The President Just Implied 'Imminent Threat'(Newspaper Correction)

Cleveland Plain Dealer ^ | Oct 19, 2003 | Tom Brazaitis

[BushisTheMan]

Brazaitis, formerly a Plain Dealer senior editor, is a Washington columnist.

So does this mean the Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper fired him?

[Socratic]

"Another illustration of liberal racism. The author seems to care only about his own behind and not one bit about those of the Iraqi's whom we released from under Saddam's boot. Another hypocrite."

I used a liberal friend's argument for undbridled Socialism against her. In the past she quoted, "Am I my brother's keeper?" I said yes I am, but I don't have to like the government extorting money from me and determining who my "brothers" are and how best to look after them. So, when she was ranting against the Iraqi War of Liberation, I asked her, "Am I my brother's keeper?" and went on to add that she has to determine who her "brothers" are on this Earth. She did not respond.

[gcruse]

The author seems to care only about his own behind and not one bit about those of the Iraqi's whom we released from under Saddam's boot.

So it's the US's job to go around freeing people from bad government?
How does promising not to attack North Korea fit into your noblesse oblige?

[gcruse]

How can this guy make that claim?
 Is he privvy to Saddam's inner thoughts?
Part of Saddam's inner circle?

No, and neither was Bush.  But we went to war anyway.

[Mr.Atos]

No, and neither was Bush. But we went to war anyway.

Educated, calculated, tactical decisions are what we demand from leaders.

Uninformed rhetorical speculation is what we expect from biased dunderheads.

[mewzilla]

So what's imminent? How long do we wait?

[gcruse]

Uninformed rhetorical speculation is what we expect from biased dunderheads.

So you're saying Bush knew what was in Saddam's mind? Silly boy.  If
he knew, then where are those pesky WMDs?

[gcruse]

So what's imminent? How long do we wait?

WWIII was imminent when the Russian trawlers approached the
picket line of the Cuban quarantine.  We didn't pre-emptively
attack the USSR then.  Why?  Because of the difference in
consequences.

[Gothmog]

"Seventy percent of the American people are under the impression that Saddam Hussein played a principal role in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, although there is no credible evidence to support that. Bush has admitted that Hussein was not directly involved in the attacks.

"So, what are we left with here?"

That Bush and 70% of the US are much more intelligent than the author and most of the liberal press that's been parroting the Democrat line like sheep. How stupid can you be to publicly ID yourself as a moron? Oh, wait, for someone like him that must happen all the time.

I think I'll try to email him this.

[gcruse]

Uh, didn't Bush himself say there was no connection?

[Mr.Atos]

Silly! I should have assumed 'selective' differentiation on the part of some readers. Apologies! Since I don't have the code for colorful Crayola font, if I put it in bold, will that help?

Educated, calculated, tactical decisions are what we demand from leaders.

[gcruse]

Educated, calculated, tactical decisions are what we demand from leaders

Unfortunately, what we end up with are expanding government,
tariffs, subsidies, and other things politicians do to get and hold power.
But the noncritical blinkered partisans brook no peeking.

[okie01]

"In a radio address last September, for instance, he warned that Iraq could wage "a chemical or biological attack in as little as 45 minutes,"

I've always seen that claim attributed to Tony Blair. The neo-appeasers in the UK continue to make it an issue. But I don't recall Bush ever making this claim and I question Brazaitis' accuracy on this count.

[Mr.Atos]

But the noncritical blinkered partisans brook no peeking.

Explain!

[gcruse]

Cogitate!

[Mr.Atos]

Not worth it. Pending further discussion, I'll stick with my current assessment.

[gcruse]

Of course you will. See what I mean?

[Gothmog]

The author is defending himself by setting up the tired Dem strawman argument that Bush 'scared' the American public by leaving them with a false impression. The Dem strawman argument is -- 'How could the US public be so fooled when even Bush was forced to later admit there was no direct link between Hussein and Al Qaeda? Answer, Bush fooled the US public.'

IMHO, and I think many others, Bush made the case clear. I'll make it simple:

Hussein's regime was very hostile to the US
Hussein's regime had a history of pursuing WMD
Al Qaeda is very hostile to the US
Al Qaeda just proved (9/11) that they are capable of delivering attacks on US soil
The US can not allow the possibility that these 2 proven enemies will join forces to deliver WMD attacks on US soil
If nothing is done, that is very likely to happen
We must strike first

I believe Bush was right and so do most Americans. Unless they have a political axe to grind.

[talleyman]

liberal racism

I like that - say it again, daily, loudly. What's good for the goose...
And don't forget the best reason for going to war with Iraq: "It was for the children!"

[jcb8199]

"So, Mr. Batista and others who rushed to their keyboards to correct my "journalistic malpractice" or "outright fraud" can claim the high ground, even if Bush employed every other scare tactic imaginable, including the prospect of a mushroom cloud from a nuclear explosion to scare the bejabbers out of the American people."

Yeah, but...

He was wrong, and STILL turned fit in the anti-Bush remarks. Amazing.