Impeach Bush : NO WMDs (Weapons of Mass Disappearance)

[Madison]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Obviously if the actual President had said it or implied it, you would have found it by now, so I feel better in repeating my original claim: Bush never said there was an "imminent threat"--meaning immediate threat-- from WMD.

the logic is overpowering, it must be conceded.

Office of the Press Secretary
October 2, 2002

President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution
The Rose Garden
1:15 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all for coming. Today I'm joined by leaders of the House and the Senate from both political parties to show our unity of purpose in confronting a gathering threat to the security of America and to the future of peace.
...
On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. ...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/iraq/20021002-7.html

but before you jump to any conclusions, let us get an "authoritative" judgement on the words that were ACTUALLY used:

One entry found for urgent.

Entry Word: urgent
Function: adjective
Text: Synonyms PRESSING, burning, clamant, clamorous, crying, exigent, imperative, importunate, insistent, instant
Related Word driving, impelling; demanding

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus?book=Thesaurus&va=urgent

there you have it. "imminent" is not in the list. therefore, "urgent" does not mean "imminent."

if commies try to say "imperative" or "instant" means "imminent," well, they are rewriting the english language, as is par for the course for commies. and you don't need to be reminded that when commies rewrite language, the terrorists win.

 

[Error 404]

AAA, you are the best!!!! Always willing and able to politicize anything.

I always knew you could prove that Clinton's words and actions were criminal. Now, you have explained how even his inaction was criminal. Perfect!

Let me ask a question: When you capitalize the "H" in "His words" (along with the other letters) when referring to our illustrious President, is that your way of deifying him? (see below)

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

The article said that, Bush did not. Show me where HIS WORDS said that.

AAA my brother. I love your evenhanded and dispassionately objective posts. I actually agree with a lot of stuff you say. Of course I disagree with even more, but I enjoy reading every word. If it is not informative, (usually it is in one way or another), then at least it is entertaining. Always brings a an "amen", or a smile, or a laugh.

You are my favorite right winger. No doubt about it. Keep up the good work, and don't let the criminally insane "dems" and "libs" get under your skin. We are worse than trichinosis worms.

Peace my friend,
RS

 

[Pabst]

If for the face value reasons (WMD's) I was against the war. Saddam's record as an enemy of fundamentalist terror was a definitive asset in my view. However I strongly believe as AAA eluded, the real reason for this invasion/war was to gain a strategic military foothold in the region with the infrastructure in place to shut down quickly and decisively Syria, Iran, and even if necessary the House of Saud.

Such a pseudo genocidal policy cannot be publicly proclaimed by the Bush administration. But guys make no mistake. The West is in a fight for survival. While Europe and the U.S. have negative rates of native population growth, birth rates in Islamic countries are exploding. This age old "rivalry" between Islam and non Muslim religions is rapidly turning into a lopsided battle for survival. Bombings in Fuji and Algeria, kidnappings in the Philippines, have nothing to do with U.S. policy in the Middle East, nothing to do with Israeli settlements in Palestine, but everything to do with well funded, well organized, yet difficult to identify cells connected to OPEC revenue.

Many intelligent guys here are rightfully skimming the surface of events and coming to the conclusion that the Administration was duplicitous. Don't make the mistaken jump in logic that the Rumsfeld's and Chaney's are naive. They may have more foresight than we give them credit for.

 

[ElCubano]

Quote from Pabst:

If for the face value reasons (WMD's) I was against the war. Saddam's record as an enemy of fundamentalist terror was a definitive asset in my view. However I strongly believe as AAA eluded, the real reason for this invasion/war was to gain a strategic military foothold in the region with the infrastructure in place to shut down quickly and decisively Syria, Iran, and even if necessary the House of Saud.

Such a pseudo genocidal policy cannot be publicly proclaimed by the Bush administration. But guys make no mistake. The West is in a fight for survival. While Europe and the U.S. have negative rates of native population growth, birth rates in Islamic countries are exploding. This age old "rivalry" between Islam and non Muslim religions is rapidly turning into a lopsided battle for survival. Bombings in Fuji and Algeria, kidnappings in the Philippines, have nothing to do with U.S. policy in the Middle East, nothing to do with Israeli settlements in Palestine, but everything to do with well funded, well organized, yet difficult to identify cells connected to OPEC revenue.

Many intelligent guys here are rightfully skimming the surface of events and coming to the conclusion that the Administration was duplicitous. Don't make the mistaken jump in logic that the Rumsfeld's and Chaney's are naive. The may have more foresight than we give them credit for.

Thank you Breeding Briskets....This sounds much better and much more logical.....peace

 

[harrytrader]

Pff all these media campaign against Bush are just the same farce where they present you two false choices: against the evil Bush and for the Evil Saddam or vice versa ! The result is as usual to serve the reaction law: the pro-Bush will say : "look at these crazy guys that prefer to support a terrorist than our own president, we really don't have any lesson to receive from them !" And vice-versa of course. No medias will let the people have another choice : let's bring them down both and stop the comedy !

This is a well-known mass psychology trick used by politicians and medias since a long time !

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from picknclick:

AAA... If Ari Fleisher said it, would that count?

He is the press secretary, and is in charge of keeping the press informed as to the feelings and views of the administration... namely Bush.

Let's say a whitehouse correspondent asked Ari... "Does the administration believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the national security of the United States?" and lets just say that Ari says "Oh, Absolutely. In light of the 12 years of UN defiance and Saddam's inability to prove that he is rid of his WOMD,.... the president believes that the time for diplomacy is over.", would that be enough in your book?

Well, I don't know if this is an actual transcript or a hypothetical, but I started this by saying Dem's were falsely claiming Bush said there was an "imminent threat from WMD." Now you say Fleisher agreed to a reporter's use of the words "imminent threat to national security." It may strike you as a small point, but that is not the same wording, nor did Bush say it. It's important because the whole case that "Bush Lied" was supposedly built on there being no WMD.

Anyway, enough of this. He didn't say it. He did say there was a threat, and I concede he implied WMD could be deployed against us at any time. But of course that was true.

 

[Error 404]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:



He did say there was a threat, and I concede he implied WMD could be deployed against us at any time. But of course that was true.

This is an atypically weak argument from you AAA. I am disappointed.

"Could" is a word that can be used for anything. And implying anything "could" happen is virtually always "true".

Peace, and Happy New Year to all. Welcome to the 60's.

May 5764 bring us all happiness and prosperity!!

RS

 

[OxonianTrader]

he had to lie to the American people to get his war rolling


but there are few people who would long for the rule of the Husseins! All in all, we probably did the right thing, despite the fact that we were there on false pretenses.....
but yes, if Clinton was impeached over sex, Bush should be impeached for lying to congress and to the world so that he might use our military forces...

i will definitely agree with that!

 

[harrytrader]

Did you forget why you did go to war ? because of 11-9 !
THIS IS THE VERY REASON WHY PEOPLE ACCEPTED THIS WAR and THIS SEEMS TO BE A DELIBERATE STRATEGY for I remind you this from from Brezinski's 1997 book (quoted from http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/zbig.html), brezinski THE head of the trilateral founded by Rockfeller :

"The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. (pp 24-5)" [Why does he need to refer to this : answers following ...]

"America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, <B><FONT COLOR=RED>except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being."</B></FONT> [What does he means ]

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and <B><FONT COLOR=RED>widely perceived <U>direct external</U> threat."</B></FONT>."æ (p. 211) [Emphasis added] [What does he means once again ]

"...To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." (p.40)

Quote from OxonianTrader:

he had to lie to the American people to get his war rolling


but there are few people who would long for the rule of the Husseins! All in all, we probably did the right thing, despite the fact that we were there on false pretenses.....
but yes, if Clinton was impeached over sex, Bush should be impeached for lying to congress and to the world so that he might use our military forces...

i will definitely agree with that!

 

[harrytrader]

It is not the first time that United States is the direct investigator of a terrorist act. 2 weeks ago there was a tv broadcast on History of Chili and the putsch of Pinochet. What was interesting were the testimonies of the chiefs from the two main political parties of that period one from left wing and the other from right wing. It was revealed that the US had directly ordered the assassination of General Schneider who was the chief of the army of Chili : they wanted to make believe that this terrorist act was from left wing and that the army would revolt and nullify Allende arrival. But it didn't happen, on the contrary general Schneider on his bed hospital survived up to the day when Allende presidency was validated then he died one day after. Then the United States changed their strategy, they paid syndicates and medias to foment national strikes that depressed the economy of Chili, little by little the country sunk into chaos and they have then asked Pinochet to take the power: here's why there has been a savage dictature in Chili since.

So United States has always used terrorist acts. If there wasn't the text of Brezinski above one could doubt that they use the same kind of mean on their own country, but again reread Brezinski I think that it is in plain english...