July 13th, 2003, 08:48 PM #21
shah - you have to stop quoting that. Here is the only instance of the word "imminent" in the State of the Union address:
"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. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)
The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.
We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.)Usually, terrible things that are done with the excuse that progress requires them are not really progress, but just terrible things.
July 13th, 2003, 09:26 PM #22
Might i also point this out:
"I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government," wrote Wilson, who opposed the U.S.-led invasion that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
The answer he brought
1) wasn't filed in a formal manner - no written report
2) stated that no sale took place
The statment the president made, and the British intel did not assert there was a transaction, just that there was an attempt. Which i pointed out in my post above, but bears repeating.
This guy was against the war, so i question his motives, but the truth even by his own statements contradicts his assertions.Usually, terrible things that are done with the excuse that progress requires them are not really progress, but just terrible things.
July 13th, 2003, 09:56 PM #23shahaniGuest
From State of the Union Address:
"Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.
With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own."
"America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. "
Just a few of the phantasmal references to WOMD in the State of the Union Speech. Implications are clear.
July 13th, 2003, 10:29 PM #24
Well, you can read whatever you want into it. I think it's perfectly clear that the "implications" were that if Iraq were allowed to continue on it's course under Saddam Hussein, then he would continue his quest for nuclear weapons, continue to develop the chemical and biological weapons we know he had, and at any time, could put those weapons in the hands of terrorists.
All of the statements he made were entirely true. Either way - he made no reference to an "imminent threat from Iraqi WMD"
In fact, he stated the opposite - essentially saying we can't afford to wait until it is imminent.
Now, if we could address my statements regarding the truth about the president's statements? And how he didn't lie? And how the intel is actually true, that Iraq did approach Nigerian officials?Usually, terrible things that are done with the excuse that progress requires them are not really progress, but just terrible things.
July 14th, 2003, 05:41 AM #25shahaniGuest
If its all true and nothing happened, how come Tenet came out in the open and admitted he made a mistake?
This is just a CYA scenario. With Bush CYA and Tenet the Fall Guy.
July 14th, 2003, 08:06 AM #26
- Join Date
- Mar 2002
- almost Virginia
- Blog Entries
I guess cyphen has said it all.
July 14th, 2003, 11:26 AM #27
Thanks, Ep.. (but really Wilson said it all, he's just changing the story to suit his agenda and get his 15 minutes)
Jay - IMO - (to answer your question) President Bush (once again) made the correct statement that the CIA approved his report. Tenet said it probably should have been removed. He didn't admit he made a mistake, he said he was ultimately responsible for the approval of the speech. The left has tried to confuse the issue because one of MI6's sources is alleged to be a faked document. But the president wasn't talking about a Uranium sale - he was talking about the British intel of Iraq seeking to buy uranium. Which is correct. Wilson is wrong in this. And i think he knows it full well.
This isn't a CYA scenario, it's a mudslinging scenario. The left is hanging out in a political grassy knoll with a pea-shooter. And then wondering why all their shots are bouncing off. Problem is, they don't have any real ammunition.
July 14th, 2003, 11:37 AM #28shahaniGuest
Or possibly, Bush and Tenet are in cahoots and may have cut a deal for all you know (as I was telling Radar yesterday on the phone.)
Point is very simple. Bush said something in his State of the Union he shouldn't have said.
To make it worse, he did not apologize.
To make it worser, he made Tenet take the heat.
You tell me: Would you like to work for a Bossman like Bush?
July 14th, 2003, 12:01 PM #29
- Join Date
- Mar 2002
- almost Virginia
- Blog Entries
If cyphen's post is correct I hope he does not apologize. Apology indicates a mistake was made. To date there is no mistake according to the Brits.
If iraq was seeking Uranium there is only two likely reasons.
1) to enrich it with the centerfuge tubes they were trying to acquire (to make a bomb).
2) to create a belief in the above mentioned (1).
Add to the list please but those are the ones I see and as such either they were or were trying to make it look like they were actively pursuing a nuke.
July 14th, 2003, 12:04 PM #30shahaniGuest
Epidemic, all evidence points to Bush's lack of personal integrity. Let us await a Congressional inquiry and see the results before formaing any opinions.
For all you know Bush may be clean as fresh snow.
Highly unlikely but possible.
July 14th, 2003, 07:12 PM #31
Shah, all evidence points to mudslinging. Elections are coming up, and the dems are continually manufacturing arguments. None of them are sticking. This is no exception.
You have to lie to be a liar. Show me the lie.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)