Saddam Singing Like a Canary- Information on Looted Funds

Can we get a refund on the Shrub's military adventurism?

Setanta- Not a bad idea at all............but I wouldn't hold my breath! :wink:

I'd suggest the United States have a cardiologist on site for Saddam. It sure would look bad if he had a heart attack and died any time soon.

Up to this moment, all this is just based on the article in "Al-Sharq Al-Awsat".

I would be glad, if others could confirm this as well, because I only can read Latin letters :wink:
link to today's Al-Sharq Al-Awsat

I can't make it out either, Walter, but it sure is a pretty set of characters, isn't it?

Geeze you guys, it reads from right to left . . .

if these looted funds could be poured back into Iraq....you mean poured back into Haliburton and Brown Root for the noble rebuilding of Iraq don't you? :wink:

Until there is some conformation from other sources I would not hang my hat on the reliability of the report.

Me neither. He could be LYING.

Gosh that GWB is a lucky guy...everytime he needs something to happen that will boost him in the polls....it does......I need to have him buy my lotto tickets....

Bi-Polar Bear
I do not think Bush needs any help to boost him in the polls. The Dwarfs vying for the democratic candidacy are all the help he needs.

Phoenix,

Don't hold your breath on WMDs. At some point the WMD believers will have to let go.

sigh....I reluctantly agree......Dragons everywhere and not a dragon slayer to be found.......nothing to do but try to fireproof the house.....

Craven- Well, whatever......I'm grateful for small favors. Whatever info that we can glean from that goon Saddam, has to be for the good.

Some peoples' reactions, IMO, are really funny. I was not even thinking in political terms. I was more interested how the knowledge would be helpful both to Iraq, and to assist in finishing up that damn war.

Well, if that isn't politics?

It always looks like dwarves are competing when it's this stage of a campaign against an incumbent president. Bush is hardly forbidding by contrast, nor was his father. Clinton was one of the dwarves running against him, if memory serves...

Yeah Walter, but I think that you know what I mean. I would hate any political party to use the information to make "points" for itself.

What the heck, the older that I get, the more I stay a Pollyanna!

If that's the case my reaction isn't political either Phoenix. It's just an opinion that those holding out on WMD evidence are doing so in vain to justify their earlier opinions and that this propagates ignorance.

Basically what I'm saying is that there will be no weaponized WMD evidence found. And that those who cling to the WMD story do so in error. And in an error on which a war was waged. For that reason I consider it important.

It's disheartening to see support for a war based on willful ignorance and I think that keeping the WMD story alive is to keep said ignorance alive.

The sooner people accept that they were wrong about their WMD suspicions the better. A nation was invaded based on that excuse and the adamant supporters of the war touted the fear. Now instead of admitting they were wrong they try to declare it to still be an "open issue".

I think that's willfully ignorant. Before the war you talked of Saddam's involvement in 9/11. You offered a bet with frolic saying that after the war information to support your opinion would surface.

Well, it hasn't surfaced, and it won't. My point is that touting false claims is bad enough, but you did so in support for an unprovoked invasion.

You had the gall to ask to bet on it (which frolic declined saying that after the Iraqis were killed you admitting error would be meaningless).

And now you continue to keep the WMD hope alive.

You can claim it's not "political" but that doesn't matter. What it is is a false casus beli and I happen to think a casus beli is a very grave issue.

I don't like to see willful disregard for facts. And when the "facts" are used to invade a nation I happen to think them of paramount importance.

You might not care that the arguments you touted for invading Iraq have not had a shred of evidence to support them. But I do.

I remember your support for the WMD issue. I remember you touting the story of the drones that were supposed to be able to launch attacks in 45 minutes. I remember you betting that after the war was over your position would be vindicated in regard to Saddam and 9/11.

What I have yet to see is any willingness to admit error, despite the support for invading a nation based on those errors. To me this is important, and it's not a political issue any more than invading a nation is.

It's not political and not personal. But as long as falsehoods are offered they should be challenged. And I'm challenging them. I think your positions on WMD, drones, and Saddam and 9/11 had no basis.

Despite the fact that not even the US administration believed the 9/11 connection you were thre to tout it. And a substantial number of Americans believed this, despite there not being evidence to support it.

I find such ignorance sad, and when it's touted I challenge it.

Jackpot!!
Bush and the boys got exactly what they were looking for. All the riches Iraq could give up, are now ripe for the taking. Money and oil and a military presence in the middle east.

What WMD?