Did they get him already?

[RawAlex]

First bombs dropped, apparently before the war was really going to start, apparently were aimed specifically for Saddam himself.

Did they get him first try out of the box?

What would happen if this is the case?

Alex

[Mike AI]

That would be very nice, help to have a quick victory.

[VooMan]

I think that would be cool as hell, although it's nearly impossible. Talk about "Shock and Awe" though...

I can see the television reports now:

And now, the President of the United States...

"My fellow Americans, we're done. Thank you, and God Bless America."

heh...

[Mike AI]

That would be funny Voo!

I was at Hornets game tonight, they stopped it and broadcasted the President's speech live on the big screen. The situation, and the cheer/applause gave me goose bumps...

This country is SOLIDLY behind the President!!

[TheEnforcer]

I heard that it wasn't Sadaam but rather some high level officials which didn't include Sadaam or his sons.

[*KK*]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Mar 19 2003, 08:05 PM
That would be funny Voo!

I was at Hornets game tonight, they stopped it and broadcasted the President's speech live on the big screen. The situation, and the cheer/applause gave me goose bumps...

This country is SOLIDLY behind the President!!

Ah then you saw Jr reading from the teleprompter and having a hard time with the words scrolling apparently very slowly across it since his eyes never moved... and that monotone voice... thankfully he wasn't leading anyone in WW2.

Call Clinton what you will but at least the man had charisma.

[Mike AI]

Good oratory is a nice thing to have, but having a President with resolve, direction, principals and does not waver to me is the true mark of LEADERSHIP!

[XXXPhoto]

Unwavering resolve and direction could be sign of leadership Mike... could also be sign of a puppet getting strings pulled by the GOB network...

I whole heartedly support our troops; I was one last time... I love my country... I don't however care much for our current president or administration... My views, I fought for them... and your right to piss all over them and tell me how wrong I am... unless John's covered some artwork with that part of the constitution...

[Mike AI]

I think you are wrong.

I do not understand why people cannot see what a danger Saddam was to the region and to the US.

[Mike AI]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2003Mar20.html


In the Oval Office
CIA Had Fix on Hussein
Intelligence Revealed 'Target of Opportunity'
advertisement



By Barton Gellman and Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, March 20, 2003; Page A01


Shortly before 4 p.m. yesterday, Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet offered President Bush the prospect -- improbable to the point of fantasy, yet suddenly at hand -- that the war against Iraq might be transformed with its opening shots. The CIA, Tenet said, believed it had a fix on President Saddam Hussein.

Hussein and others in "the most senior levels of the Iraqi leadership," ordinarily among the most elusive of men, had fallen under U.S. surveillance. The intelligence was unforeseen and perishable, presenting what one administration official called "a target of opportunity" that might not come again. Not only did the agency know where Hussein was, Tenet said, but it also believed with "a high probability" that it knew where he would be for hours to come -- cloistered with advisers in a known private residence in southern Baghdad.

Bush listened calmly -- as his aides portrayed the scene -- as Tenet described the sources and limits of his information, the likelihood that it was true and the length of time Hussein could be expected to spend at the site before moving to his next refuge. The Iraqi president, a man of many palaces, avoids them at moments of maximum risk. There was no guarantee at all, Tenet said, that his whereabouts would be pinpointed again.

For the next three hours, Bush and his senior national security advisers tore up the carefully orchestrated schedule of violence that the U.S. Central Command had honed for months. Those present in the Oval Office, officials said, included Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. and Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

When Bush signed the launch order at 6:30 p.m., it had a hastily prepared insert. The first shots would strike through the roof and walls of an anonymous Baghdad home and deep beneath it in hopes of decapitating the Iraqi government in a single blow.

"If you're going to take a shot like this, you're going to take a shot at the top guy," said a government official with knowledge of the sequence of events. "It was a fairly singular strike."

Aboard Navy warships waiting in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea, operations officers reprogrammed Tomahawk cruise missiles on the fly with digital target data transmitted from CIA headquarters at Langley. A squadron of stealthy F-117A strike fighters pulled pilots from their ready rooms and gave them new mission briefs. The aircraft and missiles each carried satellite-guided warheads. The bombs aboard the F-117s were 2,000-pound "bunker busters" designed to penetrate layers of stone and steel.

Three hours after Bush gave the order, at 5:33 a.m. local time, southern Baghdad was rocked by a series of closely spaced explosions, witnesses in the city said. The results were unknown. Iraqi television, competing for air time with the newly American-flagged frequencies of Iraqi radio, reported within hours of the blasts that Hussein was alive and well and would shortly address the nation. The broadcast began about 12:30 a.m. today Eastern time.

U.S. officials cautioned that it would be some time before intelligence could assess with certainty what the U.S. strike had hit, and who had been there.

The 1991 Persian Gulf War included hundreds of strikes at "leadership targets," but President George H.W. Bush and his advisers did not acknowledge they were aimed at Hussein specifically. After the war, it became clear that the U.S.-led air campaign had tried and failed on dozens of occasions to pinpoint attacks on the Iraqi president.

But those attacks were not the first of the war, which of necessity targeted Iraqi air defenses and the command and control of Iraqi fighting forces. If the CIA had come across yesterday's intelligence windfall in 1991, the U.S. military could not have struck the Bahgdad residence fast enough.

Tomahawk cruise missiles could have spun up their jet engines, and the gyroscopes to guide their flight, but there would have been no way to enter precision-targeting data in minutes or even hours. At the time, the missiles required three-dimensional terrain maps that took days to construct.

In the decades since the Gulf War, the Tomahawk's guidance system has been upgraded to follow Global Positioning System satellites instead. The Navy can download new digital coordinates direct from the intelligence directorate of U.S. Central Command. "Actionable intelligence," the bane of a high-technology military faced with the wily and elusive low-tech foe, requires far less lead time in the present war.

Whatever the result of yesterday's strike, officials said, there will be more rapid re-targetings and more unexpected opportunities before the war is over.

[XXXPhoto]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Mar 19 2003, 09:40 PM
I do not understand why people cannot see what a danger Saddam was to the region and to the US.

Mike,

I was pretty sure you wouldn't suddenly reverse yourself (would have suggested someone had hacked your nic if ya did...lol); that's the beauty of free speech though, we both can think the other is wrong and talk about it...

You said you thought I was wrong; which part please? Or did you disagree with all that I said? Don't you think that there are other things swaying Bush's go ahead that are totally unrelated to protecting Joe and Jane Doe Americans?

Never said he wasn't a danger to region nor to the US... doubt anyone has their head in the sand that much... I do however disagree with how he and the situation is being delt with by Bush.


Interesting news story... the "For the next three hours, Bush and his senior national security advisers tore up the carefully orchestrated schedule of violence that the U.S. Central Command had honed for months." part makes for a good read... but if they really did toss out 3 months of planning then it must have been a pretty pathetic one in the first place. My hopes are that Gellman or Priest just worded what was going on very poorly.

[*KK*]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Mar 19 2003, 09:40 PM
I think you are wrong.

I do not understand why people cannot see what a danger Saddam was to the region and to the US.

While I've no love for Saddam, Michael, the candid Jr mentioning that he's partly after Saddam "since he tried to kill my dad" makes me wonder what kind of rocks he's got for brains.

His complete lack of charisma or any other compelling emotion when he's orating publicly is an enormous problem. Instead of a country united behind his actions, he's got half the country sitting around wondering what the hell he is up to.

Just like Mark said, I will reiterate. I love my country, I have nothing but respect for those in the service of defending and protecting her.

However, there are too many instances of politicians using their office to further their own agendas... one of which is memorialized by your very own Huey Long Bridge

[cj]

KK, i thought the same when i saw him giving that speach on tv earlier ... he totally looked like he had taken a couple of sleeping tablets before the recording started.

i'm sure he's under a lot of pressure and all that but he makes me trust him about as much as a rattle snake. he continually repeats the same chorus, and i truly wonder if he really believes it himself.

one of the quotes they've used in the news leaders is "Well its going to be a harder and longer battle than we thought" .....


LMAO

duh

that man is not winning america any new ally's, that's for certain

as we say downunder ... 'ONYA DUBYA

[Torone]

Originally posted by XXXPhoto@Mar 20 2003, 12:32 AM
I whole heartedly support our troops; I was one last time... I love my country...

Why do you people start out like that; then attack Bush? Is it incomprehensible to you that the Commander-in-Chief is one of the troops?

[LeeNoga]

Saddam hopes this war to be vietnam like in signature, so that the American people turn on Bush. Those were his words.

What better army than the entire US turning on the whitehouse.

At least Bush did not say, time up, take a break at Martha's Vineyard and bomb 2 weeks from now which they did during Desert Storm.

[Mike AI]

one of the quotes they've used in the news leaders is "Well its going to be a harder and longer battle than we thought" .....

Come on CJ this is bullshit, your ears are failing you! The quote is....

A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81611,00.html

[Mike AI]

KK what do you know? I am surprised you are not parotting the people who are saying this war is because of powerful Jewish interests. That the Bush team is leading the US to war for Israel.....

Bush going after Saddam is the extremely politically dangerous. IF Bush was concerend about re-election he would not have gone to war. He could have just wavered, launched a few missiles, and say he did something. But instead, he is putting his own political ambitions aside and doing what he feels ( and I agree with him) is best for this country. The history books will prove Bush did the right, brave, bold and politically VERY risky thing.

I do not trust professional politicians, but when they do take a stand, even when it puts their re-election chances in harm ( which this could do if it goes bad) I give them respect, and also tend to think they are doing WHAT THEY THINK IS THE RIGHT THING, NOT the most politically expediant!

[LeeNoga]

MikieAI, tell us how you really feel :-)

[Rox]

Put me in the camp with Mark & KK.

I love America, I support our troops... the people whose asses are truly in the line of fire, that is. They're doing their duty, and for that they have my gratitude and prayers for a quick and safe return to their families. In the unlikely event Mr. Bush might actually put himself in harm's way with the REAL military men, I might gain an ounce of respect for him. He certainly hasn't earned any thusfar (and that goes for the rest of his administration as well). Even Colin Powell, who at first I looked to as the one guy worthy of any respect and the saving grace of the administration, has disappointed me.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The way I'd prefer to have gotten rid of Hussein would be assassination. Over the years when I've wondered aloud why it was never done, I was told that assassination was against the rules. So now I'm confused... this current action is also apparently against the rules (and goes against what most "regular" people the world over want). Wouldn't it have been easier and cheaper to somehow sneak in and put a bullet in the bastard's brain?

Flame away... but I'm sure it's possible to be against the war yet still be in support of our troops. And nothing Mr. Bush says or does will change my mind -- in fact, every time he speaks, he just makes me more depressed at the thought that HIS is the face that America presents to the world. No wonder so many people hate us now, since we're represented on the world stage by an arrogant, untraveled, Texas yahoo with no regard for anyone who isn't American, Christian and supportive of the interests of big business.

But hey, while we're all focussed on this military action, lots of people are distracted by how fucked up things are right here on American soil. So I guess that's a plus, huh?

[Mike AI]

Can you guys come up with at least UNIQUE arguements?

The "lets start a war on foreign soil so people don't realize how bad things are in the US" is old, worn out, and holds NO water in this case!!

Bush is doing the right thing, he is taking enourmous risks for his political future ( which is the bravest thing any politican can do), to doubt his motives is shameful. The post 9-11 world is a different place, Bush is doing what it takes to make ALL of us safer ( even those who question his motives) amazing how many of you are just wanting to stick you heads back in the sand. Maybe we can get you all ruby slippers so you can click them together and go back to Kansas....

About supporting troops, but not the President/War, etc.... please refer to Buffs post

http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/index.php?a...390b8bae194b93e

Oh yeah and I DO beleive in your right to voice and state your own opinions, I may not agree with them, but will always support your right to say, think, do whatever you want. If we all agreed on everything, life would sure be a boring thing!!

[Mike AI]

Lee, looks like it is you and me on this one!!

[LeeNoga]

As much as I hate to agree with Mikie, I do what I got to do. I agree.

Having been in the military 10 years, Bush is doing the right thing. Enough people have been involved in this decision, granted Bush's name is prominent, but given the numbers of layers of gov't involved in this decision if it were truly a bad idea it would have never happend.

Hate Bush all you want, but note there has been no more 9/11's. We Americans only probably know .00000001 of whats really going on, therefore everyones opinion, point of view are worth the same.

Mine included.

[Rox]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Mar 20 2003, 07:55 AM
Can you guys come up with at least UNIQUE arguements?

The "lets start a war on foreign soil so people don't realize how bad things are in the US" is old, worn out, and holds NO water in this case!!

Bush is doing the right thing, he is taking enourmous risks for his political future ( which is the bravest thing any politican can do), to doubt his motives is shameful. The post 9-11 world is a different place, Bush is doing what it takes to make ALL of us safer ( even those who question his motives) amazing how many of you are just wanting to stick you heads back in the sand. Maybe we can get you all ruby slippers so you can click them together and go back to Kansas....

About supporting troops, but not the President/War, etc.... please refer to Buffs post

http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/index.php?a...390b8bae194b93e

Oh yeah and I DO beleive in your right to voice and state your own opinions, I may not agree with them, but will always support your right to say, think, do whatever you want. If we all agreed on everything, life would sure be a boring thing!!

Mike, I know you think it's worn out but it's a valid concern. How the fuck are we supposed to pay for this? We're in deep financial trouble as a country without the additional costs of this conflict.

There was a time, right after 9-11, where people the world over actually finally cared about the US. And then Bush and his administration started talking, and the things they said made us once again look like bullies who think they know best what's right for everyone else in the world. That REALLY bothers me. We know that Saddam Hussein isn't a fair representation of the normal Iraqi citizen (mostly because he's a fucking psycho), but people in other countries believe Bush represents the American on the street. He does NOT. Most people I know can properly pronounce "nuclear," for one thing.

I couldn't care less about his political future; I didn't want him in the first place. He's too stupid and narrow-minded to represent me. He's not scoring any points by ignoring everyone and doing whatever the fuck he wants. He will never be what I consider a great, or even a mediocre, leader.

As for making us safer, I don't believe that for a minute. In fact, this whole thing is just adding fuel to the fire for the militant jihadis. And where the fuck is Osama? Why didn't we accomplish THAT objective before getting involved in something else?

I agree to disagree, of course. Because I like ya, and I definitely respect ya.

[Mike AI]

I agree to disagree, of course. Because I like ya, and I definitely respect ya.

Rox I feel the same way!!

When it come to this issue though, I think you are wrong.

There is a MUCH HIGHER COST if we ignored Saddam and did nothing. The premise that since we have goen to war with Iraq there will be more terrorist attacks is based on the false assumption that if we did NOTHING, if we kept our military on our shores we would be safe.

That is completely wrong, we are in a world where the terrorist who want to harm us will try to attack and kill us in our own country no matter WHAT we do or do not do.

So short term we might have some more terrorist incidents, but long term this war will keep them down.

The only way to stop terrorism 100% is to kill the terrorist, and wipe out the regimes who support them. I promise you sitting on your hands, sticking your head in the sand would just lead to more of our buildings being destroyed, and more of our innocent brothers/sisters being murdered!

[Vick]

Rox - sorry Dee Snider wasn't available for the Presidency of the USA :P

and for all the Bush Bashers - who would you rather have in the office of President today? Can we agree that Gore wouldn't be the right person for the incredibly hard job of President

.....and even though this is an unlikely scenario what if the attack last night took out Hussein and some of his top advisers and brought a quick end to this conflict?

How many of you (and the rest of the American hating world) could admit you were incorrect about America, President Bush, our foreign policy and intentions?

[Rox]

If Dee were president, Ashcroft would CERTAINLY not be AG, and that would be fine and dandy by me!

I can agree that Gore probably wouldn't be the right person, but I can't think of anyone offhand I'd like to see in the role... except maybe Clinton, who everyone else hates, and couldn't serve anyway. The lack of people worth putting in the office is depressing.

I wish your unlikely scenario would have come to pass, but it would NOT change my mind about Bush, his intentions or the steps we took to get here. I would just see it as a lucky and happy coincidence.

[Mike AI]

Vick you are right - bottom line at the end of this war we will find out who was right. If we discover chemical/biological weapons, find the details of Saddam's nuclear program ( and I think we will) - are those who slammed the US ( France, Germany), and those in the US who slammed Bush's policy going to apologize?

I bet most will not. They will say the US planted the weapons or evidence. Or they will say they knew the weapons were there, but inispections where working, and it was not worth the human toll, etc... etc....


Rox - as far as cost. I read the war is going to cost $300 per every citizen. I am happy to kick in my $300 ( with tax day rolling around, I think we ALL have contributed much more significantly then that).

How much is it going to cost to rebuild the World Trade Center? What was the economic impact of that attack on us? What are the 3,000 or so innocent American lives worth?

Bush swore to protect this country, he took and oath and he is doing it to the best of his ability - even though it has put him in a potentially tough spot for re-election!

[Vick]

Originally posted by Rox@Mar 20 2003, 11:43 AM
I wish your unlikely scenario would have come to pass, but it would NOT change my mind about Bush, his intentions or the steps we took to get here. I would just see it as a lucky and happy coincidence.

Rox - a lucky and happy coincidence??? no planning and forethought to get those results - From the Bush Administration???

Just blind luck hun?

[Rox]

Originally posted by Vick+Mar 20 2003, 08:47 AM-->