They say they never said "imminent"

[Second Front]

""I think some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent.' Those were not words we used." - White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 1/27/04

Oh but you did, oh but you did!

"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

"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. They not only have weapons of mass destruction, they used weapons of mass destruction...That's why I say 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

Scott McClellan, the presidential spokesman, and Donald Rumsfeld, right there on the record. Along with all of the other comments. And these are the yahoos who still get mileage out of Clinton's "what the meaning of 'is' is." Difference being hundreds of American dead, thousands of Iraqi dead, and thousands of American wounded. Just a slight difference.

[Frank Mullen]

good post, second front!! the lying #%&@'s in the White House!

[Andy D]

Yes good post.

In the UK we are having the same type of debate, who said what, what did they actually mean and so on. And the only winners are the 'spin doctors', who continue to blur the lines between what is the truth and what are the lies that our governments went to war on.

So in the UK the 30-minute warning referred not to WMD but shorter range weapons, Saddam really is a bad guy and so on. The real questions/discussions never get answered/debated. Who was it who said the first casualty in war is the truth;)

It is clear to anyone who is prepared to read what the politicians actually said, the fact that we now see that there are no WMD, that there really was no threat etc, that this war had nothing to with saving the world from a despot.

It was more about personal ideology, economic and strategic dominance and the export of the American and UK view of what the world should be like, and we know how bad for the human race this has already been.

Regards

Andy D.

[Tenorman]

Just a thought. Iraq does not have a Navy. What sort of WMDs did they think he had that could reach American soil?

[Andy D]

One of the many things that this illustrates, is that if you rely on people (the CIA, MI6 etc), who have vested interests and political masters, to tell you how things really are you will not get the truth. As you point out Tenorman, Iraq had little real technology and yet the best intelligence we have suggested that it was capable of launching WMD on the world.

What happened to the large trucks that contained chemical plants, the mobile rocket launchers that we all talked about. Truth was they never existed, except that is in GW's and Tony's mind and who used this 'threat' to justify an unjust war. This situation also shows you what happens if we stop asking the questions, take for granted what 'our leaders' tell us is the truth and fail to challenge the view of the world that people like GW and Tony have.

In the end GW and Tony are more of a threat to world distruction than Saddam ever was.

Regards

Andy D.

[Saundra Hummer]

Well Pakistan sure has the technology, and who would have thought it?

There is the threat, or the percieved threat of at least a dirty bomb attack. It is a distinct possibility, but with Saddam who they now say was on drugs when he attacked Kuwait?

Had he put his all into doing more, he might have had the capability to build such weapons, and had he not been a threat to Israel. They bombed his capability to attack them with any such weapons back into the distant past, and don't you think that had those plans ever resurfaced again that Israel would have bombed them again? Don't you think?

I believe if 9/11 hadn't happened, they would have still invaded Iraq. If it is all to protect us from terrorism, then they wouldn't let the Taliban regroup, build up strength again, and be so blatant in their terrorist views, and their intolarance of others, to the point of killing, and beatings, and allowing terrorists to live in their midst, helping in any way they can with their terrorist mentality and plans.

[Andy D]

Saundi.

Many countries in the region and beyond pose some kind of threat, what about Syria or Israel for example, each in their own way threaten the relative peace of the region. Wider a field what about the threat posed by North Korea or India and Pakistan, both have nuclear capability and have already fought two wars.

There is little evidence that Saddam had this capability, following the first Gulf War, much of the infastructure was destroyed, and only some questionable intelligence suggested otherwise. The US in particular and now the UK, have a very selective view of who they attack and seem to ignore other more greater threats to world peace. What has the US done about North Korea for example. has it threatened to bomb the country? No because it is close to South Korea and this would create the possibility of a wider conflict.

What has the US Government done about India and Pakistan? Nothing because they have the capability to fight back, and it threatens to esculate into a wider conflict, and of course there is no economic or stategic interest. The reason why US Government foreign policy is full of 'dirty conflicts', covert operations or 'black ops', is that is often shows poor judgement and a miopic view on the rest of the world.

Regards

Andy D.

[still life]

It's interesting to me that "imminent" threat has become for Bush and Blair what "is" became for Clinton, during his impeachment hearing.
I can't help thinking of a line in a Hillair Belloc poem, *The Gnu*:

"...And no more was heard
But sounds of strong men
Struggling with a word."

While they argue about whether or not the word was used, the war started by this word continues and more people die.
I think we want to know how badly we were lied to and how much of the so-called intelligence was skewed to present a sense of fear of attack, justifying launching a war, not whether *imminent" was actually spoken. Reviewing the speeches given, prior to the war, should provide the answer. All the speeches given by Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice et al are on tape. I seem to remember both Bush and Blair saying that the threat was almost immediate, if strong steps weren't taken. Did they say *imminent*? Without reviewing the speeches, I couldn't swear to it, but the sense was there, whatever word was used.

[Andy D]

Blair went even further and informed the world that it would take only 30 minutes for Saddam to launch his WMD, of course these turned out not to exist. He was told this by people in MI6 and the other intelligence gathering organizations, and of course we are now having some kind of investigation to see if it was all made up.

Now it turns out that Tony says is was shorter range weapons, not the WMD, that he was talking about and it is all about interpretation of the facts.

The US and now the UK need an enemy and Saddam was an easy target, no real weapons and potrayed as a despot. Of course in a world full of despots, most of which have either been created or supported by the US and UK Governments, you need to be careful which one you attack and the US had unfinished business in Iraq.

The illusion was that Saddam posed a real threat and too many people bought this, and allowed the murder of innocent people at the hands of a corrupt and immoral government, who's only interest is in self-preservation.

Regards

Andy D.

[Saundra Hummer]

I just feel that it has always been a sorry state of affairs that governments around the world, implement stratagies that the people in their contries know nothing about and would want nothing to do with if they were to come up in the light of day.

Skewed? You betcha! It just so happens that a large percentage of people from around the world are better informed than in the past, and they/we are trying to change things, have their voices heard, making it harder and harder for politicians to involve us in things that we are against. They might do it for a while, but in the end, the peoples voices are often heard, and listened to, and public opinion forces them into doing things differently. Not a cure all, but it is a help.

Korea, well, that would undoubtably escalate into something horrid, and we here on the west coast of the American continent, would most likely suffer. The North Korean Govt. have shown their regard for life, it seems non existant. The famine there is a travesty, while building up the military.

It has been proven that a wartime economy is a false economy, and that in the long run is a destructive force, bound to crumble. This is what has happened to Russia, and Korea. Hopefully we won't march down the same path.

[Andy D]

North Korea is a victim of the cold war and as such the US is in part responsible for the current sitation. Like Cuba and Iraq the US allows almost no trade with Korea, and so it has little choice but to use the threat of nuclear weapons, in order to try and feed its people. North Korea has little natural resources and little to export. Of course the government also plays its part in this, but the situation in North Korea, in my view needs to been seen in the conext of the wider geo-political context.

The US support for South Korea and the economic revolution that this country went through following the Korean War, is another reason why the North creates difficulties for the US. The South is held up as an example of what can happen when you support the US and have a free-market economy. It served US interests to see countries like North Korea, Cuba, Vetnam, Nicaragua for example, as examples of what happens when you go up against the US and have Marxist-Leninist dogma and for years the US Governemnt did it's best to keep the situation this way. It has involved itself in all these countries for years and attempted to undemine any attempts these countries have tried to move beyond their current situations.

Regards

Andy D.

[Frank Mullen]

I thought I was keeping up with Bush's outrages but I missed this one.

From NYTimes editorial of Feb 25-04;

"The list of Mr.Paige's (Bush's Sec. of Education)errors is long.Last year he said he preferred to have a child in Christian schools and suggested that Christians were morally superior to others. He was called onto the carpet this week by members of the Senate who are threatening to revisit No Child Left Behind unless the
department fully enforces the law as written. Instead of dealing with central issues, the department has wasted time and money on things like making sure the districts permit the right amount of 'constitutionally protected prayer' "

I think we do need a "Bush Outrage" thread.

[Saundra Hummer]

Here is an outrage and one that I have believed for years now.

I remember how the drugs were flooding into this country during this time and how it has done a number on all of us, it really has. Do you know one family that hasn't been hurt by drugs? It was too obvious that something was amiss.

Crime and drugs can't flourish without law enforcement and government turning a blind eye, or actually being complicit in its function.

How many of you have been robbed or had things stolen by someone on drugs, had your car broken into, or had some other illegal act committed against you, or someone you know? It's a mess here in Oregon, and we are one of the states with a low population. The crime here is out of sight!

Thinking of moving to Costa Rica, so I have been reading about things going on down there, and here is a site that I just found today. The story I am giving the link to is amazing, and one we all knew to be true back when, but it is resurfacing in Costa Rica now.

http://www.fair.org/extra/8910/north-banned.htm1

I think that is right, if not, let me know.

[Frank Mullen]

I guess it isn't really today's outrage--I just found out about it. They didn't provide enough money in next years budget to operate the undersea lab. This is the only such lab in the world for marine biologists to study underwater the ecology and the life forms. Add this to the dumping of the Hubble space telescope. Add this to their antagonistic attitude toward stem cell research.(Is it any wonder that the latest advance in this field came from South Korea, not the US)
Waddyawanna bet that Bush doesn't believe in evolution either?

[Andy D]

Iraq was a defensless country. in fact it was the weakest country in the region. North Korea poses a real threat, but the difference is that North Korea has a threat, in that it has massed artillery aimed at Soul.

So the message is if you are defenceless and weak, we are going to attack you, if you have weapons we will back off.

Long live the revolution
;)

Regards

Andy D.

[Saundra Hummer]

This is another outrage that the American public seemed to just overlook.

Who knew that when the first George Bush said "Read My Lips-" that it would be GW Bush that would implement that. He didn't just give a tax break, he made good his fathers promise to big business by giving back the taxes they had paid over ten years. Billions! Cash! A ten year refund, so no wonder we are in a financial mess.

These companies probably invest most of their money off shore, nothing to help the US economy, sweat shops, and no telling what kinds of conditions these companies impose on their workers off shore, while closing down factories and other facilities here in the states. Look at how they are poluting Mexico just across the border, babies being born with out brains, can you imagine?

[Tenorman]

Saundra,
Link above produces Page Cannot Be Displayed notice

Checked the site and had a quick search, in as much as you can on a site with no Search function. Couldn't find the article - can you find it again

[Tenorman]

How about this wonderful piece of news from today's UK papers.

The UK apparently have been bugging the UN in general and Kofi Annan in particular, just prior to the attack on Iraq

If proved - Chuck us out. A Government with that level of morality has no place in the UN

[Andy D]

No surprise here.

The UK 'bugging' the UN and just when this is about to come out, because one the the 'spy's' is prepared to tell, the UK government says 'well there is really nothing to debate or discuss'. Funny how this happens when there is a US election soon and TB has little street cred left.

Regards

Andy D.

[Andy D]

There is a long history of so called 'democratic' governments saying one thing and acting in another way. US government policy has a poor record on this, if you look at what the US did in South America for example, you will begin to see the effects of these policies.

Those people that feel that some on this forum are to aggressive, in regards to GW, have shown little awareness of the effects of US foreign policy and the 'right-wing' agenda on many parts of the world.

There comes a time when all of us need to question what is actually going on, what 'our' governments are actually doing in our name.

Few of us do this, it is much easier to know about the scores in the NHL, the NFL or the English premier division:wink2:

Regards

Andy D.

[Frank Mullen]

I thought I had already posted my Bush outrage of the day. Nope. Here's the latest. The house passed a bill making it two crimes to attack a pregnant woman. One guess why.Wait a minute--Why should that be a federal crime anyway?

[Saundra Hummer]

Originally posted by Tenorman
Saundra,
Link above produces Page Cannot Be Displayed notice

Checked the site and had a quick search, in as much as you can on a site with no Search function. Couldn't find the article - can you find it again

I will just type it out when I am functioning up to par, been too busy and mind is shuting down. Will try to get that for you sometime tomorrow. I will try to find the site on google also. I know it was in one of the Costa Rica newspapers, and I printed it out in case it got shut down, that has been known to happen.

[still life]

Originally posted by Andy D
No surprise here.

The UK 'bugging' the UN and just when this is about to come out, because one the the 'spy's' is prepared to tell, the UK government says 'well there is really nothing to debate or discuss'. Funny how this happens when there is a US election soon and TB has little street cred left.

Regards

Andy D.

It seems to me that the apparent bugging of the member nations at the UN was mentioned while the sham of a debate was going on. Then, all of a sudden, the story disappeared. It certainly didn't surprise me at the time, that there was skulduggery going on in the form of possible bugging and, in retrospect, it doesn't surprise me now. I do hope that the situation which was being reported on then doesn't just disappear again.
Micromanaging what we know seems to be the order of the day.

[Andy D]

There is no doubt in my mind that the current government of the UK is as corrupt and as morally bankrupt. as the administration in the US.

It seems to do what it likes and attempts to justify what it does on the basis of ' we all do it'. And yet we are exporting this kind of democracy to places like Iraq and many other countries in the world. Is it any wonder that people have little faith in the politicians, and in the UK we have one of the lowest voter turn outs in Europe.

Regards

Andy D.