AAAinthebeltway WROTE: ..an imminent threat of WMD, which is what I was focusing on. I don't think you will find that Bush said that. HAHAHA man you've lost it completely. Are you that stupid? clinging on your dumya THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS Bush Calls Iraq Imminent Threat http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/iraqimminent.html
lol - playing word games... somewhat "clinton-esque" isn't it? so endlessly stating that a homicidal psychopath "possesses" weapons, the lead story in every US newspaper and news-tv show for a year is "WMD," neocon zealot-spokesmen expounding nightly on mushroom clouds over US cities, colin powell holding anthrax vials up in the UN, presidential addresses, etc. -- that was just casual banter.... it wasn't really hyping impending disaster and inciting hysteria, because bush has not been quoted as using the word "imminent"? ridiculous.
I guess you only read the headline, not the speech. Your article clearly states that Bush said: "If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late," Bush said. "Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option." ... . "Now, in this century, the ideology of power and domination has appeared again, and seeks to gain the ultimate weapons of terror. " ... . In particular, he used the example of North Korea, which already has material for several nuclear weapons and engages in nuclear brinkmanship, as a warning on Iraq. "Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq," he said. I don't know how he could have made it much clearer. He said Saddam "seeks to gain" nukes, that we must not allow the threat "to rise up in Iraq" and that we can't wait for it to "fully and suddenly emerge." Kennedy called for a resolution that required proof of "imminent threat" but that was rejected.
"Calls have mounted in recent weeks for the president to make a better case for going to war. In response, Bush argued that use of force is not only justified but necessary, and that the threat is not only real but imminent." DID YOU READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE? AAAinthebeltway????? ummmm skipped grade school reading lessons? What's the matter with you? lost your marbles???, snap out of it How old are you? A.D.D. runs deep? forgot your ritalin today? WHAT PART of <<<In response, Bush argued that use of force is not only justified but necessary, and that the threat is not only real but imminent.>>>are you so confused about???????????? Ahhhh I get it....It doesn't say "imminent threat" but "the threat is imminent".... Sooooooo sorry for not seeing your confusion.. my bad
The article said that, Bush did not. Show me where HIS WORDS said that. In fact, he said the opposite. He said we can't allow this threat to ARISE, which clearly means it is not imminent.
Excuse me, I don't mean to butt in. I can't swear to what President Bush did or did not say; however, his good friend Mister Blair said that not only did Iraq have WMD, not only was the threat immanent, but that the weapons could be launched in 45 minutes. And at no time did Mister Bush correct him. in fact, Mister Bush has frequently referred to British inelegance as being the source of some/much of the information used in the decision to go to war. Please forgive me for intruding in your discourse.
right right, how dare they put false words in your hero's mouth.. right? Lying sobs.. An actual tape recording would do it, surely you will ask for authentication. Not good enough though. So how about a video tape? Hmmmmm not good either.. it can be digitally doctored just to fool AAAinthebeltway. Hmmm what can we do next? AAA in the same room as dumya?not good... I bet ya you'll come out saying that there was something wrong with your ears Sooooo, how about the actual Resolution Authorizing U.S. Military Action Against Iraq???????? Provided by the whitehouse signed by your hero... counterfeit signature you will say I'm sure Vote for Resolution Authorizing U.S. Military Action Against Iraq Sees âImminent Threatâ; Says Resolution Strikes âAppropriate Balanceâ [one of the many excerpts:] .... The President has maintained that this resolution is necessary at this time based on his assessment of the imminent threat to the United States posed by Iraq. If the President believes based on the intelligence that he has received that an imminent threat exists, then it is my belief that we must support him. ....As the President pursues diplomatic negotiations to end this imminent threat, it is ....He [GW] now seeks Congressional authorization to use military force in Iraq based on his assessment of the imminent threat presented by the untrustworthiness http://www.house.gov/kanjorski/02_10_04IraqWar_Release.htm Surely enough I'm expecting you to come back with another bull answer like Bush never said or thought or tried to convince congress that the threat was imminent! blah blah blah.... BTW the resolution passed, key was the dumya lobbying congress with the "imminent threat" argument. The only way to get around UN approval and act unilaterally.. but we knew that already Give it a rest bro, take your pills, face reality.. we all do.. the sooner the better Whatever...
.....On the other hand, I would challenge anyone to tell me ( assuming there will never be wmds found which i highly doubt) if the world is not a better place with him over thrown??? ./..and he should have been thrown out by Bush I...I mean.....how many more stories of brutality must you hear? how many more mass graves?...if you are cool with it..fine....me, i thought we shold have taken him out a long time ago...and like i keep saying, if i ha my way....there would be cross hairs on iran , syria , yemen and libya rioght now....anyone want to make an argument that we shouldn't just finish it off now?????
Look, this argument could go on forever and nothing will be accomplished. Let's just do this. I would like one liberal to stand up and just admit the reason liberals in general oppose any military action and wars in general. Because wars cost money. Having a big military cost money. If we spend money on having a big military that means there is less money to spend on your precious entitlements. This is a fact. do not argue and please for the love of God do not say you oppose this war on a moral ground. You just don't want us using tax dollars for defense, you would rather fund social programs. That is what this is about. At least Dean admits it. During the Clinton administration cut our military spending by 40%. He also cut the salary and benefits of our men and women in service. He also cut our intelligence spending. He took that money and put in into big gov't social programs. And you wonder why our military people are so poor and why we don't have enough troops to send relief over there and you wonder why 9/11 happened and why our intelligence community didn't stop this. You cannot have both a big military and big gov't at the same time. Not unless you want to pay 90% in taxes. So stop attacking this war and Bush as if you give a damm.
Great post! Now we know what how unpatriotic "liberals" really are. Suggested reading: the very first post of this thread. OK, the reason is that "wars in general" are something to be avoided by rational thinking humans unless there are absolutely no alternatives. It is not the American way to start wars. This is why not only "liberals", but right thinking people of all political beliefs had and continue to have serious problems with our invasion of Iraq. It has nothing to do with money. But you have convinced yourself otherwise, and it is obvious you are not going to be dissuaded by anything anyone says. So why bother asking? As for the cuts in military spending, guess what? George Bush (Sr.) started the cuts as part of the "peace dividend". "President George Bush began the cuts, pushing Congress to authorize a 25 percent cut in the military and those cuts have continued through the Clinton administration." (Douglas S. Wood - CNN Interactive) "Precious entitlements"? Do you mean like Social Security? I thought that (originally evil Democrat plan that bordered on communism) has evolved into being one of the Republican party's pet programs But certainly you are right. Better we should have $600 toilet seats for the military than funding for school lunches. Nancy Reagan told us all we needed to know when she explained that ketchup is a vegetable. Etc. And when did Clinton cut military salaries? Can you show us your sources for this revelation? And how about this?: From the archives, Jan. 7 â Preparing for war, Bush spurns veterans by Helen Thomas, syndicated columnist Veterans groups are angry at President George W. Bush for supporting a 1995 government decision to rescind an old promise of free lifetime health benefits for military retirees. This is the man who told veterans and active-duty military personnel after the 2000 campaign that he would make sure "promises made to our veterans will be promises kept." So why does he persist in short-changing the retirees, especially when he is preparing for another war and hoping to lure more volunteers for the military? ... (And what exactly is a "damm" anyway?) Peace, RS