1 posted on
11/05/2003 6:21:33 PM PST by
Brian S
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40 next last
To: Brian S
...and the liberals will try to use this how..?
2 posted on
11/05/2003 6:22:32 PM PST by
GeronL
(Visit www.geocities.com/geronl)
To: Brian S
Bummer.... ;)
To: Brian S
Perle's 15 minutes of fame are up. he needs to go away now.
4 posted on
11/05/2003 6:25:05 PM PST by
oceanview
To: Brian S
...the Pentagon received a secret message from a Lebanese-American businessman: Saddam Hussein wanted to make a deal. I don't know who this "Lebanese-American businessman" is...but I know he now understands we do not negotiate with terrorists.
I hope he passes this message on....
To: Brian S
If this is true, Saddam could have made his case in any liberal American newspaper or the odious UN. Any one of them would have jumped at the chance to step in front of our tanks to be the hero.
6 posted on
11/05/2003 6:27:39 PM PST by
SJSAMPLE
To: Brian S
Ah yes, another completely unverifiable "The War Could Have Been Avoided" story.
I'll put this tall tale in my 'Revisionist History' file, along with the story that the Japanese surrendered after the first atomic bomb, but the mean old bloodthirsty Americans just couldn't stop themselves from killing more Japanese babies. Gag.
7 posted on
11/05/2003 6:29:58 PM PST by
Skwidd
(Fire Controlman First Class Extraordinaire)
To: Brian S
Oh sure, the whole, "Let's meet in Beirut to talk it over" routine. Right.
To: Brian S
I remember this was reported, and ignored for its transparency, as it happened.
Ho hum.
NYT: this all ya got?
9 posted on
11/05/2003 6:30:54 PM PST by
moodyskeptic
(weekend warrior in the culture war)
To: Brian S
They also offered to hand over a man accused of being involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing who was being held in Baghdad. Impossible. There were no terrorists in Iraq, let alone any who were connected to the bombing attempts on the WTC. The left has told us this repeatedly.
10 posted on
11/05/2003 6:30:58 PM PST by
weegee
To: Brian S
"Mr. Hage said that when he told Mr. Obeidi that the United States seemed adamant about forcing Saddam Hussein to give up power, Mr. Obeidi bristled, saying that would be capitulation. But later, Mr. Hage recounted, Mr. Obeidi said that Iraq could agree to hold elections within the next two years."ROFLMAO, Mr. Obeide sounds more like Baghdad Bob.
This is such garbage that I'm surprised it's in print. I don't doubt the story at all, it worked very well for them for through the 1990's to the "Peace at any price" crowd. But after 9/11 the bullsh*t games were over.
If the Liberals think this is some kind of big story, they need to take the Crack Pipe out of their mouth
12 posted on
11/05/2003 6:33:02 PM PST by
MJY1288
(This is your tagline "Bush/Cheney04", this is your tagline on drugs "AnyOtherChoice/04")
To: Brian S
Mr. Perle said he found it "puzzling" that the Iraqis would use such a complicated series of contacts to communicate "a quite astonishing proposal" to the Bush administration. But former American intelligence officials with extensive experience in the Middle East say that many Arab leaders like Mr. Hussein have traditionally placed a high value on back channels communications, failing to understand that such informal arrangements are considered suspect in Washington.
Of course if Mr. Hussein really wanted to come clean he could have done so when Dan Rather came to visit.
13 posted on
11/05/2003 6:33:26 PM PST by
weegee
To: Brian S
No meetings took place, and the invasion began on March 20. Mr. Hage, speaking in Beirut, wonders what might have happened if the Americans had pursued the back channel to Baghdad. "At least they could have talked to them," he said. blah blah blah. saddam knew the risks. He brought his ticket. He knew what he was getting into. I say, let him crash!
17 posted on
11/05/2003 6:37:41 PM PST by
new cruelty
(Okay boys, lets get some pictures.)
To: Brian S
This reads like the script for another Mini Series, that CBS may be considering.
18 posted on
11/05/2003 6:38:13 PM PST by
F.J. Mitchell
(If you seen yourself as other people do, you'd laugh too.)
To: Brian S
Even if this guy is telling the truth, I doubt it was Saddam himself that wanted to broker peace. He could have easily done so secretly through more diplomatic channels. He had a U.N. ambassador in New York.
It sounds more like some Saddam official had a brief moment of clarity and tried to stop the war on his own.
20 posted on
11/05/2003 6:40:24 PM PST by
Toskrin
To: Brian S
And we know how Saddam Hussein is (was) a man of his word.
22 posted on
11/05/2003 6:42:18 PM PST by
pfflier
To: Brian S
Uh...Saddam did hold elections, remember? Got purt near 99.9% of the votes, too. Popular fellow.
To: Brian S
Calling for the BS meter.
25 posted on
11/05/2003 6:43:15 PM PST by
boomop1
To: Brian S
Mr. Perle said he found it "puzzling" that the Iraqis would use such a complicated series of contacts to communicate "a quite astonishing proposal" to the Bush administration. Of course he found it "puzzling". I don't believe those people are capable of doing anything straightforwardly.
26 posted on
11/05/2003 6:43:34 PM PST by
wimpycat
To: Brian S
This whole thing sounds like what Schellenberg pulled off right before WW2, he captured an English agent and a Belgian. Claimed the Germans wanted to prevent a war.
29 posted on
11/05/2003 6:51:14 PM PST by
sticker
To: Brian S
Iraq made tens, hundreds of "appeals."
France said no to enforcement.
30 posted on
11/05/2003 6:52:30 PM PST by
Shermy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson