Take backs

[Chris P.]

... well, a little. See Saddam targeted Bush, Rumsfeld daughters

After all I've said in the past about Bush and Rumsfeld, my feelings change a bit knowing their immediate family and children were directly involved. That's heavy shit. I suppose one could argue it goes with the territory, but it shouldn't have to.

 

[Jim Craik]

Chris,

Having one's children targeted would upset anyone, and be a cause for great concern.

That said, as I understand, Mr Rumsfeld heard about this threat in an October 2003 meeting. By that time virtually all of Iraq had been captured/freed and Saddam was on the run. His capture took place Dec 13, 2003.

I'm guessing that this threat was made sometime after the July 22, 2003 deaths of his two sons and grandson (the sons were very nasty folks who had it coming). Mr Bush & Mr Rumsfeld had to be aware that by that time Sadam had virtualy no power, little communications and was hiding in caves.

Chris, considering all that went on during the war and it's aftermath, I would not feel too bad for Mr Rumsfeld.

Chris, I am very supprised that you are getting info from Breitbart! I hope that you have not gone over to the dark side

 

[Chris P.]

Haha - I actually like to check the Drudge Report a few times a day, mainly because he is so off to the right it's more of a "what the hell does Drudge have to say NOW?" kind of thing. That's where I found this link. Drudge loves to exaggerate his headlines from a right wing perspective which is very annoying, but oh well. In a dry way it's kind of entertaining.

I'm not saying I agree a little more now about going to war with Saddam. I don't. I still believe that was something that entire group had wanted to do since the first Gulf War and this was their golden opportunity and enough people bought it. The WMD bulls**t was exactly that and they knew it; they were just able to hide behind a piss poor excuse for information (which they also knew was piss poor - if not they're dumb as a door knob.)

 

[Jim Craik]

Thanks Chris,

I sometimes do the same with the local "hate talk" radio station, just to see how they spin the most recent outrage.

I guess I can not critisize them for their headline exagerations, after my "Supreme Court Justice Paid off" headline.

I just hate hypocracy!

 

[Graham]

Haha - I actually like to check the Drudge Report a few times a day, mainly because he is so off to the right it's more of a "what the hell does Drudge have to say NOW?" kind of thing. That's where I found this link. Drudge loves to exaggerate his headlines from a right wing perspective which is very annoying, but oh well. In a dry way it's kind of entertaining.

I'm not saying I agree a little more now about going to war with Saddam. I don't. I still believe that was something that entire group had wanted to do since the first Gulf War and this was their golden opportunity and enough people bought it. The WMD bulls**t was exactly that and they knew it; they were just able to hide behind a piss poor excuse for information (which they also knew was piss poor - if not they're dumb as a door knob.)

Chris,

Totally agree with you. there was a defining moment when the whole WMD thing over here turned into high farce, when Tony Bliar subtely changed his tune from "we will find WMD's" to "We will find evidence of the existence of WMD's".... a not so subtle sea change which left me flabberghasted....

 

[Pat Buckley]

Hyopcracy is a really fast form of governing.....FYI

 

[Jim Craik]

The WMD bulls**t was exactly that and they knew it; they were just able to hide behind a piss poor excuse for information (which they also knew was piss poor - if not they're dumb as a door knob.)<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

Part of a post by ChrisP

Chris,

Have you considered the possability that they could not only hide behind a "piss poor excuse for information" and be "dumb as a door knob"?

 

[Randy V]

Threats on the family are not new by any stretch of the imagination.. This is not only in politics but in business as well as everyday life ((unfortunately))..

Frankly - I think the WMD probably did exist at one point in time, but were dismantled and buried in the sand or otherwise disbursed..

Was intelligence gathered done in error or exagerated? Possibly.. But I won't go to the extreme to say that it was all bad..

 

[Chris P.]

Was intelligence gathered done in error or exagerated? Possibly.. But I won't go to the extreme to say that it was all bad..

I know I can very well be completely wrong, but I'm in my mind I have no doubt that they already had it in their heads to go after Saddam (well, actually, they DID, but the first Bush wouldn't let them) and needed an excuse. Remember, we based this war on a tiny bit of info from a very unreliable source. Did they know how unreliable he was? Are you kidding me? They knew.

 

[Cliff Beer]

I don't get the whole WMD debate. So what if it turned out that WMD were not discovered there? Given the history of Saddam Hussein, just simply the POSSIBILITY that he might possess them justifies taking aggressive action. His decision to forceably eject the UN observers, and thereby eliminate the ability to monitor and gauge the possibility of WMD presence, sealed his fate. History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. Sorry for the thread drift.

As far as children being targeted, that goes hand in hand with being a senior politician. Got to think ahead and make the proper choice for oneself (and ones family) before deciding to jump into the political arena. Make the wrong choice and it's you that'll ultimately be held responsible, not the crazy who is the one actually commits the violent act.