Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Suddenly, it becomes imminently clear
my demented brain | 10/11/2003 | dirtboy

Posted on 10/11/2003 12:46:46 PM PDT by dirtboy

For weeks now, to the point of annoyance, we’ve witnessed Democratic politicians and liberal media talking heads stating that the threat from Saddam wasn’t imminent, as President Bush had claimed. Nancy Pelosi said it, as did Senators Levin and Rockefeller. The AP and Reuters have claimed it. Bob Edwards on NPR stated it as fact in a softball question to Terry McAuliffe during an NPR interview. By the time the Kay Report was made public, the NY Times felt the lie well-positioned enough to incorporate it into their opening front-page salvo against the evidence Kay presented:

“Analysis: preliminary report delivered by David Kay, chief arms inspector in Iraq, forces Bush administration to come face to face with this reality: that nothing found so far backs up administration claims that Saddam Hussein posed imminent threat to world”

However, anyone who gets their news from non-PIPA approved media outlets is well aware that Bush said nothing of the sort. As a refresher, here are Bush’s actual comments from the 2003 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."

So why would the Dems so transparently alter Bush’s clear meaning here? I initially chalked it up to their pathological tendency to play games with the truth, whether they need to or not. However, upon reflecting upon Charles Krauthammer’s brilliant analysis in his column WMDs in a Haystack, the purpose and timing of this lie and the need for the Dems to distort what Bush said becomes clear. From Krauthammer:

“Ekeus theorizes that Hussein decided years ago that it was unwise to store mustard gas and other unstable and corrosive poisons in barrels, and also difficult to conceal them. Therefore, rather than store large stocks of weapons of mass destruction, he would adapt the program to retain an infrastructure (laboratories, equipment, trained scientists, detailed plans) that could "break out" and ramp up production when needed. The model is Japanese "just in time" manufacturing, where you save on inventory by making and delivering stuff in immediate response to orders. Except that Hussein's business was toxins, not Toyotas.” (emphasis mine)

The Kay Report found the framework of an extensive chemical and biological weapons program, but no weapons themselves. Above and beyond the possibility that the finished weapons themselves are either still hidden or were shipped to another country such as Syria, the existence of this kind of program was both a vindication of the decision to invade and of Bush’s postulation that we should not wait until the threat is imminent.

Hence the need to alter the debate and Bush’s very words.

By shifting the debate to a position where the threat from Saddam was stated by Bush as imminent, the Dems basically are attempting to make the just-in-time manufacturing approach from Saddam irrelevant to the case against him, and the Kay Report, instead of being a justification for the war, instead becomes damnation of Bush and more “evidence” that Bush lied to get us into war.

But the timing is rather interesting – the Dems started lying about this well before the Kay Report went public. How could they have been aware of the need to engage in damage control over the Kay Report and lay the groundwork of widespread lying before the report came out?

I believe that the answer lies in Kay’s initial Senate briefing on his findings that happened in late July. Kay made it clear that Saddam had engaged in an extensive deception campaign to hide his WMD programs. I would also speculate that Kay confided to the Senators present that he had found programs but no weapons. It is my belief that at least one Dem Senator, seeing the problems that Kay’s findings would present to their attacks on Bush, saw the need to change Bush’s position regarding the threat from Saddam, hence the sudden barrage of claims from the Dems that Bush stated the threat from Saddam was imminent.

If this is the case, a Dem Senator took a classified briefing and used it for purely political purposes. It would be very interesting to track this lie back in time and see when it went into widespread Dem use.


TOPICS: Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: demlies; imminentthreat; kayreport; sotu; trueevidence; wmd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-91 next last

1 posted on 10/11/2003 12:46:46 PM PDT by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
This is not new, the Senator's name is Bob Graham.
2 posted on 10/11/2003 12:49:27 PM PDT by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

I'M BACK!!!

SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com


STOP BY A BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD (It's in the Breaking News sidebar!)

3 posted on 10/11/2003 12:49:55 PM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog
This is not new, the Senator's name is Bob Graham.

It would be interesting to trace this lie back in time and see where it started. Do you have any quotes from Graham saying that Bush claimed the threat was imminent?

4 posted on 10/11/2003 12:50:46 PM PDT by dirtboy (Cure Arnold of groping - throw him into a dark closet with Janet Reno and shut the door.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
A brilliant piece of writing, dirtboy! Yes, having Hatellary Rodhamster on the Senate intelligence committee is a recipe for democrat lies and dissembling, a sure way to feed the deceit machine that has become the democrat party.
5 posted on 10/11/2003 12:50:57 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Hey, I'm not complaining. Everytime I'm able to use the ammo supplied by the left, I use it. Can't tell you how many people we have turned to the right using the lies of the left. All they have to do is see it in video or in print. The video of the Prez's SOTU and that particular sentence just destroys the "Bush lied" argument.

Why would I want the left to go all nicey now? They are doing a great job getting out the vote for the Republicans!
6 posted on 10/11/2003 12:51:47 PM PDT by OpusatFR (A democrat always overplays its hand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple; PhiKapMom; okie01; sinkspur; BibChr; Sabertooth; sauropod
ping
7 posted on 10/11/2003 1:01:40 PM PDT by dirtboy (Cure Arnold of groping - throw him into a dark closet with Janet Reno and shut the door.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
BTTT
8 posted on 10/11/2003 1:03:18 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (No Taxation Without Respiration - Repeal Death Taxes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OpusatFR
They are doing a great job getting out the vote for the Republicans!

Yes, it was with utter amazement that I watched Dem leader after Dem leader forcefully say into the camera, "There was no imminent threat."

I asked myself why, oh why, they were all taking so many prime-time opportunities to agree with GWB, then it dawned on me - they must actually believe their own hyperbole and thought they were disagreeing. All I can say is Nancy Pelosi, you go girl!

9 posted on 10/11/2003 1:04:38 PM PDT by Vladivostok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
If this is the case, a Dem Senator took a classified briefing and used it for purely political purposes. It would be very interesting to track this lie back in time and see when it went into widespread Dem use.

It would also be interesting to see if any intelligence sources were burned, or worse, by the leak from the Dems.

Good bit of writing and analysis. Thanks for the flag.


10 posted on 10/11/2003 1:09:15 PM PDT by Sabertooth (No Drivers' Licences for Illegal Aliens. Petition SB60. http://www.saveourlicense.com/n_home.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Apparently your "demented brain" can see things that all the media can't.
Got a crystal ball under your chair?
11 posted on 10/11/2003 1:10:56 PM PDT by Just another Joe (FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

To: Buckhead
Great addition. Notice that "imminent threat" wasn't used anywhere. So it appears they were considering this line of attack abou six weeks before Kay's initial briefing, but weren't using that lie yet. And they were worried about the consequences of finding WMDs and having it blow up in their faces. And, if Kay found no WMDs but supporting weapons programs (which he did), that still was dangerous politically - unless they altered Bush's position.

I've learned that Dems don't just spontaneously start spouting the same lie in unison. There is usually an orchestrated campaign behind the scenes to coordinate the attack and create the impression of truth by the widespread repetition of the same lie. So now, when did the "imminent threat" lie really start getting widespread use? When did the DNC get the fax machines cranked up?

13 posted on 10/11/2003 1:28:24 PM PDT by dirtboy (Cure Arnold of groping - throw him into a dark closet with Janet Reno and shut the door.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
For weeks now, to the point of annoyance, we’ve witnessed Democratic politicians and liberal media talking heads stating that the threat from Saddam wasn’t imminent, as President Bush had claimed.

Except Bush never said that. In fact he said the opposite, that if we waited until the threat was imminent it would be too late. The whole point was to act before the threat became imminent.

14 posted on 10/11/2003 1:29:46 PM PDT by Hugin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hugin
Except Bush never said that. In fact he said the opposite, that if we waited until the threat was imminent it would be too late. The whole point was to act before the threat became imminent.

That's my entire point. Why did the Dems feel the need to engage in such a widespread, orchestrated campaign? It doesn't take much to debunk this lie, yet the NY Times felt the lie important enough to lead with it on their front-page analysis of the Kay Report.

IMO it was an attempt to neutralize the political impact of Kay finding these WMD programs. The programs themselves are not imminent threats - so if you can convince the people that Bush claimed the threat from Saddam was imminent, the Kay Report goes from being a justification for the war to being a condemnation of Bush. That is EXACTLY why the Dems are doing this - they knew we would find the WMD programs in place, and created an elaborate new lie to create a position from which to attack Bush.

15 posted on 10/11/2003 1:36:18 PM PDT by dirtboy (Cure Arnold of groping - throw him into a dark closet with Janet Reno and shut the door.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
I remember a Maureen Dowd column in the NYT that caused an uncharacteristic brouhaha because she lifted GWB's words from the State of the Union speech out-of-context. (Her offense was particulary egregious, even by shill standards--she literally dropped a clause from a sentence in order to change its meaning). I remember thinking at the time that this could have been an inadvertant error on her part, and something that could conceivably occur when a columnist, through laziness or familiarity of the source, simply regurgitates another's opinion (talking-point, press-release, whatever) without thinking. A "slip," if you will.

My recollection is that her column concerned the "imminence"-question. If someone finds and more closely examines it, then it could provide some circumstantial evidence about the existence of a "memo" being circulated on this question.

16 posted on 10/11/2003 1:36:23 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Well, as near as I can tell some of this came from a story on the State of the Union speech by our good friends at the Los Angeles Times.

Here is a link to the piece, entitled President calls Iraq threat imminent.

Reading through this article, one can see that the paper willfully misrepresented what the President said.

17 posted on 10/11/2003 1:41:48 PM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
That was a different lie:

Consider her May 14 column. She wrote: ''Busy chasing off Saddam, the president and vice president had told us that al-Qaida was spent. 'Al-Qaida is on the run,' President Bush said last week. 'That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly but surely being decimated. . . . They're not a problem anymore.' ''

Dowd chastised the president for his smug overconfidence about al-Qaida being ''not a problem anymore,'' just days before al-Qaida pulled off a major bombing in Saudi Arabia.

The problem, however, is that Dowd used ellipses to completely change the meaning of the president's remarks. The president never claimed that al-Qaida was no longer a problem. Rather, he said that the al-Qaida leaders who had been killed or captured were no longer a problem. Here's the quote from his May 5 speech in Little Rock, Ark., without the ellipses: ''Right now, about half of all the top al-Qaida operatives are either jailed or dead. In either case, they're not a problem anymore.''

It's interesting to note that the NY Times has managed to refine the Dowdism process into something even more transparent - in their efforts to slime Arnold as a Hitler sympathizer, they didn't even use the ellipses.

18 posted on 10/11/2003 1:42:50 PM PDT by dirtboy (Cure Arnold of groping - throw him into a dark closet with Janet Reno and shut the door.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
Bush Calls Iraq Imminent Threat
"Trusting in Hussein's Restraint 'Is Not an Option,' President Says

By Maura Reynolds, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON -- A somber and steely President Bush, speaking to a skeptical world Tuesday in his State of the Union address, provided a forceful and detailed denunciation of Iraq, promising new evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime poses an imminent danger to the world and demanding the United Nations convene in just one week to consider the threat.

Interesting. I don't think I've ever seen the media so bad as I've seen them this year. The Baltimore Sun did a story on that PIPA report and completely misrepresented the first issue covered by PIPA. Bloomberg injected the imminent word into a story about Bush's comments about the Kay Report, even though Bush never used the word during those comments. And most of the time they won't publish a correction even when it is pointed out to them.

It would be interesting to find the first use of an elected Dem claiming that Bush said that the threat was imminent.

19 posted on 10/11/2003 1:46:24 PM PDT by dirtboy (Cure Arnold of groping - throw him into a dark closet with Janet Reno and shut the door.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator

To: Buckhead
Krugman used the line in a June 3rd column:

"It is long past time for this administration to be held accountable. The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat. If that claim was fraudulent, the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history - worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-Contra."

21 posted on 10/11/2003 1:51:50 PM PDT by dirtboy (Cure Arnold of groping - throw him into a dark closet with Janet Reno and shut the door.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
According to Kay, he has only searched 10 out of the 130 reported depots. Yet within the 10 he has searched we already know that Saddam was in violation of 1441. What amazes me is how 1441 has been totally ignored by the media when reporting about WMDs and Saddams clear violations. The media has deliberately mislead the American people on what has already been found and how that relates to the actions taken against Saddam. Do these peole honestly believe that had we left Saddam alone that he would've went upon his merry-way promising not to engage in WMD research? He was in violation all along, with his extended-range missiles, hidden centrifuges and bio-labs. And the fact that the media is trying to convince people to the contrary is contemptuous.

Krauthammer from the Kay Report:

"Kay's list is chilling. It includes a secret network of labs and safe houses within the Mukhabarat, the Iraqi intelligence service; bioorganisms kept in scientists' homes, including a vial of live botulinum; and my favorite, ``new research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin´´ -- all ``not declared to the U.N."
22 posted on 10/11/2003 1:55:08 PM PDT by cwb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckhead
From a Newsmax article of a year ago, about the Congressional Black Caucaus' refusal to vote to support Bush over Iraq when they supported Clinton and Desert Fox:

The CBC statement, she said, makes clear the group's opposition to any military strike against Iraq "without a clearly demonstrated and imminent threat of attack on the United States." And, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said there has seen "no evidence nor intelligence that suggests that Iraq poses an imminent threat to our nation."

So we can see why Bush raised the issue in SOTU - he was saying we shouldn't wait until the threat was imminent. And if Dems want to say that the threat wasn't imminent and we shouldn't have acted, that's fine. But when did Dem politicians start bleating in unision that Bush claimed the threat was imminent? Krugman did it in June 03, when did the politicians pick it up and run with it?

23 posted on 10/11/2003 1:55:27 PM PDT by dirtboy (Cure Arnold of groping - throw him into a dark closet with Janet Reno and shut the door.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Comment #24 Removed by Moderator

To: dirtboy
Robin Cook and Clare Short were the first to use the term "imminent threat" in the dossier matter in England

I found a quote by our buddy Greg Thielemabb using it in the run up to the war.

25 posted on 10/11/2003 1:57:15 PM PDT by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Dog
Greg Thielmann...
26 posted on 10/11/2003 1:57:40 PM PDT by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Buckhead
Bryd was also setting the threshhold at "imminent threat" back in September 2002:

"Does Saddam Hussein pose an imminent threat to the United States?" Byrd asked.

27 posted on 10/11/2003 1:58:00 PM PDT by dirtboy (Cure Arnold of groping - throw him into a dark closet with Janet Reno and shut the door.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Comment #28 Removed by Moderator

To: Buckhead
Ah, Helen Thomas was pulling this crap back on July 17, 2003 - she also was trying to discredit Kay before the fact:

Recent published reports tell of unhappy CIA analysts who fear their intelligence reports on Iraq's arsenal was compromised for political reasons, that higher-ups tilted intelligence to fit the administration's need to find an excuse to attack Iraq.

The intelligence hierarchy might become the scapegoat if no weapons are found.

In a parting shot, Hans Blix, the retiring chief U.N. weapons inspector, claims the Bush administration "leaned on us" to produce certain findings in their weapons search.

In the run up to the war, Bush and his team spent months contending that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that were a "direct and imminent" threat to the United States.

I guess it wasn't enough for Helen to use just "imminent", she had to falsely throw in "direct" as well. There really seemed to be a tremendous amount of this kind of stuff in the press about July 17th or so - looks like that's when the DNC fax machine fired up. Still looking for Dem politicians who claimed that Bush stated that the threat was imminent.

29 posted on 10/11/2003 2:09:16 PM PDT by dirtboy (Cure Arnold of groping - throw him into a dark closet with Janet Reno and shut the door.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Buckhead
It looks to me like they argued even before the SOTU address that the standard for going to war was "imminent threat" and that Bush was responding to this argument in the SOTU. Realizing they lost that argument, they switched to the lie that Bush did claim it was imminent, and that he lied about it. Still looking for when they switched.

Agreed. Looks like they led with Krugman on June 3rd, and then there was a commentary barrage about July 17th- or a couple of weeks before Kay gave his preliminary briefing. Kinda like softeninig up the other side with an artillery barrage before attacking...

30 posted on 10/11/2003 2:10:52 PM PDT by dirtboy (Cure Arnold of groping - throw him into a dark closet with Janet Reno and shut the door.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy; MJY1288
Mike, do you have the timeline for the Wilson fiasco? Seems to me that the Wilson thing broke on or about this date, along with the Kelly/BBC thing in Britain.
31 posted on 10/11/2003 2:12:02 PM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Comment #32 Removed by Moderator

To: Buckhead
Here's a real interesting one from the AP - this is from October 4th, 2003, and relates to Pelosi's comments:

By JIM ABRAMS Associated Press writer WASHINGTON -- President Bush said Friday that the Iraq war was justified despite the lack of evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Congressional Democrats countered that a report from chief weapons hunter David Kay shows that administration claims Iraq posed an imminent threat were unfounded.

The president also shrugged off polls showing rising doubts about whether the war was worth the costs. "Sometimes the American people like the decisions I make, sometimes they don't," he told reporters. "But they need to know I make tough decisions, based upon what I think is right, given the intelligence I know."

Democrats, already hammering the president over his $87 billion request for military and rebuilding operations in Iraq, quickly latched onto Kay's interim report as further proof that the attack on Iraq was ill-advised.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, emerging from a briefing with Kay, said it was "clear to me that there was no imminence of a threat for weapons of mass destruction," as the White House had claimed.

Note that it isn't clear if Pelosi said "as the White House had claimed" - that very well could have been the AP adding that to the story. I think we're going to see a lot of media manipulation with only a few Dems (from safe, hard-core liberal districts) saying that Bush stated that the threat was imminent.

33 posted on 10/11/2003 2:15:06 PM PDT by dirtboy (Cure Arnold of groping - throw him into a dark closet with Janet Reno and shut the door.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple; Buckhead
BINGO!

Reality Check: Anti-Bush Ad

Jul 30, 2003 5:51 pm US/Central (WCCO-TV) National Democrats are test marketing a controversial political ad in Madison, Wisconsin...the capitol city of a battleground state.

"In his State Of The Union Address, George W. Bush told us of an imminent threat. 'Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,'" says the commercial.

Damn, nothing I like better than finding a smoking gun...

34 posted on 10/11/2003 2:17:50 PM PDT by dirtboy (Cure Arnold of groping - throw him into a dark closet with Janet Reno and shut the door.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Yup, that was the one.
35 posted on 10/11/2003 2:20:07 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Buckhead
Damn, that's the DNC itself promulgating that lie:

Read His Lips: President Bush Deceives the American People


36 posted on 10/11/2003 2:21:21 PM PDT by dirtboy (Cure Arnold of groping - throw him into a dark closet with Janet Reno and shut the door.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
So we have DNC friendly columnists setting off a barrage of columns in mid-to-late July, claiming that Bush stated that the threat was imminent. And the DNC then ran a commercial claiming that Bush said the threat was imminent.

Yep, they were laying the ground here to shift the debate away from Kay's findings. They had to have known that he was findign weapons programs but not weapons, and had to make it seem that Bush claimed that the threat was imminent.

37 posted on 10/11/2003 2:23:41 PM PDT by dirtboy (Cure Arnold of groping - throw him into a dark closet with Janet Reno and shut the door.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Comment #38 Removed by Moderator

To: Sabertooth
Check out reply #34, including the date...
39 posted on 10/11/2003 2:26:18 PM PDT by dirtboy (Cure Arnold of groping - throw him into a dark closet with Janet Reno and shut the door.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
It is amazing how the media gets right on message once they recieve their talking-points from the DNC. From everything from "Bush's gravitas," to this charade, to the Davis recall and how it was a referendum against Bush, the media all sings the same tune.
40 posted on 10/11/2003 2:26:45 PM PDT by cwb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Buckhead
Good find. July 8th. About the same timeframe.
41 posted on 10/11/2003 2:27:00 PM PDT by dirtboy (Cure Arnold of groping - throw him into a dark closet with Janet Reno and shut the door.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Bingo!
42 posted on 10/11/2003 2:30:14 PM PDT by Samwise (There are other forces at work in this world, Frodo, besides the will of evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
The Kay Report found the framework of an extensive chemical and biological weapons program, but no weapons themselves. Above and beyond the possibility that the finished weapons themselves are either still hidden or were shipped to another country such as Syria, the existence of this kind of program was both a vindication of the decision to invade and of Bush’s postulation that we should not wait until the threat is imminent.

The Democrats' view of WMD's consisting merely of stockpiled finished product rather than the means to produce it and the will to use it is strangely similar to the belief of the poor lottery-playing dopes on welfare who believe that wealth consists possessing a big pile of loot and who have scarcely a thought about how it is to be produced or maintained or even that such a thing is possible, outside of really, really good luck (their own lotto playing) or criminal means (the rich).

WMD don't kill people. People like Saddam and Stalin and Pol Pot and Hitler and Osama bin Ladin kill people using whatever is at hand. Such people who have already demonstrated a willingness to produce and to use WMD as a means of inflicting their will on otherwise unwilling people have already demonstrated the minimum necessary behavior for folks like the U.S. to move in and de-fang them before they can do any more damage.
43 posted on 10/11/2003 2:33:49 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #44 Removed by Moderator

To: Buckhead
Got that one in Post 21. One would figure that Krugman would bat leadoff for a lie campaign. Although Arianna was also repeating that lie later in the month, in her usual shrill, nails-down-the-blackboard style.
45 posted on 10/11/2003 2:38:58 PM PDT by dirtboy (Cure Arnold of groping - throw him into a dark closet with Janet Reno and shut the door.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Buckhead
And Bush never used the term in the October 7th address.

But he did, according to the NY Times school of editing quotes (Maureen Dowd, chairperson emeritus). Bush said this in that October 7th speech:

Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.

Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote. I'm confident they will fully consider the facts, and their duties.

The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly.

Now, do a bit of judicious editing:

imminent ... ... ... ... ... ... threat

And then get rid of those annoying ellipses

imminent threat

And Bush said JUST THAT. So there, nanny nanny boo boo!

46 posted on 10/11/2003 2:43:06 PM PDT by dirtboy (Cure Arnold of groping - throw him into a dark closet with Janet Reno and shut the door.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Going back to Graham (who is on the Intelligence Committee), I think he is the one who started this hyperbole, perhaps at the request of someone else (such as Senator Clinton).

Graham started making noise right around last October, saying that we were ignoring Al Quaeda while we went after Iraq. At the time I thought that he had received intelligence information that we were probably going to be hit here in the US, and was trying to frame it like we were ignoring it, in order to hit Bush. I am almost posititve that Graham was the first to start in on the Iraq thing, because I got so incensed about it at the time.

47 posted on 10/11/2003 2:47:55 PM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

Comment #48 Removed by Moderator

To: dirtboy
...the Dems basically are attempting to make the just-in-time manufacturing approach from Saddam irrelevant to the case against him...

the dems are too flippin stooopid to understand 'just-in-time' manufacturing process.

49 posted on 10/11/2003 2:51:48 PM PDT by Cobra64 (Babes should wear Bullet Bras - www.BulletBras.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
Check post #34 - it was part of a DNC test campaign. Which means this has Hillary's fingerprints all over it.
50 posted on 10/11/2003 2:52:12 PM PDT by dirtboy (Cure Arnold of groping - throw him into a dark closet with Janet Reno and shut the door.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-91 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson