Posted on 04/29/2006 5:41:26 PM PDT by jmc1969
In the months leading up to the Iraq war, Saddam Hussein did try to cooperate with United Nations inspectors, a decision that, paradoxically, helped convince the West that he was hiding weapons of mass destruction.
By late 2002, Saddam finally tilted toward trying to persuade the international community that Iraq was cooperating with the inspectors of Unscom (the United Nations Special Commission) and that it no longer had W.M.D. programs. Saddam was insistent that Iraq would give full access to United Nations inspectors "in order not to give President Bush any excuses to start a war."
Ironically, it now appears that some of the actions resulting from Saddam's new policy of cooperation actually helped solidify the coalition's case for war.
What was meant to prevent suspicion thus ended up heightening it. The tidbit about removing the term "nerve agents" from radio instructions was prominently cited as an example of Iraqi bad faith by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell in his Feb. 5, 2003, statement to the United Nations.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
It's always so sad when a murderous butchering dictator gets misunderstood.
ROTFLMAO.......LOL....hahahahahahaha.... ahhhhhh, LOL.....those paper reporters, they are a hoot.
THIS IS TOO FUNNY!!!!!!
I'm remembering that song from the 1970's, "OH, LORD, PLEASE DON'T LET ME BE MISUNDERSTOOD!"
"In the months leading up to the Iraq war, Saddam Hussein did try to cooperate with United Nations inspectors"
Bull. He was just stringing them along. This was just the latest in a pattern of attempts to stall action by the UN.
I don't believe a single word the Times says on this subject.
Leave it to the NYTimes to come to the aide of Saddam! Unbelievable.
The NYT.....Batboy Central...
"1970's"
60's. The Animals.
And yet, to the troglodytic numbnut retards at the Slimes, Bush is a BAD, BAD, BAD, BAD, BAD man !
This is just too funny!
It's impossible to be offended by something that's so ludicrous.
FMCDH(BITS)
Gosh, even Hans Blix was complaining about Saddam's restrictions.
More NYTimes revisionism.
Eric Burdon and the Animals. Good stuff at the time. Yes, I'm old too.
FMCDH(BITS)
I'm so woneweyyyyyy!!!
The New York Times is attempting to revise history... It isn't enough to just attack the President; they have to justify their attacks by making it look like history was different than it actually was. They need to make the Iraq war look like an unnecessary war. If they can’t do that, then in the end Bush was right to invade and all of their pathetic reporting turns out to be just a bunch of crap.
Poor guy. I mean, except for the gassings and the genocide and the torture and the mass executions and the government-sponsered rape programs, what did Saddam do that was so wrong?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.