all. And BushCo flatly refused. Sweet.

Hadn't heard this. Source? That's just disturbing.

skookum: Interesting article, but hearsay doesn't constitute a reasonable argument.

As usual, another potshot at the Presidency. But this late in the game, I ask you liberals "why do you still do it?" You have reached the bottom of the barrel on this one.

We have a list of countries that harbor terror. We are dealing with them one by one. Iraq's number came up, we acted. Thanks to the ever-annoying politically-correct liberal fascism, it's useless to point out any more that Bush could not approach the nation with this simple truth.

Bush was driven to push the WMD scenario, and of course liberals miss the point that it wasn't what Saddam supposedly had, but his longterm goal of attacking US interests.

Try harder. That troll is struggling to reach a 2. Fark par is a 6-7. Maybe try Myspace for some practice?

Saddam destroyed his mostly useless so-called WMD shortly after the Gulf War. He did this for two reasons. One, because the shiat was largely useless in a war type setting and was worse than useless against a modern army with planes and bombs and such. Secondly, because he wanted to get sanctions lifted after which he would have, no doubt, eventually gone back to pursuing a real WMD scenario ie Nukes but that would have taken a very long time indeed. He was certainly by no stretch of the imagination a clear and present danger to America or her allies.

BushCo wanted to invade Iraq before they started moving Cheney's man-sized safe into the WH in Jan 2001. PNAC had it on the books before the freaking 2000 election and tries selling the plan to Clinton while he was still POTUS.

Both the UK and the US knew that Saddam had secretly destroyed his so called WMD and were afraid that sanctions were actually gonna be lifted. The reason the inspectors were not allowed to finish their jobs was because they knew they would find nothing.

If this FBI report is trying to assert the whole "Bad Intelligence" bullshiat once again it's off the mark by a long shot.

They KNEW. Cheney, Bush, Blair ALL KNEW.

Urged on by Exxon and BP and their PNACkleheaded fantasy of extending the american reich for a hundred years they invaded hoping to find enuff buried WMD that they would be able to justify their pre-emptive war.

They didn't. Oops! "Who could have imagined?" Bushiat!

Saddam was a paranoic ar*ehole of a Dictator and he wasn't particularily bright. He shoulda made a big farkin' deal out of his destruction of the useless WMD, invited the international press corp and offered them all drinks and hors doevres. Posted that shiat on Youtube if neccessary.

But instead he did it secretly and hoped the weapons inspectors would confirm the fact in short order. The US threw a fly in his oointment by piggybacking electronic spying equipment on top of the inspectors equipment in such an obvious manner he was bound to spot it and then when he complained and started imposing conditions the US sed he was covering up and not fully disclosing or cooperating.

Bottom line? Anyone who thinks the US didn't know that Saddam didn't have WMD is purely Not. Payin'. Attention.

sarcastrophe: Hadn't heard this. Source? That's just disturbing.

Err, I lied, it was ONE BILLION DOLLARS
(Dr Evil pops you the link)

But yet thousands of lives and trillions of dollars later still no accountabilty for Bush/Cheney. The American people deserve what they get.

fallingcow: Try harder. That troll is struggling to reach a 2. Fark par is a 6-7. Maybe try Myspace for some practice?

This is not amusing. I've really about had it with you liberals' jeering ignorance of this situation.

Saddam's goal was to attack Israel, and eventually detonate a nuclear weapon in the region and very likely towards this country.

What you have is nothing. No evidence that Bush "lied" that he's some sort of "Nazi," NOTHING. And to your horror, you will not only see another Republican in office this next November, but may you also live to see just how President Bush will be recognized among our finest leaders of this country. No thanks to your cynical irreverence, I assure you your opinion won't matter then.

Shaggy_C: sarcastrophe: Hadn't heard this. Source? That's just disturbing.

Err, I lied, it was ONE BILLION DOLLARS
(Dr Evil pops you the link)

Damn... that's messed up. Not that I'm surprised... but damn.

sarcastrophe: Shaggy_C: sarcastrophe: Hadn't heard this. Source? That's just disturbing.

Err, I lied, it was ONE BILLION DOLLARS
(Dr Evil pops you the link)

Damn... that's messed up. Not that I'm surprised... but damn.

I'm surprised more people don't know about that one. I remember it from news reporting before the war. At the time, it sounded silly, but in hindsight, taking him up on the offer might not have been a horrible idea.

The FBI guy is lying. The administration *still* needs to cover their ass after invading on false pretenses, so they are BLAMING SADDAM for being invaded! this is farking hilarious!!!

He did not "continue to let Bush say he had WMD". How could he have stopped Bush from saying that? Instead, he said publicly many times that he did not have WMD and that they were complying with the UN. He said so on a CBS interview, and his spokesman Tariq Aziz said so many times.

This is yet another Bush bullshiat lie, the kind we've come to expect every time he opens his yokel mouth.

skookum: fallingcow: Try harder. That troll is struggling to reach a 2. Fark par is a 6-7. Maybe try Myspace for some practice?

This is not amusing. I've really about had it with you liberals' jeering ignorance of this situation.

Saddam's goal was to attack Israel, and eventually detonate a nuclear weapon in the region and very likely towards this country.

What you have is nothing. No evidence that Bush "lied" that he's some sort of "Nazi," NOTHING. And to your horror, you will not only see another Republican in office this next November, but may you also live to see just how President Bush will be recognized among our finest leaders of this country. No thanks to your cynical irreverence, I assure you your opinion won't matter then.

1.7

Seriously, fallingcow gave you some good advice. You may be able to get some good practice in the youtube comments as well.

President Bush will be recognized among our finest leaders of this country. No thanks to your cynical irreverence, I assure you your opinion won't matter then.

I lol'd. Thanks for the joke, but warn me next time so I don't spit wine over my monitor again.

pocketrubbish: Seriously, fallingcow gave you some good advice. You may be able to get some good practice in the youtube comments as well.

You wouldn't know the truth if it struck you blind. Comments like your are why re-education camps may prove necessary.

Keep laughing, liberals. Malign this policy while you still have a chance and before your wry immature posturing is finally called what it is: ultimately aiding our enemies.

skookum: This is not amusing.

Is so.

skookum: pocketrubbish: Seriously, fallingcow gave you some good advice. You may be able to get some good practice in the youtube comments as well.

You wouldn't know the truth if it struck you blind. Comments like your are why re-education camps may prove necessary.

Keep laughing, liberals. Malign this policy while you still have a chance and before your wry immature posturing is finally called what it is: ultimately aiding our enemies.

Are you the creator of Hi and Lois?

FAIL. More likely, Sadaam was told by his minions that he had an excellent WMD program that would incinerate the crusaders. Why? Because he would likely have executed anyone telling him the truth.

Y'know, it's threads like this that keep Skookum off of ignore. There's little corn-nuggets of comedy in that endless flow of shiat he spins.

skookum: pocketrubbish: Seriously, fallingcow gave you some good advice. You may be able to get some good practice in the youtube comments as well.

You wouldn't know the truth if it struck you blind. Comments like your are why re-education camps may prove necessary.

Keep laughing, liberals. Malign this policy while you still have a chance and before your wry immature posturing is finally called what it is: ultimately aiding our enemies.

0/10

/conservative

Brandish a cap gun in front of cop and expect to get shot.

skookum: fallingcow: Try harder. That troll is struggling to reach a 2. Fark par is a 6-7. Maybe try Myspace for some practice?

This is not amusing. I've really about had it with you liberals' jeering ignorance of this situation.

Saddam's goal was to attack Israel, and eventually detonate a nuclear weapon in the region and very likely towards this country.

What you have is nothing. No evidence that Bush "lied" that he's some sort of "Nazi," NOTHING. And to your horror, you will not only see another Republican in office this next November, but may you also live to see just how President Bush will be recognized among our finest leaders of this country. No thanks to your cynical irreverence, I assure you your opinion won't matter then.

Um.... shouldn't Bush be the one who has to provide evidence to back up his claims? Or do we just take his every word at face value? Seems like the burden of truth should be on him.

Actually, there's nothing "funny" about watching liberals circle this Presiidency and using places like Fark to anonymously do the work of our enemies.

You've had five years to make peace with the Iraqi Invasion/Occupation, it's time to stop moping with your half-hearted threats of "impeachment" and other embarrassing graspings at straws as is so typical of the liberal "movement."

Bush won this round, libs. And you don't get a second chance. Very likely your next President will be Romney and rest assured this policy will continue.

No more "Bush Lied" nonsense, please. Stop. It's time to get on with this country. Yes, we very well could put some of you in camps if it's deemed necessary. It all rests with you. Are you going to finally SHUT UP in the next eight years and stop making such fools of yourselves with your eco-hippie nonsense (see: Global Warming) or are you finally going to take your place in this country and apply what's taught to you. Again, this is your choice. No more "0/10" no more insulting invitations to chat with teenagers. Thank you.

USP .45: Brandish a cap gun in front of cop and expect to get shot.

That's a brilliant premise for foreign policy. You must be a political scientist.

glaurunge

Um.... shouldn't Bush be the one who has to provide evidence to back up his claims? Or do we just take his every word at face value? Seems like the burden of truth should be on him.

Not that I agree with Skookum but if you think Bush lied then you have to provide proof that he did. What makes this kind of tough for you is that not everyone is being willfully ignorant of what the Democrats were saying about Saddam having or building WMDs for around a decade prior to Bush taking office.

See if you want to argue that Bush mismanaged the occupation horribly then I'd agree with you. If you want to argue that the intel that said he had the WMDs was bad I'd agree with you. If you want to argue that Bush was the first person to suggest Saddam was a threat because of WMDs well then I'd have to have you look at some quotes by the Clintons, Albright, Gore, Berger, etc from the 1990s.

skookum: Fark to anonymously do the work of our enemies

It's not entirely anonymous. How else would we be able to cash our 'mock the president' checks from the A-rabs?

Brubold: glaurunge

Um.... shouldn't Bush be the one who has to provide evidence to back up his claims? Or do we just take his every word at face value? Seems like the burden of truth should be on him.

Not that I agree with Skookum but if you think Bush lied then you have to provide proof that he did. What makes this kind of tough for you is that not everyone is being willfully ignorant of what the Democrats were saying about Saddam having or building WMDs for around a decade prior to Bush taking office.

See if you want to argue that Bush mismanaged the occupation horribly then I'd agree with you. If you want to argue that the intel that said he had the WMDs was bad I'd agree with you. If you want to argue that Bush was the first person to suggest Saddam was a threat because of WMDs well then I'd have to have you look at some quotes by the Clintons, Albright, Gore, Berger, etc from the 1990s.

Bush went farther than merely harboring suspicions about Iraq, which I think is the case with those you just mentioned. Also his lies didn't stop at WMD. They also included allegations that Iraq was in cahoots with al-Qaida and also responcible for 9/11.

You even have someone like Undersecretary of State for Policy, Douglass Feith setting up his own "intelligence agency" inside the Pentagon, for which he was later repremanded by the the DOD inspector General.

If you want more specifics, just to name the most obvious.

1) The so-called aluminum tubes.

2) Curveball and his alleged mobile biological weapons labs.

3) The whole Nigerian yellow cake scandal. Which by the way was removed from TWO presidential speechs for lack of solid evidence, before it was finally included in the 2003 State of the Union.

Saddam did the equivilent of calling a cop a "pig," giving him the finger and threatening him with a gun. Cop shoots him. Bystanders: "The gun was fake." Cop: Meh

Brown Jenkems: USP .45: Brandish a cap gun in front of cop and expect to get shot.

That's a brilliant premise for foreign policy. You must be a political scientist.

Yes, and your brilliant premise would be to create the appearance of WMDs and not expect anything to happen internationally. You must be a Clinton appointee.

skookum: Actually, there's nothing "funny" about watching liberals circle this Presiidency and using places like Fark to anonymously do the work of our enemies.

You've had five years to make peace with the Iraqi Invasion/Occupation, it's time to stop moping with your half-hearted threats of "impeachment" and other embarrassing graspings at straws as is so typical of the liberal "movement."

Bush won this round, libs. And you don't get a second chance. Very likely your next President will be Romney and rest assured this policy will continue.

No more "Bush Lied" nonsense, please. Stop. It's time to get on with this country. Yes, we very well could put some of you in camps if it's deemed necessary. It all rests with you. Are you going to finally SHUT UP in the next eight years and stop making such fools of yourselves with your eco-hippie nonsense (see: Global Warming) or are you finally going to take your place in this country and apply what's taught to you. Again, this is your choice. No more "0/10" no more insulting invitations to chat with teenagers. Thank you.

Okay I'll bite since I gave you the pretty 0/10.

I gave you that "fail" troll rating for acting like you really believe what you are writing on Fark, since I know no American, let alone any conservative or liberal, who truly would support putting their political opponents in "camps."

Sure, the shriller lefties here tell people like me to suck on a shotgun damn near every day here, but I am pretty sure that's just the hyperbole they use to make up for their inability to think.

In sum, I see you as part of the very idiots here you claim to be attacking when you make comments like this. You sure as hell are not what your profile claims.

USP .45: Brown Jenkems: USP .45: Brandish a cap gun in front of cop and expect to get shot.

That's a brilliant premise for foreign policy. You must be a political scientist.

Yes, and your brilliant premise would be to create the appearance of WMDs and not expect anything to happen internationally. You must be a Clinton appointee.

That doesn't even make sense. What brilliant premise? I didn't offer a basis for foreign policy. I mocked your lame analogy. Go back to reading your Internet Tough Guy magazine and "cleaning your piece."

Bush (& Co.) had plans to invade Iraq before he even got (marginally) elected in 2000, well before 9/11. (Which is another tip off that 9/11 was a false flag operation.)

ps: why is this information coming out so late after-the-facts? Wasn't he hanged a full year ago? Why was this information sat on until this election season started rolling?

I said it before in another thread here yesterday, Saddam's top scientific advisors were so 'shiatting their pants' afraid of him that they actively lied to him (Saddam) telling him they were making progress on their nuclear/chemical weapons advances, when really they were scared out of their minds that he'd kill them if they told him the truth, that they weren't about to go against the UN sanctions against Iraq.

They were looking to jump ship and come to the US to testify as witnesses that he had no WMDs, but of course the US didn't want to hear it, they needed that excuse to invade. (Of course, they'd be hard pressed to be believable, one can expect anyone would be willing to defect from Iraq to the US just to get out of Iraq, doesn't make what they say any more believable.)

The GOP fearmongering machine is trying to spin some more lies about the possible threat of WMDs from Iraq. (And Santorum wants his job on the senate back, damnit!)

It's been published, I suggest you look it up, I'm not going to do it for you.

/hmmmm

According to Piro, Hussein had no "weapons of mass destruction," but wanted his public image to be that of strength, so he let the Bush Administration continue saying he had them.

Yeah, else he would have held Bush's mouth shut.

And the public denials and Hans Blix and his inspection teams must have sprung forth from the confines of my feverish mind.

Go on America, lap it up.

ffs can you clowns not just admit that you've been run by crooks the last 7 years instead of coming up with this tinfoil hat shi'ite???

The Bush administration bent the truth, robbed you and straight out lied to you so many times and your still defending them. How come the rest of the world sees your government like it is and America lives in total denial? It's like creationism, totally incredible to the rest of the world outside a few tribes but in the States it's still a topic in serious debate.
Whatever crap those gangsters showed Powell will probably remain under lock and key for the next 50 years and by then there'll be a Neo Neo Conservative party pushing a new set of bullshiat and denying their past. Don't you get bored of this?

If some govt. in France pulled this shiat the French would bring the country to it's knees and those responsible would be publically flogged but in America theres effectivly two countries and 2000 different types of secret services, police and miltary branches holding it together so noone does a thing.

Gregory F. Stuart: I want America to fail

I just stumbled across this story: http://www.newstarget.com/022528.html and I suggest you (all) read it.

/yes, it pops to new tab

Shaggy_C:

Saddam actually sent an emissary to the US immediately before the invasion to explain that there were no WMD and that Hussein would leave if we would be willing to let him keep $1 million.

Think about that - $1 million dollars and no invasion. At all. And BushCo flatly refused. Sweet.

This is something that has always confused me. One month before the war, Saddam apparently offered to step down and go into exile from Iraq:

Saddam Hussein offered to step down and go into exile one month before the invasion of Iraq, it was claimed last night.

Fearing defeat, Saddam was prepared to go peacefully in return for £500million ($1billion).

The extraordinary offer was revealed yesterday in a transcript of talks in February 2003 between George Bush and the then Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar at the President's Texas ranch. - Daily Mail

Then, days before the war Bush made a similar offer back to Saddam, who apparently refused:

United States President George W Bush is to make a televised address at 0100 GMT on Tuesday to issue Saddam Hussein with a final ultimatum, following the collapse of diplomatic efforts to resolve the Iraq crisis.

Mr Bush will warn the Iraqi leader that he has just 48 hours to go into exile or face war, Republican Senator John Warner said after Mr Bush had briefed congressional leaders.

The 48-hour deadline was confirmed by US administration officials. - BBC

What gives? It looks to me like a total diplomatic failure; maybe if the offer for Saddam to step down voluntarily and go into exile had been given sooner, and not in the form of a publicly embarassing 48hr ultimatum, war could've been avoided.

"What he wanted to really illustrate is...how he was able to outsmart us."

Which Saddam ultimately did - we were forced to spend $1 trillion and counting.

And we got nothing else out of occupying Iraq.

Good jorb Bush!

jackc126: In sum, I see you as part of the very idiots here you claim to be attacking when you make comments like this. You sure as hell are not what your profile claims.

No, he's the troll who cannot be killed. Not even with acid arrows.

a. I've got a lot of faith in this article. An easy factual mistake in sentence 1 - the invasion was March 2003, not 2002.

b. Everyone has disregarded paragraph 2. Maybe if it weren't for Clinton's impotent 1998 punitive attack, Hussein would have been more wary of our power.

c. You'd let Hussein relocate to Syria, or the like, with $1 billion dollars... you might as well make the check payable to 'Terrorist Jihad'. So now you have two problems - a third state protected Saddam and a billion for training/equipping the 'Religion of Peace'

quatchi:

Troll.

phillydrifter: I said it before in another thread here yesterday, Saddam's top scientific advisors were so 'shiatting their pants' afraid of him that they actively lied to him (Saddam) telling him they were making progress on their nuclear/chemical weapons advances, when really they were scared out of their minds that he'd kill them if they told him the truth, that they weren't about to go against the UN sanctions against Iraq.

Then these are the people responsible for the war in Iraq. Oh yeah, American intelligence agencies should have been able to know what was going on even more so than Saddam.

/farking ridiculous

Link (new window)

Maybe he knew we were coming?