Why Do We Let bush Get Away With This Crap?

In answer to the titular question, Bear, the people of the United States would prefer to devote their attentions to their private pursuits, and the overwhelming majority, whether inclined to the right or the left, prefer not to think about matters political and international. The Shrub, or any other politico, gets away with this crap because too many people prefer to be told what they think, as opposed to doing the hard work of finding the truth on their own.

Why do we let the liberals get away with this crap?

Bush never called Iraq an imminent threat.

The administrations point that you often don't know a terrorist threat until it is too late is a very valid point.

In Jordan a terrorist cell was caught making a HUGE chemical bomb not too long ago, where do you libs think the nerve gas they had came from?

Let's see...If we don't know a terrorist threat until it's too late, then we do what? Attack a country with no proven links to terrorism? If what you say about Jordan is true, why don't we overthrow their gov't?

No, instead we should liberate countries with agressive dictators who do have ties to terrorism, especially after years of trying other peaceful means.

Countries like Iraq.




Because they were the target of a terrorist threat? LOL.

Acq, don't waste your time. That entire "WoMD" hoax, and any connection to Al Qaeda was debunked the same day the story came out. Which will not, of course, prevent those with an agenda from continuing to tout a specious story.

I guess those dead kurds and iranians, and the survivors with melted skin from chemical attacks are just a hoax as well?

And the mustard and nerve gas found in Iraq?

Plus the ties to terrorism and AQ are real.

What isn't real is this "Bush said imminent threat" BS.

do you work for bushinc?

Bear, i personally don't consider that individual worth a response. If you don't feed the trolls, they lose interest and go away.

setanta, but he or she is saying such untrue and provoking things. You can't just leave it and leave someone who may be reading with and impression that he/she may be right. You gotta try to shoot them down to where it is obvious they are full of crap and then stop feeding them. (i think)

Source

"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
• White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03

"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
• President Bush, 7/17/03

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
• President Bush, 7/2/03

"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
• President Bush 4/24/03

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
• Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
• President Bush, 3/19/03

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
• President Bush, 3/16/03

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

"Well, of course he is."
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question "is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?", 1/26/03

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
• President Bush, 1/3/03

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
• President Bush, 11/23/02

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
• President Bush, 11/3/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
• President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
• President Bush, 10/28/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
• President Bush, 10/16/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
• President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02

Source


He didn't , he used his lap dogs to do it for him.

@Karzak:
Now , will you answer MY question?
Or will you storm out the the room like he did?

OK, Revel . . . that troll repeated a patently false story about chemical weapons and AQ involvement in Jordan. I warned Acq not to bother, that the story was quickly debunked. The troll responds with illogical nonsense about gassed Kurds, and a statement from authority about an AQ link to Huessein. If someone reading that does not see that the response is completely a non sequitur to what was originally written, then nothing i can write is likely to make an impression on them. Intelligent readers, of whatever political predilections, will know manure when they read. If someone doesn't, then i can't help them smell what is directly under their literary nose.

Funny, but none of your quotes have bush saying imminent threat, in fact the only time the word imminent is used is when it is fed to someone by a reporter as a question.

It's sad to see this kind of liberal dishonesty in action.

LOL, it's funny that anyone who trys to shed a little light of truth on false liberal dogma gets labled a troll.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/26/jordan.terror/

If you libs want to post falsehoods like this "imminent threat" misquote or the claim the US supplied saddam with WMD or any other lies, then expect to be challenged on it. If you don't like truth then find a board that only allows liberals.

But don't think that by calling me a troll you are fooling anyone. It isn't trolling to point out a lie.

Hmm, let's take a look at Karzak's points here. First, we shall assume that the stories of the gassed Kurds, and the Al Quaeda links to Hussein are true. Why not? I am sure at least half of it is true. Let's also assume that the Jordan story is true, after all, it was reported on CNN. Karzak is working up to a good argument for invading Iraq up to this point, should we accept the evidence presented. Now....here is where I get confused. Karzak insists that Bush never called Iraq an "imminent threat". This leaves me wondering, what exactly was the point of the war then? It almost seems that Karzak is unconsciously channeling the spirit of the libs. Go eat some steak, my man, and get yourself back on track here.

Ask Edwards and Kerry, Edwards did call Iraq an Imminent threat, and did support the war.

Why do you libs back away from something you supported?

How do you figure? We still have a sizeable force in country as well as a considerable NATO contingency.

Afghanistan now has a soveriegn government. You're not suggesting that the US should occupy afghanistan are you?

I'm not an American. However, I did support the war at first, but I changed my mind as the plot sickened.

Well, the problem with that is that once we libered iraq we can't go back.

Funny how you didn´t read my whole post, and I quote myself



It's sad to see this kind of Karzak´s dishonesty in action.

now will you answer my question?

Funny how you jump to conclusions.