Is it true that Saddam was offered the chance to become a Republican, but chose death instead?

Answer 1

That's ALMOST an amusing joke...almost.

I am a Democrat, but I guess by neo-con thinking, that automatically makes me a "liberal", as is everyone who doesn't mimic their totalitarian thinking. Even so, I've got to stand up for the Republicans...TRADITIONAL Republicans, at least. Few citizens seem to acknowledge the WORLD of difference between traditional Republicans and those referred to as "neo-cons." The neo-cons are an extremist group within the Republican party, backed and represented by PNAC, who have at least temporarily usurped that party, and whose PNAC founders currently occupy the TOP seats in our government, and therefore have usurped our government.

Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with ex-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father of the group. Bruce Jackson, a PNAC director, served as a Pentagon official for Ronald Reagan before leaving government service to take a leading position with the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin. William Kristol, famed conservative writer for the Weekly Standard, is also a co-founder of the group. The Weekly Standard is owned by Ruppert Murdoch, who also owns international media giant Fox News.

Note that a few brave TRADITIONAL Republicans have voiced their concerns and objections to Bush's methodolgy and so-called "vision" for our nation, at the risk of admonishment by their brother Republicans, and the threat of PNAC itself. They remain true to our nation, our people, and loyal to the Constitution that defines us. Meanwhile, most of their brothers have either been politically blackmailed by PNAC, or seeing it's success, have taken the political path of "least resistance."

Few people recognize that PNAC had PUBLICLY stated their plans to create an AMERICAN HEGEMONY via the USE of American financial and military might, and PUBLICLY stated that the road there would be a long one, unless America underwent a "Pearl Harbor-type event" (thier words), stating this exactly one year prior to 9-11. Therefore few people are prepared to admit that everything the Venezuelan tyrant Chavez stated at the United Nations was absolutely true, though we did not appreciate the SOURCE of that truth, being Chavez. Unfortunately, he was only stating what WE SHOULD HAVE ALREADY KNOWN.

Anyone aware of PNAC, it's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" white paper from September 20, 2000, and Bush's "National Security Strategy" released on September 20, 2001 which is an ideolgical match to PNAC's paper, knows that Iraq is a STRATEGIC objective, and has NOTHING to do with terrorism. In fact, the majority of the Al Qaeda and Taliban had been in Afghanistan, until we chased them into the hills of PAKISTAN simultaneously as we initiated our attack on Iraq. It has already been WELL ESTABLISHED that the previous regime of Saddam had NO CONNECTIONS to Osama bin Laden.

In fact, Osama bin Laden has repeatedly denied havig perpetrated 9-11, and has stated, "I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks."

Is it merely a coincidence that exactly one year after PNAC's white paper stated their hegomonistic intentions for our nation would be quicked by a "Pearl Harbor-type event" we had 9-11? Or that the FOUNDERS of PNAC that Bush had placed in the TOP seats of our government could now easily, and with proper "reason", escalate their hegemonistic plans?

Is it coincidence that Bush's brother had been head of security at the Trade Center for the months prior to 9-11?

Or that the former head of the FBI, who vehemently disagreed with Bush's accusations toward Iraq, and stepped down as a result of frustration, was then named the replacement for Bush's brother as head of security for the Trade Center, and who's first day on the job was 9-11, and thus the last day of his life?

Is it therefore any coincidence that Bush has changed our Constitution to limit OUR rights and protections from unfair treatment by our own government, to further empower himself, illegally spy on AMERICAN citizens, and REPEATEDLY lie about our reasons for being in Iraq?

Bush and PNAC have perfected their propagandist rhetoric, and are extremely adept at political warfare on a psychological level. Their use of a false morality and false sense of patriotism as a binding force for their constituency has proven extremely effective, and the Democrats seem at a total loss as to how to EFFECTIVELY expose it for what it is. Also, not having learned from the past, the Democrats BLACK AND WHITE way of dealing with crisis will again prove their undoing, as there are always more moderate, realistic, and effective, shades of GREY.

Until the matter of PNAC having usurped our top governmental seats is PUBLICLY ADDRESSED, we are doomed. It's OBVIOUS that all PNAC needs to do right now to sway public opinion back in their favor is to stage yet another "terrorist attack" on our nation. Unless they are PUBLICLY exposed, this remains their OBVIOUS (and very effective) solution. The changes Bush made in our Constitution will prevent us from legally stopping him, and we can now be legally accused of being "enemy combatants" just for speaking out...outside the judicial system, no lawyers, no recourse. Don't forget we could then be tortured, too. NO terrorist can possibly harm us as much as PNAC...and our own government...now can.

Meanwhile we have to listen to those inane (or insane?) neo-con supporters claiming that us "libs" are soft on terrorism, and all those other brainwashed lies they convince themselves of. Meanwhile Bush has done NOTHING to protect us from terrorism, and everything to attack the American people's rights and protections, and diminish any effect our citizens could have against him.

The sad thing is that neo-con supporters mistake their unbending loyalty to Bush (and PNAC) for patriotism, while their extreme loyalty to the man is disloyal to our nation and our Constitution. They are truely traitors to America, their fellow American citizens, and the "American Way."

Answer 2

i imagine you may question and understand the justifications behind bush's decision to flow to warfare with Iraq. He obviously has his own time table and to make human beings fit in with this, his propoganda device has been casting Saddam because the most threatening guy in the international. he's/turned right into a detrimental human being, as maximum Iraqis and Kurds will testify. in spite of the undeniable fact that, i do no longer comprehend of any direct threats to the Western international by way of Saddam, which, as you communicate about is compared to the moves of Bin encumbered. i imagine it matches US authorities to continuously have a face it really is the enemy. contained in the previous it become the eastern and Russians. Now it truly is center jap international places. those on-going threats help the authorities administration the human beings of the U. S., and helps the authorities to fulfill their own agendas even as contained in the eyes of the widespread public keeping the liberty and democaracy of the U. S..

Answer 3

No chance. He might have qualified for the John Birch Society, or perhaps the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP, better known here as the Nazis), but he's far too reactionary for the Republican party.

Or he might have made a typical Democrat.

Answer 4

No thats just a ruse perpetrated by the Democrats. What was actually offered to Saddam was talks with Senators Pelosi and Clinton. He was actually the one that pushed for the execution to be so soon so that he would never have to hear those hens in person.

Answer 5

Do you really believe the "stuff" that comes out of your mouth. Let me guess, you were sitting at Starbucks and you heard someone say that.

It must be true.

Excuse me while I go throw up.

Answer 6

Weren't you the one actively calling for Iraqi snipers to kill more Americans about half-an hour ago???

You seriously need to rethink your life, chief.

Answer 7

Yeah I heard Bush offered him a position on his staff with the rest of the idiots!.....LOL

Answer 8

I'd say you chose a very appropriate screen name.

Answer 9

LOL! Yeah, cuz then he'd actually have to WORK for a living and earn his own money.

Answer 10

no he wants to be an astronaut