Posted on 08/09/2003 6:11:22 AM PDT by rickmichaels
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:36:56 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
You can't be serious. That's a candidate for one of the most dimwitted comments I've seen on FR.
You are parsing words like Clinton. Bush did not say the threat was imminent, and all the playing with words will not make it so.
And you might want to read closer, the second quote is not Bush's, it is Clinton's, and therefore has no bearing on our discussion.
If you really are as stupid as you sound, then I apologize. I don't make fun of the mentally challenged. If you truly believe what you have been saying, then I can only suggest you talk less and listen more. There are some brilliant people that partake in this forum and the average here is far above what you commonly find elsewhere.
We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.
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."
This is what Bush actually said. What are we to make of it? Does he believe the threat is days away, weeks away, months away, years away? Common sense tells us that he believes it is close - weeks or months, rather than years - and that's in line with what Clinton said in 1998.
Common sense also tells us that imagining those hijackers armed by Libya or Iran or Pakistan would be the same as "Imagin(ing) those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein."
That Bush did not, under any circumstances, say the threat was imminet. And your assertion that he or the Adnimistration did, is a lie.
First, this is your opinion and not backed with facts, OK, go on. (Sounds like wishful thinking)
...The neocons, and the Administration, believe that the principal danger to us lies not with Al Queda or Saddam's WMDs but with the entire Muslim world - a world mired in hatred, humiliation, frustration, and defeat and burning with a desire for revenge...
Wow, where did you get that? The principal danger is not with Al Queda? The-flyers-of-fuel-laden-jets-into-buildings-Al-Queda? Yet, it is he entire Muslim world that is the real problem? That is a stretch and a half. Last I checked it was Afghanastan and Iraq that the USA invaded. If it were the entire Muslim World, why did not the 82nd Airborne continue into Pakistan; why did not the 101st Airborne continue into Iran or Syria? (Again, wishful thinking)
I will concede that a side benefit of these invasions is to put the enemies and would-be enemies of the USA on notice - whether they be Muslim or North Korean or whomever.
...Any weapons will do - boxcutters, knives, airplanes, anything. There's no direct defense possible. So we've decided to try to change the culture - or destroy it...
You assume that the US policy is to treat Muslims and Muslim terrorists as one. The US forces destroyed terrorists and tyrannical regimes. Mecca is still in intact. (Again, wishful thinking) And no direct defense possible? -For your misstatements, yes, agreed
This policy will require continuous warfare and great expenditure for many years. It could not, and cannot, be sold honestly to the public. So the Administration emphasized WMDs and terrorists...
Check the SOTU address. GWB stated that this was going to be long and drawn out. Last, do you think that Saddam "got religion" and gave up his evil ways? I am throroughly convinced that it was just a matter of time before he would have secured nuclear weapons, regardless of where the radioactive fuel came from-and so is most of America. (Now close your eyes, slap your hands against your ears and say la-la-la-la-la-la-la...)
Your right on that, I shouldn't have used the quotes since I guess I had paraphased the main concept behind the message.
States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger.
We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer.
This is what Bush actually said in the SOTU on 1/29/2002, remember their was a 14 month 'rush' to war, there were two SOTUs that are relevant.
(Missed #16 in ping flurry ;-)So why single out Saddam for immediate military action?
As far as I'm concerned, the case had been made years ago when Saddam kept violating the cease fire terms. The left always seems to trot out the 'but we haven't finished over there(wherever)(except when X42 sent them) yet' whines, so finishing off a job long left undone, was a good decision. That also alowed us to remove troops from Saudi, which was one of the stated reason Bin Laden gave for his attacks on us over the last decade or so. It also took away a large financial insentive to Pali bombers that allows that situation to cool down. Iraq was 'low hanging fruit' could also be cited.
Was there no other choice? No. Was it the best choice? IMHO, yes.
Your mileage may vary.
Bush identifies the threat
Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation.
And offers a policy for dealing with it
Different threats require different strategies
He singles out Saddam because he is
A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States
and justifies exteme (military) action because
The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving.
and
And this Congress and the American 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 Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
But then he goes on to say that, while the threat is not imminent we must act anyway. To allow it to fully emerge is to court disaster. What he means is that we have no evidence of specific plans to attack us, but Saddam has a history of wishing to do so, is already armed is trying to increase his armament, and is actively allied with those who've already showed a capability for delivering devasting blows.
If you want to say that my earlier characterization of the threat as "immediate" is a lie - feel free.
LOL! I don't need to say it because you just did in the previous paragraph!
But then he goes on to say that, while the threat is not imminent we must act anyway.
Consistency was never one of your strong points, was it?
We agree on that...but we disagree on the nature of the choice. You think it was to attack Saddam in order to destroy Iraqs WMDs. I think it was to attack the entire Muslim world in order to force them to change their culture.
Reasoning is surely not one of yours.
If Saddam was already armed and already in touch with Al Queda and already burning with a desire to do us harm what does Bush mean when he says the threat is not immediate?
So in order to do that we attack one of the most secular, non-Muslim regiemes in the area.
Brilliant.
Saddam was ALREADY armed, and ALREADY dealing with Al Qaeda and ALREADY wanting to do us harm since the first Gulf War. Those facts have NOTHING to do with the threat being imminent.
A terminal case!
Those warmongering "neocons" again huh? The Senate voted 99 to 0 and the House voted 406 to 7 in 1998 to use force against Iraq. Apparently not only are Republicans "neocons" but so are Democrats. At least in 1998.
Republicans wanted to take out Saddam in the first Gulf War, Republicans overwhelmingly support Bush's action in Iraq now. So why the use of the word "neocon?" Are you implying there is a cabal of "neocons" who are "neoconning" the entire Republican party to support their position?
The Democrats FEEL that Bush lied. Remember, that for a Liberal, FEELINGS trump fact and logic every time!
More accurately.
The Democrats WANT TO FEEL that Bush lied. Remember, that for a Liberal, FEELINGS trump fact and logic every time!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.