Bush: Failed Presidency - Debate the Impact

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by Zero
Uh huh...one more time where he does something stupid, and pretends he actually thought about it first. Oh, he thought long and hard about something...how many votes he would lose if he didn't pander to his "moron" constituency.

No kidding. Every time he says something really stupid, his handlers spin as his being able to communicate with the average american. I'm not saying are schools aren't in trouble, but I really hope that the average american is not as stupid as this dingbat.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
No kidding. Every time he says something really stupid, his handlers spin as his being able to communicate with the average american. I'm not saying are schools aren't in trouble, but I really hope that the average american is not as stupid as this dingbat.

Right, and they turn it around and say that anyone who is smart is bad, as though a high IQ and real experience make you less capable to run things.

Here's a long article about Bush's lies, and why they are required by his philosophy:http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=13471&mode=&order=0&thold=0 ...and here's teh stem cell part:

That cavalier dismissal of expert analysis isn't limited to the national-security arena. In the summer of 2001, the Bush administration was looking for a decision the president could make on the use of embryonic stem cells for medical research. His Christian-conservative base wanted an outright prohibition. But such a ban would have alienated swing voters eager for the therapies that could come from that research, such as cures for Parkinson's disease. As Nicholas Thompson explained in the Washington Monthly, Bush's advisers came up with a scheme they thought would pass muster with both the core and the swing voters: the president would limit research to only those stem-cell lines that existed already. But before the decision was announced, federal scientists warned the administration that there simply weren't enough reliable existing lines to be useful to researchers. The White House ignored the warnings, which have subsequently proved all too accurate, and went ahead with the decision, thereby setting back crucial medical research for years

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by RageSk8
Is it just me or is focusing on terrorists important? The ne0con approach to international politics is failing, again this is because too much emphasis is put on states. Terrorists cells are in every major Western nation. Does this mean we should attack France and England? Terrorists do not need a sympathetic government to opperate, so overthrouging even the most sympathetic to terrorists does little good. I have never understood the line of logic that you have just give...

I'm sorry to say, but you display your lack of understanding
and knowledge in the matter yet again.
First of all, the vast majority of terrorists are still there.
Second and most important, without their organizations
these individuals do not pose a threat. Destory all their
organizational capabilities, their funding, their intellegence, training bases and so on - turn the population of the
relevant countries into psychologicly balanced - normal
individuals in free democratic societies and there won't be
any terrorism.

Live long and prosper.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by RageSk8
Iraq wasn't, no links to any terrorist organization has been found and in attacking Iraq we took precious resources off of known terrorists.

Amongst many other ties, Iraq had Al-Qaeda training camps
and activly supported Hizballa. It has been a safe house
for many terrorists for decades. It was quite likely that
it would use WMDs indirectly by selling them to terrorist
organizations as it did with conventional weapons.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

I'm sorry to say, but you display your lack of understanding
and knowledge in the matter yet again.
First of all, the vast majority of terrorists are still there.
Second and most important, without their organizations
these individuals do not pose a threat. Destory all their
organizational capabilities, their funding, their intellegence, training bases and so on - turn the population of the
relevant countries into psychologicly balanced - normal
individuals in free democratic societies and there won't be
any terrorism.

Live long and prosper.

LMAO! And after that, Bush will part the waters, and make the sun stand still?? The POINT of terrorism is that you can't attack it like you would a military target. Someone can throw a Molotov cocktail, turn the corner and they are a law-abiding citizen again. You cannot beat terorism with military tactics.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by drag
Amongst many other ties, Iraq had Al-Qaeda training camps
and activly supported Hizballa. It has been a safe house
for many terrorists for decades. It was quite likely that
it would use WMDs indirectly by selling them to terrorist
organizations as it did with conventional weapons.

Live long and prosper.

What WMDs?!? The ones we sold them, or the ones Bush pretended they had? How can non-existant weapons be a threat? America apparently is just as guilty, BTW...we had terrorists training on U.S. soil, we have WMDs, and we have supported terrorism in the past. Shall we attack ourselves, or ask the U.N. to enact sanctions against us?

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Zero
Ummm...nope, you can't do that, mostly because unless you plan on committing genocide, violence will only beget violence. Plus, you don't see the government rounding up evangelical Christians, since they are the source of almost all domestic terrorism...by your logic, we should open death camps...I mean re-education camps... for the 700 Club viewers.

Thank you for your "interpretation" of my messages.
I'd appreciate it if you avoid it in the future.
Maybe I need Russ's signature.

Originally posted by Zero
The 'war on terror' is a front for invading the Middle East...

hmm... I guess some people won't agree to any action until
just their own house is blown up, not just that of the neighbour.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Thank you for your "interpretation" of my messages.
I'd appreciate it if you avoid it in the future.
Maybe I need Russ's signature.

hmm... I guess some people won't agree to any action until
just their own house is blown up, not just that of the neighbour.

Live long and prosper.

Just as soon as there is a threat, we should take it seriously. In the absense of one, we shouldn't act for the sake of acting.

And, I didn't tell a lie about you or Russ...I just took your logic to the next level, to point out the flaw in your reasoning.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Zero
What WMDs?!? The ones we sold them, or the ones Bush pretended they had? How can non-existant weapons be a threat? America apparently is just as guilty, BTW...we had terrorists training on U.S. soil, we have WMDs, and we have supported terrorism in the past. Shall we attack ourselves, or ask the U.N. to enact sanctions against us?

I have to admit I am, repeatedly, having considrable difficulty
in discussing politics with you. I just can't understand
how you can actually believe what you say. At first, I assumed
this is because you lacked the knowledge on these specific
subjects, however, later on I see that you either know some things
already or you are informed of them during the discussion and yet your opinions remain as they were. Oh well... the disadvantages of democracy, I guess.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by drag
I have to admit I am, repeatedly, having considrable difficulty
in discussing politics with you. I just can't understand
how you can actually believe what you say. At first, I assumed
this is because you lacked the knowledge on these specific
subjects, however, later on I see that you either know some things
already or you are informed of them during the discussion and yet your opinions remain as they were. Oh well... the disadvantages of democracy, I guess.

Live long and prosper.

Which of zero's arguments do you disagree with? That we sold WMD to Iraq? (have you seen the photo of Donald Rumsfield shaking hands with Hussein?) That Bush lied to congress and the american people? (do you remember yellow-cake story? The state of the union address where Bush lied about WMD?) That Bush lied about the imminent threat of Iraqi WMD against the US? (the repeated false connections between 9-11 and Iraq? Others too many to name) That the US has trained terrorists on its soil? (9-11 highjackers, Timothy McVeigh, School of the Americas?) That the US has supported terrorists? (Iran/Contra?)

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by drag
I have to admit I am, repeatedly, having considrable difficulty
in discussing politics with you. I just can't understand
how you can actually believe what you say. At first, I assumed
this is because you lacked the knowledge on these specific
subjects, however, later on I see that you either know some things
already or you are informed of them during the discussion and yet your opinions remain as they were. Oh well... the disadvantages of democracy, I guess.

Live long and prosper.

This is why I am far less active in these discussions than I used to be. Because I KNOW Zero has the facts, his positions and what he says about them are just flat out baffling.

And maybe this is just a case of 'the more you learn, the less you know' but the more I see of Zero, the less sense he makes. I think his tone has changed in the past few months, but it could just be that I'm getting more and more information (facts and opinions) that just don't jive with the things he says.

 

[RageSk8]

I have to admit I am, repeatedly, having considrable difficulty in discussing politics with you. I just can't understand how you can actually believe what you say. At first, I assumed this is because you lacked the knowledge on these specific subjects, however, later on I see that you either know some things already or you are informed of them during the discussion and yet your opinions remain as they were. Oh well... the disadvantages of democracy, I guess.

The funny thing is that this is how I (and from my readings on this forum, Zero as well) feel about most of your and Russ's posts. Part of the problem is that both sides (conservatives, and liberals) pick and choose which evidence to emphasize (this is the whole problem of bias). But, I think, the larger problem is that we ask different questions (maybe not on this issue but most issues). This is not a disadvantage of democracy, it is one of the core advantages of democracy. By having different people attack issues at different angles and debating, our society hardly ever becomes myopic. Sure views hardly change until new evidence is produced by one side, but a single view, a single perspecitve never becomes dominant.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by drag
I have to admit I am, repeatedly, having considrable difficulty
in discussing politics with you. I just can't understand
how you can actually believe what you say. At first, I assumed
this is because you lacked the knowledge on these specific
subjects, however, later on I see that you either know some things
already or you are informed of them during the discussion and yet your opinions remain as they were. Oh well... the disadvantages of democracy, I guess.

Live long and prosper.

Oh well, I feel exactly the same way about you and Russ...ignorant(from my perspective) beyond belief about certain things, and I KNOW neither of you are stupid...long live the 1st Amendment, I guess...

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
Which of zero's arguments do you disagree with? That we sold WMD to Iraq? (have you seen the photo of Donald Rumsfield shaking hands with Hussein?) That Bush lied to congress and the american people? (do you remember yellow-cake story? The state of the union address where Bush lied about WMD?) That Bush lied about the imminent threat of Iraqi WMD against the US? (the repeated false connections between 9-11 and Iraq? Others too many to name) That the US has trained terrorists on its soil? (9-11 highjackers, Timothy McVeigh, School of the Americas?) That the US has supported terrorists? (Iran/Contra?)

I'd like to see someone argue these points too, instead of hiding behind the 'you just don't know anything' posts. Teach us!

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
This is why I am far less active in these discussions than I used to be. Because I KNOW Zero has the facts, his positions and what he says about them are just flat out baffling.

And maybe this is just a case of 'the more you learn, the less you know' but the more I see of Zero, the less sense he makes. I think his tone has changed in the past few months, but it could just be that I'm getting more and more information (facts and opinions) that just don't jive with the things he says.

I'd have to ask where you are getting your 'facts'. I know you don't go in for blustery right-wing whackos like Rush Limbaugh, so what sources are you using?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by RageSk8
The funny thing is that this is how I (and from my readings on this forum, Zero as well) feel about most of your and Russ's posts. Part of the problem is that both sides (conservatives, and liberals) pick and choose which evidence to emphasize (this is the whole problem of bias). But, I think, the larger problem is that we ask different questions (maybe not on this issue but most issues). This is not a disadvantage of democracy, it is one of the core advantages of democracy. By having different people attack issues at different angles and debating, our society hardly ever becomes myopic. Sure views hardly change until new evidence is produced by one side, but a single view, a single perspecitve never becomes dominant.

I do think it is a world-view issue, as the link I posted illustrates. Bush and Co. don't feel the need for facts, because they KNOW everything, even when all the evidence refutes them. This administrations actions from a purely scientific standpoint are proof-positive that when there is a difference between reality and their agenda, they ignore reality.

 

[RageSk8]

This administrations actions from a purely scientific standpoint are proof-positive that when there is a difference between reality and their agenda, they ignore reality.

I agree on this point, but I don't think most conservatives are as willfully ignorant. They believe their leaders. The evidence is piling up against the Bush administration though, soon I doubt people like Russ will be able to continue their lines of argument (on Iraq).

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by RageSk8
I agree on this point, but I don't think most conservatives are as willfully ignorant. They believe their leaders. The evidence is piling up against the Bush administration though, soon I doubt people like Russ will be able to continue their lines of argument (on Iraq).

The problem is, I guess, that truth takes too long to catch up to the lies. I don't blame people for believing Bush: they are scared about terrorism, used to trusting their leaders, and the media has almost completely dropped the ball on its coverage of this administration.

 

[kat]

Lol, do you guys have your nose tilted towards the ceiling and are you sipping tea with your little pinky finger slightly extended when you put these ideas forth? Thanks for the early morning grin

Just to make me feel all yummy inside, can you substantiate these particular statements with direct quotes and links to the government site that keeps the entire transcript, with exact wording for me? Oh, and a list of the exact types of "WMD" you're referencing, with references to reliable sites?
Otherwise, in my opiinion, your claims just fall down along the wayside with the rest of the useless rhetoric that goes for "fact" on this particular forum.

Which of zero's arguments do you disagree with? That we sold WMD to Iraq? (have you seen the photo of Donald Rumsfield shaking hands with Hussein?) That Bush lied to congress and the american people? (do you remember yellow-cake story? The state of the union address where Bush lied about WMD?) That Bush lied about the imminent threat of Iraqi WMD against the US? (the repeated false connections between 9-11 and Iraq? Others too many to name)

Thanks a bunch

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
Lol, do you guys have your nose tilted towards the ceiling and are you sipping tea with your little pinky finger slightly extended when you put these ideas forth? Thanks for the early morning grin

Just to make me feel all yummy inside, can you substantiate these particular statements with direct quotes and links to the government site that keeps the entire transcript, with exact wording for me? Oh, and a list of the exact types of "WMD" you're referencing, with references to reliable sites?
Otherwise, in my opiinion, your claims just fall down along the wayside with the rest of the useless rhetoric that goes for "fact" on this particular forum.

Thanks a bunch

Here's a better idea...do your own research, ok? You managed to sign up to PF, and I've seen you post links, so I think you might be able to handle Google. You need to be willing to invest some effort in your own knowledge. Otherwise, should you fall along the wayside with all the rest of the people who don't bother to inform themselves?(In other words, kat, don't be rude or condesending, it is bad manners.)

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by RageSk8
The funny thing is that this is how I (and from my readings on this forum, Zero as well) feel about most of your and Russ's posts. Part of the problem is that both sides (conservatives, and liberals) pick and choose which evidence to emphasize (this is the whole problem of bias). But, I think, the larger problem is that we ask different questions (maybe not on this issue but most issues). This is not a disadvantage of democracy, it is one of the core advantages of democracy. By having different people attack issues at different angles and debating, our society hardly ever becomes myopic. Sure views hardly change until new evidence is produced by one side, but a single view, a single perspecitve never becomes dominant.

I'll certainly give you that. Different things are important to us. However, I've always taken the position that political science is as its name implies a science and if studied objectively can be figured out.

I'd have to ask where you are getting your 'facts'. I know you don't go in for blustery right-wing whackos like Rush Limbaugh, so what sources are you using?

A sampling of the mainstream media for the most part. No, I do not watch Fox News.

The evidence is piling up against the Bush administration though, soon I doubt people like Russ will be able to continue their lines of argument (on Iraq).

My line of reasoning has never been quite the same as Bush's anyway though.

I'd like to see someone argue these points too, instead of hiding behind the 'you just don't know anything' posts. Teach us!

Here's a better idea...do your own research, ok?

Touche' Zero.

This is of course part of the problem - the research itself is easily enough biased. If we do your research for you, we won't see the same things you see. You have to substantiate your own claims.

Kat and I are at a disadvantage in this of course. We are in the position of defending against attacks and it is difficult to impossible to prove a negative. So its the positive facts (yours, Zero) that need to be evaluated.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters

Kat and I are at a disadvantage in this of course. We are in the position of defending against attacks and it is difficult to impossible to prove a negative. So its the positive facts (yours, Zero) that need to be evaluated.

Let's take an example...Did Bush say that an attack on America by Iraq was imminent? Yes, or no, Russ?

 

[Zero]

Ask me for something easy, like for me to explain to you how quantum mechanics works, in a single post. Like I said, do a little research, starting probably at http://www.spinsanity.org/ or http://www.dailyhowler.com , and follow the links they provide.

 

[kat]

Here's a better idea...do your own research, ok? You managed to sign up to PF, and I've seen you post links, so I think you might be able to handle Google. You need to be willing to invest some effort in your own knowledge. Otherwise, should you fall along the wayside with all the rest of the people who don't bother to inform themselves?(In other words, kat, don't be rude or condesending, it is bad manners.)

How about this: When you make a claim, particularly an accusation of lying, cheating, stealing etc., have the intellectual honesty to support it with direct quotes when asked to. If you haven't seen the direct quotes, from the source, then it's probably prudent not to make the claim until you have, as the media seems to be an unreliable source. I don't feel I need to do research to support your claim, or anyone elses. I do research to support MY claims, so..when I make a claim, you can usually be pretty sure that I can give you a direct source quote or reference.

Originally posted by Zero
Let's take an example...Did Bush say that an attack on America by Iraq was imminent? Yes, or no, Russ?

If he did, then one would not have to follow your links to find the statement. He would only need to go and read the transcripts. Which always seem to be shown in a misleading manner by the press. Take for instance the State of the Union address http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
The only time he uses the word "imminent" is in this manner "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent." So, I don't know, that doesn't appear to say there is an imminent threat, in facts it appears to suggest it's not an imminent threat, and that instead we should not wait..until it is..imminent..I see a slight difference in this direct quote...
Did he use it in the manner your asking about in another speach? if so...we will be able to find it in a transcript.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
How about this: When you make a claim, particularly an accusation of lying, cheating, stealing etc., have the intellectual honesty to support it with direct quotes when asked to. If you haven't seen the direct quotes, from the source, then it's probably prudent not to make the claim until you have, as the media seems to be an unreliable source. I don't feel I need to do research to support your claim, or anyone elses. I do research to support MY claims, so..when I make a claim, you can usually be pretty sure that I can give you a direct source quote or reference.



If he did, then one would not have to follow your links to find the statement. He would only need to go and read the transcripts. Which always seem to be shown in a misleading manner by the press. Take for instance the State of the Union address http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
The only time he uses the word "imminent" is in this manner "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent." So, I don't know, that doesn't appear to say there is an imminent threat, in facts it appears to suggest it's not an imminent threat, and that instead we should not wait..until it is..imminent..I see a slight difference in this direct quote...
Did he use it in the manner your asking about in another speach? if so...we will be able to find it in a transcript.

See, that is the sort of 'lazy' reporting that goes on around Bush...he uses the word "imminent" once, and in the way you describe. However, the definition of the word 'imminent' is :About to occur; impending. Bush certainly used language to suggest that Iraq could actually hurt America in the near future, including in your own link. He(well, his speech writers) is also a master of avoiding making direct claims that a Google search can bring up to bite him in the butt.

For instance, Bush said in a speech, "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints."(google the quote...Is is in an October 2002 speech in Cincinati)

'On any given day' means the same thing as 'imminent', doesn't it? If you speak English, I mean? Remember, Bush supporters were saying we had to strike first, before Iraq hit us. Do you mean to suggest, kat, that we couldn't wait for the U.N. inspectors to finish their job, because Iraq could hit us 15 years from now?

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
See, that is the sort of 'lazy' reporting that goes on around Bush...he uses the word "imminent" once, and in the way you describe. However, the definition of the word 'imminent' is :About to occur; impending. Bush certainly used language to suggest that Iraq could actually hurt America in the near future, including in your own link. He(well, his speech writers) is also a master of avoiding making direct claims that a Google search can bring up to bite him in the butt.

I don't need you to provide the definition of imminent to understand that when someone says..we do not need to wait for...then it is not a present reality..although, they are suggesting it could be a future reality. SO quite clearly...Bush made a statement that = "there is no known imminent threat".

For instance, Bush said in a speech, "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints."(google the quote...Is is in an October 2002 speech in Cincinati)

This statement was supported by David Kays' report.

'On any given day' means the same thing as 'imminent', doesn't it? If you speak English, I mean?

I'm not familiar with using those terms as interchangable. I speak English.

Remember, Bush supporters were saying we had to strike first, before Iraq hit us.

What Bush supporters said[x=] what Bush said. Bush did not say that Iraq was an "imminent threat" no matter how many omelets you would like to create on a sunday morning.

Do you mean to suggest, kat, that we couldn't wait for the U.N. inspectors to finish their job, because Iraq could hit us 15 years from now?

Must you cloud the conversation with random accusations like this? I've not suggested anything except that you and chem freak make unsubstantiated claims and pass them off as fact without supporting them with direct quotes from readily available transcripts. I find that dishonest.

 

[RageSk8]

"Revisionism

As previously noted, a current talking point among the apologists is that no one ever claimed that Saddam actually posed an imminent threat—but rather, we had to invade because he might someday become a threat.

Well, it seems to be true that the Bush administration never used the word "imminent"--in much the same way they never claimed that Saddam Hussein was literally the mastermind behind 9/11--but in the latter case, they certainly linked the two together at every opportunity, and in the former, the administration and its various mouthpieces certainly did everything possible to indicate that time was of the essence and we had to act now and we simply couldn't wait blah blah blah.

Case in point: a speech by the President on October 8, 2002. First, let’s get a little 9/11 linkage in there:
We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September 11, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

Okay, now let’s make sure people understand that time is of the essence.
Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

Okay, not imminent, exactly—but it sure doesn’t sound like we can afford to wait much longer! What kind of threat are we talking about, exactly?
We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, and VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September 11.

--snip--
We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using UAVs for missions targeting the United States.

And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems are not required for a chemical or biological attack -- all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.

And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups.

So there are various ways in which Saddam could attack us at any moment with his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, which we know he has! It’s no wonder our concern is "urgent!"
Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Okay, we "cannot wait." We have a "gathering" threat. Our concern is "urgent." We are facing "clear evidence of peril." There's a consistent message here, and if you think it is, "there's no hurry, time is on our side," then you are, perhaps, not the sharpest knife in the proverbial drawer.

My point is, imminence as both a specific and general concept was undeniably in the air in the buildup to war. For instance, here's a Denver Post editorial from Sept. 26, 2002 (via Lexis, so I don't have a link for you):
Iraq's Saddam Hussein can unleash chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes of his command, according to a 50-page dossier released by the British government.

The new information, released by Prime Minister Tony Blair, is precisely what we've been waiting to hear.

Iraq poses an imminent threat to world safety. Imminent being the key word.

Okay, you say, but the editorial writer only comes up with the word "imminent" in reference to the British government's 45-minute claim. Well, yes--but those of you with longer memories than, say, Andrew Sullivan, will recall that our President was not above mentioning that claim a time or two himself:
The White House, in the run-up to war in Iraq, did not seek CIA approval before charging that Saddam Hussein could launch a biological or chemical attack within 45 minutes, administration officials now say.

The claim, which has since been discredited, was made twice by President Bush, in a September Rose Garden appearance after meeting with lawmakers and in a Saturday radio address the same week. Bush attributed the claim to the British government, but in a "Global Message" issued Sept. 26 and still on the White House Web site, the White House claimed, without attribution, that Iraq "could launch a biological or chemical attack 45 minutes after the order is given."

That’s from the Washington Post, July 20, 2003. (The "Global Message" mentioned is still available on the White House website, as of this writing). As I say, the Bushies may never have specifically used the word "imminent"—but that’s just a matter of splitting hairs so fine, you’re almost working on a subatomic level. Because they sure as hell implied it at every possibility, and anyone who claims not to understand that is either an outright liar or simply so stupid it’s hard to imagine that they are able to get up in the morning and remember to put their socks on before their shoes.

One other point. People have been quoting this bit from the State of the Union address lately:
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.

Yes, it’s a denial--but it’s an after the fact denial. At the point in time when he says this, he’s already been using the 45-minute claim for months, as well as giving speeches like the one I quote above. This line is a response to critics, pure CYA. "Imminent? I never said ‘imminent’!" This has no more bearing on the discussion than any other Bush administration after-the-fact denial—what Josh Marshall frequently calls "up-is-downism." As simply as possible, for the comprehension-impaired amoung you: this one paragraph does not negate the fact that he spent the previous several months implying precisely the opposite.

Okay?

Well then. I’m certainly glad we had this little chat."

http://www.thismodernworld.com/weblog/mtarchives/week_2003_10_12.html#001141

 

[kat]

Originally posted by RageSk8

Okay, not imminent, exactly—but it sure doesn’t sound like we can afford to wait much longer!

Thanks for the confirmation. It's always nice to have someone affirm the facts. Bush did not say "imminent threat".
Now, if you want to ask me if Bush gave a sense of urgency to his statements, well I guess...I would agree that the facts support that statement. In other words, you wouldn't be lying.

NEXT HALF TRUTH, PLEASE!

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
Thanks for the confirmation. It's always nice to have someone affirm the facts. Bush did not say "imminent threat".
Now, if you want to ask me if Bush gave a sense of urgency to his statements, well I guess...I would agree that the facts support that statement. In other words, you wouldn't be lying.

NEXT HALF TRUTH, PLEASE!

Every time Bush speaks, it is a half truth...isn't that enough? No, he didn't say thop\se words, but he certainly gave America that impression. And, if there wasn't an immediate threat, then Bush is a criminal in my eyes.

 

[Zero]

My real question is: why is it that the only people on the entire planet who trust and support Bush are American Republicans? Are the billions who distrust Bush wrong, or are the Republicans blinded by lies, dogma, and near-religious faith that anyone who claims yo be 'conservative' must be good?

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
Every time Bush speaks, it is a half truth...isn't that enough?

I think sometimes Zero, you are addicted to hyperbole like others are addicted to cheap medication.

No, he didn't say thop\se words, but he certainly gave America that impression. And, if there wasn't an immediate threat, then Bush is a criminal in my eyes.

I have never had an in person discussion with anyone who thought that Bush declared Iraq an "imminent" threat. Nor anyone who considered that Bush considered Iraq an Immediate threat. I associate with an older, well traveled and discriminate crowd, that may have something to do with it. However, if the majority of the U.S. could not discriminate between imminent and future possible/probably then I suggest there are other serious issues we should be discussing. If you find Bush's speach making criminal then I suggest you push for charges against all past living presidents, as they are all guilty of it.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
My real question is: why is it that the only people on the entire planet who trust and support Bush are American Republicans? Are the billions who distrust Bush wrong, or are the Republicans blinded by lies, dogma, and near-religious faith that anyone who claims yo be 'conservative' must be good?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fustian

 

[Zero]

No, kat, what is illegal is invading other countries without a good justification for it. There was obviously time to form an international coalition to bring freedom to Iraq, since they were no threat to anyone. Bush chose to shut out the world, and the proof of his error is apparent, isn't it?

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
No, kat, what is illegal is invading other countries without a good justification for it. There was obviously time to form an international coalition to bring freedom to Iraq, since they were no threat to anyone. Bush chose to shut out the world, and the proof of his error is apparent, isn't it?

The proof of the error that is apparent are hundreds upon hundreds of mass graves that people are quite literally tripping over all over the country. The mounds of skulls and body parts, many still clutching their possessions, including children clutching the hands of their parents, dolls and other toys. The error in reality was neglect, the neglect to value the life of 10's of thousands of people fighting for the freedom from oppression and brutality. The error was that we were not there to assist them when they needed us.
No meglomaniac, oppressive, murderous, genocidal leader should ever be allowed to remain in office for a decade after slaughtering the people they are given the trust to care for like this one did.
Ignoring THAT for a decade is criminal on so many levels and by so many different world leaders I haven't the fingers or toes to count them.
So for those reasons, I cannot, will not agree that there was "obviously time" as time had already run out a decade before.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
The proof of the error that is apparent are hundreds upon hundreds of mass graves that people are quite literally tripping over all over the country. The mounds of skulls and body parts, many still clutching their possessions, including children clutching the hands of their parents, dolls and other toys. The error in reality was neglect, the neglect to value the life of 10's of thousands of people fighting for the freedom from oppression and brutality. The error was that we were not there to assist them when they needed us.
No meglomaniac, oppressive, murderous, genocidal leader should ever be allowed to remain in office for a decade after slaughtering the people they are given the trust to care for like this one did.
Ignoring THAT for a decade is criminal on so many levels and by so many different world leaders I haven't the fingers or toes to count them.
So for those reasons, I cannot, will not agree that there was "obviously time" as time had already run out a decade before.

Blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah. Blah?
One decade, or two? Remember, that "meglomaniac, oppressive, murderous, genocidal leader" was an ally of the U.S. during the 80s.

I also know of a decade of sanctions that caused the starvation of half a million children.

And none of that justified a preemptive attack on another country without an international consensus. If we didn't Invade Iraq while Saddam Hussien was 'gassing his own people'(Thanks, Reagan, good call invading Grenada instead!), then waiting 6 months to avoid teh current debacle would have been worth it. Iraq is liable to be less free now than it was under Saddam Hussien..thanks to the religious and social issues involved, terrorism is stronger today than it was 2 years ago, and we have alienated the entire world.
This makes Bush a good president how, exactly?