According to the following article, A former political adviser to Saddam Hussein's son said yesterday that Saddam was willing to yield to all American demands to reach a peaceful resolution before the U.S. invasion of Iraq -- but that the Bush administration refused his offers.
See
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/061030/nym224.html?.v=44

He probably was; it wouldn't surprise me it was turned down. Nothing in DC surprises me anymore.

Bush refused to speak with Saddam, along the same lines of the Clinton administration refusing to take out Bin Laden....

Bush I didn't want to continue into Baghdad during GWI....

__________________
"A committee is a group of people who individually can do nothing but together can decide that nothing can be done."
Fred Allen

"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."
George Bernard Shaw

"Politics is the art of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable."
John Galbraith


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Bush had an agenda. It was not to just get rid of Saddam.He was ready to step out.Bush wanted shock and awe.He wanted to Bring it on.He wanted to be a war president.

Well he had a war worth fighting in Afganistan I am I the only one that remebers that???? Republicans???

agree hawk!! even there our approach on terror is all wrong!! but I somewhat doubt saddam would have been willing to comply. Who cares this is one of those ex post facto things anyways

Number the source is sighted as "Rights and Freedom Internationa"

I can not find one thing about this organization.


I was going to say propoganda and leave it at that but i had to check on it. But now this can officially be labeled propoganda

And here you are you mindless drones listing to what a no name organization. Has to say 5 days before an election. Rights and Freedom Internationa most like is a left wing fly by night operation. Most likely funded By george Soros. I won be able to check where there located and where there money comes from till i get into the office tommorw. But this will probably lead back to one of many fronts for george soro's

In the six months prior to sadams migration into a hole in the ground, he refused and thwarted UN regulated inspections since 1997, broke UN sanctions, cheated the fool for oil deal, rewarded suicide bombers and threantened neighboring countries (kuwait in particular) if they backed US military enforcement...sadam dared America to act.
These actions by a thugish fundamentalist dictator as sadam doesn't imply he was willing to yield to UN or US demands.
Does anybody recall the Bush/sadam televised meeting?
NAH...democarps can't remember because they're retarded.
Wipe that drool off your chins and recall that meeting ladies and gentlemen, it was sadams "official" appeal to stand against all UN sanctions.
Sanctions which he signed upon agreement.
Sanctions which he signed and swore he would abide.
Sanctions he broke and mocked while he far from intended any yielding to humanity and leadership protocol.
This thread is a friggin' joke, Gix...no need to search the blog, the first statement was the punchline.

__________________

"The world is a fine place and worth fighting for" Ernest Hemingway

"The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant, that few stood against many" Spartan King Leonidas

The Saddam broke UN sanctions reason for going to war isn't enough. If that is enough then we have to apply that standard to nations like N. Korea and Iran. They are arguably more dangerous than Iraq ever was.

one thing at a time. We are almost done in two countries. Two more to go and then we can take lunch.