UN experts - WMD material removed from I raq

“LOL! Scooped ya by 38 seconds!”

“Spanked by Nigal...

again.”

“Wow, 15 seconds that time.”

“People are going to start talking bacpac and accuse us of being the same person. :)”

“I was thinking the same thing.

[dough!]”

“Interesting. Thanks. You'd think they would've at least put a turban on the Colonel, no?”

“At Cap'n D's they have a paper smagh for the kids.”

“No Buck, they don't have the Col. They have the Imam.”

“In the South we have the 'yes mam'.”

“I thought that was the "How's yer momma'nems?"?”

“I wonder if on Tuesdays they offer terrorists a "Free 12-piece bucket of chicken" as a last meal for a little extra motivation along with the 70 virgins? Sure, 70 virgins for all eternity are cool and all, but the way to a man's heart is through his stomach. "You must blow up yourself and a crowded bus by Thursday 6:00 p.m. or offer expires."”

“I wonder how many terrorists would chicken-out? (rimshot)”

“Booo! Hiiiisssss!”

“The promise of 72 virgins for martyrdom sounds pretty good on the front end. I enjoy the befuddled look as much as the next guy, but I think after about 10 virgins you are gonna want a pro.

- Dennis Miller”

“Now that is funny.”

“I agree. Eternity is a long time for a mere 70 virgins. And they aren't virgins anymore after the first time, correct? It's trickery, I tell ya.

It might be more appealing to have 70 virgins, 6 whores, 3 skanks and a slut. And maybe Ricky Martin in case you start to wonder after a couple billion years.”

“Give me a TT skeezer anyday.

JiiiiHHHAAAAAADDDDD”

“Nigal totally cracked me up on this topic a while ago, when he said (something like) "heaven would be more like 72 underserviced housewives."”

“I haven't read any of this thread, but watched an old Chappelle show last night so I'm now an authority.

Blond lady in second row: Negrodamus, why is Bush so sure that Iraq has WMD's?
Negrodamus: He has the receit.”

“OK Sarge - you said "any moment" and Bush said 45 minutes. The Bush administration and its apologists are starting to look a lot like Bill Clinton arguing about the meaning of "is" trying to hang an awful lot on tiny semantic distinctions. (He said he didn't like when he said there is no affair, because there wasn't one anymore when he said it.)

I'm willing to grant that Bush and company didn't lie, just mislead the public if it will end the quibble.”

“Blaming the press for the stress on WMD is silly. The Bush gang kept talking about WMD and links to Al Qeda - in both cases what they said was not supported by the evidence.”

“pedxing -

Bush said:

"And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given."

Not on the U.S. pedxing. He was speaking about U.S. interests.”

“Sarge: This is Clintonian hair splitting of the "it depends on what on what the meaning of is is."

Look at the context:

"The danger to our country is grave and it is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given."

Bush begins the paragraph talking about the danger to "our country." He does not say "our country's interests abroad." He does not say he has any reason to doubt the British report (if I remember correctly, he wanted to be bolder, but he was more cautious based on Tenet's feedback).

Again, at best Bush was being deliberately misleading and fear mongering in the wake of 9/11.”

“I never read it that way. I think Bush is painting a straight line picture.

1. Danger to our country
also,
2. possesses weapons
also,
3. working on making more
also,
4. British gov't says can launch an attack in 45 minutes

I see what you're saying but I never thought to join those thoughts together. I think I spent so much time listening to him and Ari et al. talk about it, I knew they weren't saying that. There was no reason to believe all of a sudden he had new intelligence.

In these press conferences and state of the union addresses the presidents really don't give any new information. They just consolidate it. I had no reason to believe this was any different. And even after the speech, he never reiterated that he could hit us in 45 minutes.

I would chalk this up as poor wording, or poor understanding. That's it.”

“Ahhh, the poor wording defense, or what's a Yale degree worth these days?”

“I was trying to be nice Geo. Notice the word "or" afterwards. Guess which "defense" I believe it is.”

“If you read the speech, he is honing in on the issue of danger to us.”

“"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"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

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
• President Bush, 1/3/03”

“And if you heard all of the press conferences etc. before, and after that speech, there is NO indication that Bush thought he could attack us in 45 minutes (on U.S. soil). It's ridiculous!

Like I said, I see how you could think that, but it just wasn't meant to be said. That's absurd! Did Bush EVER say ANYTHING about Saddam having those kind of long range missiles already? No. Why would he sneak that into a speech, never to say it prior or afterwards?

If he said that, and it was really interpreted that way, the media would have jumped on it.

If I missed it, I'll apologize. Please show me where a reporter asked afterwards about the President's claim that Iraq could send a strike to U.S. soil with a WMD within 45 minutes, and the person answering said "yes".

It just didn't happen that way unless I somehow missed it. I think people are so far removed from that time, they're reading what they want now and it's changing the meaning.

Prove me wrong. I could be. But unless I see some kind of evidence showing that, I'll continue to chalk it up to misunderstanding on your (general) part.”

“Sarge - I think for a brief presidential speech in a major address to the nation, such careful attention is paid to the wording that its hard for me to see poor wording. Speeches like that are vetted I think the point was to beat the drums of fear, to create a sense of imminet danger - like Saddam could pull off another 9/11 any day.

I appreciate your thoughtfulness, Sarge. I've got family far to the right of me and some well to the left, and I love 'em all despite disagreeing with them on politics. Some of 'em totally adore the Bush family (and for good reason - when my cousin was a POW, his sister contacted George Sr. for support on POW-MIA issues and George Sr. treated his sister, wife, kids, and parents like family - it meant the world to them and provided real consolation. They've been regulars at Republican conventions ever since. I've told this story before, but for me its a good reminder that there are class acts on both sides of most political fences and that we are one nation with many connections that cross most barriers).”

“OK Sarge - you said "any moment" and Bush said 45 minutes. The Bush administration and its apologists are starting to look a lot like Bill Clinton arguing about the meaning of "is" trying to hang an awful lot on tiny semantic distinctions. (He said he didn't like when he said there is no affair, because there wasn't one anymore when he said it.)

I'm willing to grant that Bush and company didn't lie, just mislead the public if it will end the quibble.”
pedxing
12:57:39 PM
6/30/05

I take exception to the term 'Bush apologist.'

No one is apologizing for President Bush. What is there to apologize for?”

“I just went to the Center for American Progress, a lefty whackO group, that tries to make the same point you are trying to make.

In it, they give dozens of quotes.

All of the quotes say either:

"Iraq was an imminent threat".

"Iraq was an imminent threat to it's neighbors".

"Iraq was an imminent threat to America's interests".

"Iraq was a threat to America".

"The Iraq threat is a grave threat".

"Iraq is trying to have the capability to become a threat to U.S. soil."

All from different interviews, people, situations.

NO WHERE does ANYBODY say "Iraq is an immenent threat to American soil right now."

It just wasn't said.

If you can find one quote (which I've never seen) that proves otherwise. Fine. But seriously, all this discussion by the left over that being a MAJOR justification for war with Iraq, and MAYBE there is ONE quote out there? (that I've never seen) LOL Come on.

Let's move on people. Join the team. Stop the hate.”

“pedxing - Again, answer this please.

If that is truly what Bush meant, and the people around him (reporters) took it that way, don't you think they'd question him, or his administration, about it ASAP?”

“pedxing - I just ran across a quote, and I cross referenced it with your list above.

Let's provide some perspective here.

One of your quotes above is:

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Do you know what that quote was in reference to? I'll tell you. It was about the threat that Iraq posed to Turkey, not America.

Where did you get those quotes. They misled you, whoever it was.”

“As I look up more of your quotes, it amazes me how all these sites leave out context. They just post a few words, but not even the paragraph it came from. Well, it doesn't really amaze me, after all, that deception by the media, and the liberals who supported their lies, is exactly what led me to the conservative side.”

“Sarge - do you have a link on that one?

Whether or not that quote was not pertinent, I did read many of the full speeches like Bush's address and the clear drum beat was to create a sense of immediate danger.”

“Yes pedx - there was an immediate danger. To many people. Absolutely. In fact, people were murdered by the masses all the time in Iraq, and he posed an immediate danger to his neighbors. That's all true. But, once again, he did NOT pose an imminent and immediate threat to U.S. soil. It was never said.

1 sec, I have the link to the full context for you of the McClellan quote, which was attributed to your source to mean there was an immediate threat to the U.S. Hold on ...”

“QUESTION: What about NATO's role? Belgium now says it will veto any attempt to provide help to Turkey to defend itself. Is this something the administration can live with, or is it a major obstacle?

MR. McCLELLAN: Two points. We support the request under Article IV of Turkey. And I think it's important to note that the request from a country under Article IV that faces an imminent threat goes to the very core of the NATO alliance and its purpose.

QUESTION: What can you do about this veto threat?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, I think what's important to remind NATO members, remind the international community is that this type of request under Article IV goes to the core of the NATO alliance.

QUESTION: Is this some kind of ultimate test of the alliance?

MR. McCLELLAN: This is about an imminent threat.”

“As you can plainly see, he wasn't even talking about the U.S.

What was your source for those quotes? I'd suggest you don't trust that source anymore.”

“You seem to be right on that one, though I'd like to see a link to the whole thing.

As you can see, some of the quotes are much clearer in their meaning - and some, I linked to the original White House on-line document. But, you are right it is better not trust to quotes that I can't identify and locate the full context for on my own.”

“I finally realized, the first quote is from AFTER the start of the war. So it wasn't used to promote a sense of imminent danger to U.S. soil, so it does not support your argument. Also, in greater context, Ari wasn't even talking about an imminent threat in the sense that he was going to attack U.S. soil right now. He was very clearly talking about a general threat of the WMDs that Saddam had. And, in GREATER context, the real question was about us going in to finding the WMDs. The reporter was asking didn't we go in to find them. His entire answer is dedicated to explaining that there was a system in place to try and find them. It was not about an imminent threat to U.S. soil.

Since you'll probably ask, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030507-7.html”

“pedxing - I provided a link to the whole thing in the previous post. Go back a page.”

“Oh boy!!

Here's the doozie of them all!!

LOL

Get a load of this.

(I ignored the rest since in their own right, they don't support your contention, so I looked up the only other one that did)

Your quote:

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

Are you ready for this pedxing? ...

"Under the leadership of the President, this government will work to build greater prosperity across the land, and we will answer every danger and every enemy that threatens the American people"”

“What is your source, pedxing?

Are you ever going to believe them, or anyone else quoting those quotes again?

I know I wouldn't.
last edited: 6/30/05 10:24:02 PM”

“Here's the link:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030130-16.html
last edited: 6/30/05 10:24:33 PM”

“Yep... I read it.

Of course, there is still the same problem with suggesting that Turkey faced an imminent threat.”

“In context, once again pedxing, if we attacked and used Turkey, they would face an imminent threat. He wasn't saying "in general", he was referring to right before we attack. All true.”

“Have you taken a big enough beating tonight pedxing?”