INSIDE STORY: Hussein son's wild orders led to Iraq military collapse

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | May 25, 2003 | Robert Collier

[sarcasm]

Baghdad -- In the final days before Baghdad fell, Saddam Hussein's son Qusai issued a series of military orders that sent thousands of elite Republican Guard troops to their certain death in the open countryside.

According to accounts provided to The Chronicle by more than a dozen Iraqi military officials -- some of them still hiding from American forces -- the orders exposed the core of the Iraqi military to devastating U.S. air attacks and left the capital's defenses markedly weakened.

[Miss Marple]

Accusations of planting are Plan B. They have their crack spinmeisters working on it as we speak.

I actually think that we are finding things but are waiting for verification from third parties, in order to avoid the charges of "planting."

[SamAdams76]

Well maybe it's a rationalization on my part. But I'd rather have the Bush Administration criticized for overstating the case with respect to WMD's in Iraq than to have them be proven correct with a nuclear crater in Manhattan or 100,000 dead U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

[TomB]

Accusations of planting are Plan B. They have their crack spinmeisters working on it as we speak.

Of course it is. If we had already found WMDs, you can bet AVRWC would have been screaming "plant!" and "how could they have found them so quickly in a country the size of California?"

He is utterly transparent.

[mikegi]

How do I know that we were being lied? Well... no WMD's have been found. Isn't that sufficient proof? It goes like this: find the weapons and you prove your case; find nothing and you are a liar, you lose credibility, etc.

As noted on FR many times, Saddam was alive right up until the war began yet we haven't found him. Does that mean he actually never existed? Same goes for UBL. Were these people simply the creation of flawed CIA/DIA intelligence?

Since you claim Bush et.al. were lying to us to go to war, maybe you can tell us the real reason. Was it the old Hollywood standby, "big oil"?

[Miss Marple]

Interestingly, there is a Marine officer on Fox right now who is involved in the search for WMC. He is not allowed to discuss it at all, but he says he knows what they had, he knows what they had before the war, and he is confident things will be found.

I suppose this person is lying as well.

[Colonel_Flagg]

"When the war was going well, we overlooked it."

And this would have been when, for Iraq?

[gaspar]

The fact that the Chronicle could have been interviewing war criminals or human rights violators probably never once bothered the paper.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

They won't study it in North Korea.

[Ditter]

>>>>wrong thread....????He is not even on the right forum. He meant to turn left but instead he turned right. Notice his nic & his rhetoric don't match. I'll bet he even is wearing striped pants & a plaid shirt. Someone should direct him over to DU before he hurts himself.

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

As noted on FR many times, Saddam was alive right up until the war began yet we haven't found him. Does that mean he actually never existed? Same goes for UBL.

It's funny that you mention this. Unlike WMD's, we were able to 'see' Saddam. Seeing him would indicate his existence - and let's not go too deep into that meaning of existence or reality.

On the WMD side, the only things that I saw was some leaky, rusty barrels which turned out to be fertilizer or rat poison (we DO want to poisont the 'rats', don't we?). Well... Heraldo and his colleagues did 'see' dozens of 'SCUDs' but... you know Heraldo...

[GregB]

destroyed their OODA loop What is that?

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

Once WMDs are found, how long will it take for you to accuse the US of planting the evidence?

Accuse 'the US'? What does it mean? As for 'finding' WMDs... I expect most of the rest of the world to suspect some 'planting' if anything significant is announced this late. I do not expect the cable news audience to doubt that the evidence was genuine, especially if confirmed to be so by Heraldo.

[damper99]

Likely a misprint or the reporter getting it wrong again. I'd say they were 400mm missiles, about 16 inches in diameter. Someone probably mentioned them as 40 cm and that's where the misquote got started.

Most reporters wouldn't know a bayonet from a buffalo.

[farmguy]

Actually, what the President said was more like:

" Those who are not with us are with the terrorist"

That is not nearly as threatening as the quote you are assigning to him.

[TomB]

As I expected, you are dodging the answer.

Accuse 'the US'? What does it mean?

THE US. Our country. The people who are looking. The good guys.

Try to keep up.

As for 'finding' WMDs... I expect most of the rest of the world to suspect some 'planting' if anything significant is announced this late. I do not expect the cable news audience to doubt that the evidence was genuine, especially if confirmed to be so by Heraldo.

No.

I didn't ask about the "rest of the world" or the "cable news audience", I asked about YOU.

Be honest (I know I'm stretching here). WHEN the discovery of WMDs are announced, how long will it take for you to claim the evidence was planted? Or will you take the evidence at face value?

[backlash]

Give it up, bub. You've gotten as thorough a butt-kicking as I've seen in some time, and you don't even know it. Democratic talking points and party line bilge will never hold up to facts and reality. Your pathetic "debate" is pointless and is becoming painful to watch.

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

>>>>wrong thread....????He is not even on the right forum. He meant to turn left but instead he turned right. Notice his nic & his rhetoric don't match. I'll bet he even is wearing striped pants & a plaid shirt. Someone should direct him over to DU before he hurts himself.

I love it when the bots gain enough self-confidence to express thoughts more complex than 'bump' or 'BTTT'.

Let's see... what would qualify me for DU membership? (Incidentally I did try to enter their 'debate' and I survived there for about 30 seconds. But that's a different story.)

The DU's would be happy to have me because:

- I found W's decision to sign the campaign finance 'reform' law quite disgusting.

- I still remember that W promised to withdraw the troops Clinton placed in Bosnia, Kosovo etc. and do NOT engage in 'nation building'? - I don't support W's support of the WMD ban law extension?

- Unlike W, I believe that government spending needs to be cut?

- Unlike W (but like Ronald Reagan and the Contract with America) I support the abolition of the Dept. of Education? (W inflated it more than Clinton did).

- Unlike W, I believe that ALL illegal immigrants should be actively pursued and, when found, kicked out of the country immediately rather than encourage more illegals to get in?

- Unlike W, I do agree with Lott that if Sen. Thurmond's was elected when he ran for prez., we would have been spared a lot of trouble?

Should I continue? Clearly, there is a visible leftward movement of what used to be called 'the conservatives'. I guess, most of you just decided to 'go with the flow', which is what's expected from the masses. If you don't manage to push the Dems a lot farther to the left you will soon have to option but merge with them.

Remember, not all old communist states were 'one-party' systems. In many of them - Bulgaria, GDR, Poland - there were several token parties, united in a permanent coalition that controlled 100% of the so-called democratically elected government.

[TomB]

Unlike W (but like Ronald Reagan and the Contract with America) I support the abolition of the Dept. of Education? (W inflated it more than Clinton did).

How could you possibly support Reagan?

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

You are asking a stupid question.

I could ask you what would you do if Jesus suddently appeared in front of you and demanded that you burn your house and immediately move to Newark, New Jersey.

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

No, the question is how could W possibly expand the Dept. of Education and still call himself a 'conservative'? How could any conservative support such a policy?

But... I forgot, today's conservatives supported W's support of the campaign finance 'reform' and seem to be 'oh so willing' to support W's announced support of the 'assault weapons ban extension'.