FBI notes on Saddan Hussein

A good read about Hussein. the most telling was this

"The documents also confirm previous reports that Saddam falsely allowed the world to believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction— the main U.S. rationale behind the war — because he feared revealing his weakness to Iran, the hostile neighbor he considered a bigger threat than the U.S."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090702/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_saddam_fbi_interviews

But..but...teh Bush made that all up!!! :o

You really never know what is true in this world.

What's true is that Saddam wasa peaceful, benevolent man who only cared about others. His goal in life was the welfare of his people and making the world a better place. I believe he may be up for sainthood. The world agonizes at his loss.

But..but...teh Bush made that all up!!! :o

Pirate700

I never believed Bush went to war for oil, but a genuine concern that Iraq had dangerous WMD's.

Maybe I'm naive but I think US Presidents usually have the best intentions, especially on important national security issues. I may not always agree with them, but I do think they honestly look out for the best interests of their country.

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

But..but...teh Bush made that all up!!! :o

majwill24

I never believed Bush went to war for oil, but a genuine concern that Iraq had dangerous WMD's.

Maybe I'm naive but I think US Presidents usually have the best intentions, especially on important national security issues. I may not always agree with them, but I do think they honestly look out for the best interests of their country.

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

But..but...teh Bush made that all up!!! :o

majwill24

I never believed Bush went to war for oil, but a genuine concern that Iraq had dangerous WMD's.

Maybe I'm naive but I think US Presidents usually have the best intentions, especially on important national security issues. I may not always agree with them, but I do think they honestly look out for the best interests of their country.

I'm so tired of even disucssing Bush over and over and over again, so here is a copy-pasted excerpt from an article for all of the inevitable Bush apologists:

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

And that came up at this first meeting, says O'Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, 'Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.

He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.

"It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions," says Suskind. "On oil in Iraq."

During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."

"The thing that's most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said 'X' during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing 'Y,'" says Suskind. "Not just saying 'Y,' but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election."

Clearly, the Illuminati planted the documents. Or the jews.

One of the two. I mean, its so obvious. There's tons of evidence right there. Clearly an attempt at stifling the growing public interest in the New World Order, which somehow makes huge mistakes college kids can point out, but allude everyone else because they're also deadly efficient at conspiracy while also being inept enough to allow our discovery of their grand master plans.

I'm so tired of even disucssing Bush over and over and over again, so here is a copy-pasted excerpt from an article for all of the inevitable Bush apologists:

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

And that came up at this first meeting, says O'Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, 'Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.

He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.

"It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions," says Suskind. "On oil in Iraq."

During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."

"The thing that's most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said 'X' during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing 'Y,'" says Suskind. "Not just saying 'Y,' but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election."

SpaceMoose

Interesting, so Bush was a decent President after all. Kind of a less sophisticated version of 24's Charles Logan?

[QUOTE="SpaceMoose"]

I'm so tired of even disucssing Bush over and over and over again, so here is a copy-pasted excerpt from an article for all of the inevitable Bush apologists:

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

And that came up at this first meeting, says O'Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, 'Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.

He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.

"It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions," says Suskind. "On oil in Iraq."

During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."

"The thing that's most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said 'X' during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing 'Y,'" says Suskind. "Not just saying 'Y,' but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election."

majwill24

Interesting, so Bush was a decent President after all. Kind of a less sophisticated version of 24's Charles Logan?

Ha ha, weapons of mass destruction the main rationale for the U.S. going into Iraq. That's a good one.