We went to war over THIS? (redux)

Forums: Politics, Iraq
Email this Topic • Print this Page

A new day, a new spin:

Today, in remarks to the press during a photo opportunity with the Polish president, Bush was asked: "Mr. President, a year ago you said the dictator of Iraq has got weapons of mass destruction. Are you still confident that weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq, given what Dr. Kay has said?" In response, Bush said, in part: " There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a gathering threat to America and others" (emphasis added).

Contrast this to Colin Powell's remarks to the UN Security Council in Feb. 2003, where he called Iraq's WMDs a "clear and present danger" and said: "The United States will not and cannot run that risk to the American people. Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world."

Furthermore, in Oct. 2002, Bush stated that Iraq's WMDs posed a "significant threat" and said: "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" (emphasis added)

So, what have we learned?

1. Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, or weapons of mass destruction programs, but rather "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities."

2. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction-related program activities weren't an imminent threat, or a clear and present threat, or a threat that could occur on any given day, but rather it was merely a "gathering" threat.

3. And for THAT, we had to invade Iraq right away, rather than waiting for the UN inspectors and sanctions do their work.

EDIT: needed to correct an omission before Frank and McGentrix get the thread shut down.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,831 • Replies: 23

No top replies

These guys are clowns, Joe, and unfortunately (make that UNFORTUNATELY) they are not especially funny clowns. They're more like the brooding, sinister clowns one sometimes finds in a horror movie.

0 Replies

Kay made the point in his interview in yesterday's New York Times that the UN inspectors were very effective and had cleaned, or caused the Iraqi's to clean out any WMD's they might have remaining by the middle of the 1990's. So even the claim that UN inspections were insufficent is a canard.

0 Replies

Another home run, Joe, thank you for the post.

Concise, well written and right on the money.

Hardcore Bush supporters and those "on the fence" would really benefit from reading this.
Would it be all right if we started to forward them around (links and all)?

0 Replies

If Iraq didn't have them, which is apparently the case, then why did the majority of the world believe they did? This was not a case in which the US was unique in believing Iraq had WMD's.

You act as though Bush and his L.E.G. were out to pull the wool over everyones eyes. That just is not the case. You believe what you want, I know nothing I say can change your mind, but just know that what you believe is wrong.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

why did the majority of the world believe they did?

Because certain groups, for their own political and economic ends, wanted to belive so, and acted on belief rather than evidence.

0 Replies

Good point McG. You can fool some of the people in your own country some of the time, but you can't fool every person in the world all the time, except Saddam or his henchmen seem to have pulled that one off.

0 Replies

Heywood wrote:

Would it be all right if we started to forward them around (links and all)?

Be my guest.

McGentrix wrote:

If Iraq didn't have them, which is apparently the case, then why did the majority of the world believe they did? This was not a case in which the US was unique in believing Iraq had WMD's.

The rest of the world may have indeed suspected that Iraq had WMDs, but only the US (and its servile lapdog. . . er, I mean, its loyal ally, the UK) actually acted on those suspicions. And that's because only the US believed that those suspected WMDs posed an clear and present threat to its security.

McGentrix wrote:

You act as though Bush and his L.E.G. were out to pull the wool over everyones eyes. That just is not the case. You believe what you want, I know nothing I say can change your mind, but just know that what you believe is wrong.

L.E.G.? Legion of Evil Gnomes?

As for what I believe, I'm merely repeating Bush's own statements. You can follow the links I posted yourself, McG. They are all from that unimpeachable source: www.whitehouse.gov

0 Replies

maybe so, but it sounds dirty here... :wink:

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

maybe so, but it sounds dirty here... :wink:

Okay, that's obvioulsy for White House quotes.

But how did you get the opinion that the MAJORIof the world BELIEVE they did?
(Most of the contrary links are still either online or in archives.)

0 Replies

Spin
It seems that the SPIN is spinning toward a cover up. It's usually the cover ups of transgressions that brings down the house of cards. When the players start issuing contradictory statements of each other it is a sure sign that the shawl of deciet is unravelling. The die hard Dubya fanatics will never believe that he duped them because that will bring them to a place which would shatter their beliefs. They will never go there no matter what concrete, absolute proof is provided.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

That just is not the case. You believe what you want, I know nothing I say can change your mind, but just know that what you believe is wrong.

I'm still waiting for your proof that we are wrong!

0 Replies

Montana wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
That just is not the case. You believe what you want, I know nothing I say can change your mind, but just know that what you believe is wrong.

I'm still waiting for your proof that we are wrong!

I thought that our invasion of Iraq was the proof that we believed our intelligence. But, what do I know?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

You act as though Bush and his L.E.G. were out to pull the wool over everyones eyes. That just is not the case. You believe what you want, I know nothing I say can change your mind, but just know that what you believe is wrong.

Well...they are "believing" (which is to say guessing or estimating) that Dubya and his handlers were out to pull the wool over everyone's eyes...

...but you are saying that you KNOW they are wrong (which is to say you KNOW what Dubya and his handlers were doing)...

...so the obvious question has to be:

Are you George Bush or one of his handlers?

If not -- why don't you stop pretending you know?!

0 Replies

No, Frank, I am saying that I KNOW nothing I say can change anyones mind.

THEY should know they are wrong.

Quote:

If not -- why don't you stop pretending you know?!

Please stop telling me what to do. Thanks.

0 Replies

McGentrix
This is what you said.

"but just know that what you believe is wrong."

0 Replies

The Twilight Zone
"I thought that our invasion of Iraq was the proof that we believed our intelligence. But, what do I know?

Obviously, nothing.

0 Replies

Re: The Twilight Zone

pistoff wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
"I thought that our invasion of Iraq was the proof that we believed our intelligence. But, what do I know?

Obviously, nothing.

Thanks for such a thoughtful, insightful post. It warms my heart to know you put so much effort into your posts. It adds so much to the enjoyment of others in these forums. You are a valuable asset to this community. Keep up the good work.

0 Replies

McG

You wrote:

Quote:

You act as though Bush and his L.E.G. were out to pull the wool over everyones eyes. That just is not the case. You believe what you want, I know nothing I say can change your mind, but just know that what you believe is wrong.

I called your attention to the fact that:

Quote:

Well...they are "believing" (which is to say guessing or estimating) that Dubya and his handlers were out to pull the wool over everyone's eyes...

...but you are saying that you KNOW they are wrong (which is to say you KNOW what Dubya and his handlers were doing)...

Now you are trying to pussy your way out of what you said by writing:

Quote:

No, Frank, I am saying that I KNOW nothing I say can change anyones mind.

THEY should know they are wrong.

That is either some very ambiguous and poor writing on your part -- or it is a low point for you.

You decide.

0 Replies

No Frank, What I am doing is getting tired of having each word I write picked apart and taken out of context. Either you are too stupid to understand my point or you do it on purpose. I tend to think it's the later, so I have to wonder why that is. I figure it must be that you cannot make your own point and therefore must rely on the age old tactic of literality. I said what I said, take what I said and translate it to mean whatever you want it to mean.

0 Replies

We went to war over THIS? (redux)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know