UN experts - WMD material removed from I raq

“Here's one more, just for fun ...

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

it leaves out that HE EVEN GOES ON TO EXPLAIN IN DETAIL WHY HE SAID THAT!

LOL

Nothing about immenent threat to U.S. soil here.

Check it out ...

The Iraqi regime is a grave threat to the United States. The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American and to threats who are friends of America.

Why do I say that? Well, first of all, the leader in Iraq has publicly proclaimed his hatred for our country and what we stand for. The Iraqi regime has a record -- a record of torturing their own people, a brutal record and a record of reckless aggression against those in their neighborhood.

The Iraqi regime has used weapons of mass destruction. They not only had weapons of mass destruction, they used weapons of mass destruction. They used weapons of mass destruction on people in other countries, they have used weapons of mass destruction on their own people. That's why I say Iraq is a threat, a real threat.

Link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030103.html
last edited: 6/30/05 10:32:59 PM”

“Wow! Somebody's been a cutt'n and a past'n!!

And that quote can be found all over the web, on liberal websites everywhere ... IN ALL IT'S CUT AND PASTE GLORY.

Don't you just love word processors? They can change what anybody said.

A "..." here, and a "..." there.

Pretty cool!

I'd seriously suggest you consider all of the sources that use these "quotes" as whether or not they are credible.

You should consider, am I siding with liars, or people trying to get the honest to goodness word out there.

I think it's plenty clear pedxing.

Come on over ... come join the Jedi's. The Dark Side has too many as it is. Too many lost souls.”

“In case you went to bed, I'll be sure to bring this to your attention another time. I wouldn't want you to miss out.”

“PS - pedxing - I happen to know you're up on home theater type equipment. Feel free to join us in the "Home Theater" thread.”

“bump 4 pedx”

“Sarge... The context of that quote changes nothing. He is saying the regime is a grave threat, and he is raising the threat of Iraqi WMD.

Again you have to be a Clintonian style hair splitter to say that he isn't. In fact, I wonder if he kept doing that.. talking about a big threat and throwing in WMD, but leaving himself some wiggle room - because he knew the WMD weren't a threat and he wanted to leave himself some "meaning of is" type wiggle room.

Anyhow, the broader context is precisely consistent with the excerpt in this case.”

“pedxing - Aside from ALL of the other quotes which you haven't touched upon yet, which are BLATANTLY taken out of context, nowhere is their any indication in that quote that Saddam was an imminent threat to the United States, which is precisely the point of this discussion. NOBODY has denied that Iraq wasn't a grave threat to his surrounding countries! That's not the issue. The issue in this discussion is "Did Bush and co. give the false impression that Saddam was an immenent threat to the United States regarding his WMD capability." The answer? Obviously not based on EVERY SINGLE quote you have presented.

And the worst thing is you presented those quotes (most likely taken from one of literally thousands of liberal websites) as quotes that back up that ascertion - Just like THOSE websites claim!

They are lying!

Care to look at any of the other quotes I mentioned? They are clearly misleading and completely out of context. Do you deny that? If so, please be specific.

How about this one?:
Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

Are you going to defend that???
last edited: 7/01/05 9:57:25 AM”

“"NOBODY has denied that Iraq wasn't a grave threat to his surrounding countries"

Do you mean that?”

“Sarge - You ignore the drum beat of fear mongering and repeated invoking of WMD.

"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”

“"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

Out of context?”

“pedxing - re: 1st question - Yes,, meaning nobody from the administration. Keep it in context of the quote we're discussion. I fear you may be trying to jump around now.

re: Me ignoring drum beat of fear mongering and repeated invoking of WMD.
We're not discussing that. You're changing the subject. We are discussing "Did the administration (Bush's) tell us that Saddam was an imminent threat to the U.S. w/ his WMD?"

Don't change the subject!

You even provided quotes that SUPPOSEDLY backed up your claim that they did. As you can plainly see, THOSE QUOTES ARE OUT OF CONTEXT.

Are you now going to introduce NEW quotes, before you address the old ones, which were clearly taken out of context? Come on pedxing. I'd expect more from you. Let's not jump all over the place here.”

“Sarge - if you want to post a link, on the quote you bring up. Go ahead.

The point is that no matter what loop holes they left themselves, Bush's team were constantly raising the spectre of a wmd threat that could not wait to be confronted. If you look through speeches and quote lists, there is too large a mountain to simply explain away.

Bush's address which we discussed clear enough, in itself.”

“I asked you questions PERTAINING DIRECTLY TO THE QUOTES YOU PROVIDED, and you have clearly ignored them. Why?

What about the Bush quote or the Rumsfeld quote you ignored?

Come on pedxing. You provided the evidence. Not me. Now let's talk about it.

Do you deny that those are completely out of context in regards to this discussion??”

“Post a link to what?? I posted links to YOUR QUOTES! What link are you talking about? You are clearly dodging now.

There were NO LOOP HOLES. In all of the quotes, in all of the press conferences, in all of the speeches, THERE IS NO MENTION OF AN IMMINENT THREAT TO U.S. SOIL VIA WMDs. NONE!

AND on top of it all, the quotes you provide which supposedly claim they did say that, ARE COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT. A simple reading of them (which I provided direct links for) shows that there were not supporting what you are saying.

I don't understand your last sentence re: Bush's address.”

“I'm totally serious here pedxing, - You are supposedly the most open minded and fair person on this entire board.

Yet, when push comes to shove, when you are backed into a corner BY YOUR OWN ARGUMENT, you try to change the subject and ignore the facts.

I am really disappointed. Not that you care, but I was hoping for more.

Believe me, I've been in this discussion for YEARS with people on a political board that blows this away re: opinions, but NOBODY has been able to show where Bush (and co.) said that.

The ONLY thing you can do is to put multiple sentences together and pretend like they are one. YES, Iraq was an imminent threat (but not to the U.S. soil at that moment). YES, Iraq was trying to become an imminent threat to U.S. soil (but hadn't done so yet). YES, Iraq had WMD and would use them (but could only use them on his neighbors at that time). YES, Iraq was an imminent threat, YES, he had WMD, YES, he wanted the U.S. ---> BUT NO! Iraq was not an imminent threat to U.S. soil via WMD at that time and NOBODY from the administration said as such.

YOU provided clearly out of context quotes to back up your claim.

Now it's time to admit they don't say that.

You have it in your head that it was said because THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of web sites include those quotes ... BUT AS YOU CAN NOW SEE, they are out of context.

Stop hanging out with the liberals pedxing. They lie. And you now know that. It's tought, it may take time, but come on over to our side. The side of truth, justice, and the American way.”

“I'm going to start calling you Colon, Sarge.”

“I wouldn't expect anything less from you Phaedrus.”

“We're even. Care for some fiber?”

“Sarge - The Bush address is where he makes the 45 minutes remark. It is totally clear that he is suggesting that there is an imminent danger by WMD's.

Look at that Rumsfled quotation above on 11/14/02.

I asked you if the quotes were close enough. I didn't say that anyone in the Bush administration came out and said in one sentence, "Saddam has stockpiles of weapons and could use them against us at any moment." The did say he had stockpiles of weapons, they did say he was a grave threat. Bush said "The Iraqi regime is a grave threat to the United States. The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American and to threats (sic) who are friends of America."

I can't see your fascination with the issue of a certain magical formula. It really is hair splitting.

If you want to try to show me that the Cheney quote was out of context, I'll play - but the Bush quote you claimed was out of context was not. It meant exactly the same in context as out of context.”

“1st - Your other quotes show nothing. They are out of context lies.

2nd - Regarding the Bush quote.

Answer me this (I think this is the 3rd or 4th time I've asked)

IF it really was interpreted that way, do you not think that the press would have followed up, either that day, or within the week, or whenever, to clarify that?

His exact words were "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."

I'll say it again. Because it was NOT suggested prior to that that he meant "hit the U.S. with an attack", it was NOT assumed.

If he would have meant it that way, the press would have been all over him.

But NOBODY at the time asked the Bush administration about that quote.

Once again, wouldn't SOMEBODY have clarified that if that's what he meant? That would have been groundbreaking ... that Saddam had the capability to strike the U.S. with WMD giving 45 minutes notice! COME ON PEDXING! That would have been clarified and you know it.

Please answer me that question for once.”

“That was brought up, and I believe the question was posed to Cheney on a TV interview. He posited that WMD could be delivered in many ways - missile, ship, or planes as happened on 9/11. Don't ask me what show that was on, but I do remember seeing that.”

“Think about what you're assuming pedxing.

Think about China's capabilities, or Israel's.

Think about the global context and the implications of that if that's what he meant.

It was not interpreted that way.

The press would have been ALL OVER IT.

Please do not avoid this any further.”

“Well, all that is true Geobeet. Which part do you disagree with?”

“I disagree with your assertion that the media did not question the administration on how WMD could be delivered to this country in as little as 45 minutes, which you've been brow-beating Pedxing with for the past several posts.”

“Prove it.”

“I'll prove to you that you are wrong Geobeet.

I'll even use a LIBERAL source to do it.

Read these ... What they say is that the British claimed the WMD COULD BE OPERATIONAL in 45 minutes. That's all! And that's all Bush said. Nothing more!

Read it and weep ...

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/13/1097607294014.html?from=storylhs&oneclick=true

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0529-02.htm

http://www.sundayherald.com/34305

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justify/2003/0918spin.htm

All of these sources talking about it in HINDSIGHT - And not ONE of them mentions anything about hitting the United States.

You guys are making this too easy.

Just admit Bush didn't lie and let's call it a day boyz.”

“Why are you guys still trying to argue with this guy? He's a true believer. If Dubya himself admitted on national TV that he is a lying POS Sarge would be claiming it was a holographic FX trick. Don't waste your time.

You know there were no WMD, no yellow cake, no 911 connection, and no danger of an attack on the U.S. We all know that and what is more important is that the whole logical world knows it too.


The big story in all of this is oil and fighting to make the Middle East safe for Israel. And if enough people don't come forward and say "enough is enough" then we'll be in Iran and Syria in less than five years.

The greatest danger to us right now is not from Iran or Syria but from an Israeli false-flag operation where they get us to blame the Persians or Arabs. Bush would start rattling sabers and Congress would go right along. This is a real possibility. The Israeli right-wing is just that outre.
last edited: 7/01/05 12:54:04 PM”

“sh - You obviously have not been following this thread. Carry on.”

“'Drawing their own picture'
US, UK dismissed facts that didn't fit, critics charge


By Charles M. Sennott and Farah Stockman, Globe Staff, 2/1/2004


WASHINGTON -- In the run-up to the war in Iraq, Washington and London
worked in unison to present with terrifying specificity the
intelligence underpinning their case for an invasion.


The Bush administration asserted that Iraq had unmanned drones capable
of spreading biological weapons to US cities, and it displayed grainy
black-and-white aerial photographs of new construction at the Al Qaim
nuclear site as evidence that Iraq could produce a nuclear weapon
within a few years, if not months. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell
highlighted some of those alarms in his dramatic Feb. 5 presentation
to the UN Security Council.


In London, Prime Minister Tony Blair trotted out an intelligence
dossier on the threat -- including an assertion that Iraq could
unleash a chemical or biological weapon within 45 minutes of an order
from Saddam Hussein.


One year later, these claims have not just come under question, but in
many cases now appear to have been false. On many of the most pivotal
intelligence claims, David Kay, the CIA's former chief weapons
inspector, said last week, "We were almost all wrong."


In London, a judicial inquiry cleared Blair of deliberately misleading
his public about the 45-minute claim, but the testimony in the Hutton
inquiry discredited the claim itself. It turned out to have come from
a single Iraqi source and referred not to deploying weapons of mass
destruction, but far less threatening field munitions.


In the ensuing debate over the quality and use of the Iraq
intelligence, many analysts on both sides of the Atlantic are saying
that Kay oversimplified the problem, and that the British inquiry
missed the point. In this view, the Bush and Blair governments
overlooked a substantial body of countervailing intelligence as they
made their case for war.


"Kay says we all got it wrong. Well, that's not the case," said Greg
Thielmann, who before the war was director of the Office of Strategic
Proliferation and Military Affairs in the State Department's Bureau of
Intelligence and Research. "The White House was not interested in
information other than that which substantiated its case."


After 25 years in government service, Thielmann, 53, said he chose
early retirement last fall, in part because of his frustration with
the Bush administration. "They took every piece of information, and
all the way up the line, it was made less qualified and more alarming.
That is why the American people were so misled about the nature of the
Iraqi threat."


Frank Anderson, the former head of the CIA's Near East Division who is
now the head of Foreign Reports, a private agency that analyzes the
Middle East largely for the oil industry, said raw intelligence data
were lacking.


"This wasn't a failure to connect the dots; there were no dots,"
Anderson said. And so the Bush and Blair governments took instead to
"drawing their own picture."


The drones emerged as a key example. Kay told a Senate Armed Forces
Committee last week that US weapons inspectors discovered that the
drones were never capable of deployment for weapons of mass
destruction.


That was disturbing news to Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida,
who told Kay at Wednesday's hearing that he voted for the Iraq war,
largely because he had been presented with then-classified information
that stated in no uncertain terms that Iraq possessed the unmanned
drones capable of threatening American cities with biological weapons.


After the hearing, Nelson told the Globe that he was upset not only
because the intelligence had proved wrong, but because he has since
learned that others in the intelligence community had disputed the
claims about the drones in the first place.


Officials in the Air Force believed the purpose of the drones was
unarmed reconnaissance, not spreading biological weapons, according to
now-declassified documents.


"I was told only the one thing, that he had the capability," Nelson
said. "I was obviously misled, because I was given incorrect
information and I was not told there was a dispute about the veracity
of that information."


Another issue was the alleged stockpiles of chemical and biological
weapons. Kay told senators that the 3.9 tons of VX nerve gas that the
administration warned was "unaccounted for" appears to have burned up
in a traffic accident in 1991, as it was being transported back from
the Kuwaiti border -- the explanation the Iraqis gave before the war.


The Carnegie Endowment's Joseph Cirincione said a great deal of
intelligence had questioned the existence of stockpiles of chemical
and biological weapons, not least the persistent claims by UN weapons
inspector Hans Blix, who said the inspections regime had effectively
shut down Iraq's weapons program as best as they could confirm on the
ground.


Cirincione said the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002
claimed that Iraq had between 100 tons and 500 tons of chemical and
biological weapons. But according to documents that have recently been
declassified and published in a Carnegie report, the Defense
Intelligence Agency had stated in September 2002 that the information
on weapons stockpiles was unreliable.


"Why did [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld choose to go with one
estimate, and choose to ignore the analysis of his own agency?" he
asked. "These are the questions that have not yet been asked. Wouldn't
a responsible policy maker have had some pause before he rushed to
tell America that Iraq had these with weapons with such a degree of
certainty?"


Both the the Bush and Blair governments continue to defend the war as
necessary. But as the debate intensifies about whether politicians
manipulated intelligence to support their decision to go to war, Kay
maintains that the intelligence itself is to blame.


"I had innumerable analysts who came to me in apology that the world
that we were finding was not the world that they had thought existed,"
Kay told the committee, adding that none of the analysts he spoke to
said they were pressured by politicians.


"You know, almost in a perverse way, I wish it had been undue
influence, because we know how to correct that. . . . The fact that it
wasn't tells me that we've got a much more fundamental problem of
understanding what went wrong."


David Albright, a former weapons inspector who now heads the
Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security,
said Kay's testimony ignored that "there was a lot of dissent" in the
intelligence community on many key issues and that when "new
information developed, they didn't even want to look at it."


One long-standing complaint within the US intelligence community is an
over-reliance on technology, specifically satellite imagery, which has
crept into intelligence gathering since the 1970s. That has coincided
with a steady erosion of "human intelligence" from sources inside the
countries.


Human intelligence, or "humint" in military parlance, in Iraq was
providing information that was filtered through a shadowy -- and
apparently unreliable -- network of Iraqi defectors who had a deeply
vested interest in ridding Iraq of Hussein.


Explaining the inner workings of intelligence gathering, Anderson, a
25-year veteran of the CIA, added: "Everybody in the community was
intensely aware that they didn't have the intelligence. They knew they
didn't have it.


"The operational side was beating its head against the wall, saying,
`We don't have it. We have to figure out a way to get it.' The
analytical side was understandably frustrated, and doing its best to
provide analysis when there is limited, and bad information," he said.


"Because of the lack of humint, we didn't have enough countervailing
intelligence to dismiss what they were selling . . . So in the end of
the day, there was a strong bias to buy the intelligence that fit what
the policy makers wanted. And it looks like that's what happened."


That appears to have occurred with the British "45-minute" claim,
which made its way into the infamous September 2002 intelligence
document that became known as the "dodgy dossier."


The "45-minute" assertion came from a single source -- a senior Iraqi
army officer who had obtained second-hand information about
battlefield munitions and then passed it on to one of the Iraqi exile
groups. In turn, that group passed it on to British intelligence,
according to testimony by Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of the
British intelligence service MI-6.


Brian Jones of the Defense Intelligence Staff testified at the inquiry
headed by the British judge, Lord Hutton, "We felt we did in fact lack
the collateral intelligence that allowed us to add confidence, if you
like, to this single source."


One senior figure in the Iraqi opposition community in London who
spoke on condition of anonymity, said that claim came through the
London-based Iraqi National Accord.


"Everyone knew the 45-minute claim was questionable. . . . All of the
information that was coming out of Iraq [before the invasion] was
questionable, often exaggerated, and a lot of it was misleading. But
we were just passing this information along. It was the intelligence
community's job to verify it," the opposition member said.


Another factor was the strange behavior of Saddam Hussein. Kay said
this week that Hussein apparently was willing to risk his regime to
conceal phantom programs and that interviews showed that members of
Hussein's own Republican Guard were convinced that it possessed
weapons of mass destruction.


Jonathan Tucker, a former UN weapons inspector who traveled to Iraq in
1995, said, "The Iraqis had engaged in systematic deception and denial
during the 1990s."


But he added that one of the more intriguing allegations still to be
clarified is whether Hussein himself had constructed an elaborate
bluff to hold on to power, or had perhaps been duped by his own
scientists who were simply pocketing the money he provided for weapons
programs.


"That really has to be clarified, the extent to which Saddam was
deceived or was deceiving others," he said.”

“That's the problem. I have been following the thread and have determined that you are deluding yourself. But that's okay for now. You are a grasshopper, naive and unskilled in the ways of American imperialism. But when the grasshopper is ready, the sensi (me) will appear.
last edited: 7/01/05 1:14:18 PM”

“sh - It's funny you call me that (grasshopper). That was my nickname before I was a hiker. But trust me, I wasn't the student.

Anyways, you can determine all you want. If you want to present evidence that I am wrong, that Bush DID in fact claim that Saddam could hit the U.S. with WMDs at that time (as opposed to his future plans), then I'd be glad to read it.”

“It's funny you call me that (grasshopper). That was my nickname before I was a hiker. But trust me, I wasn't the student

Sarge
11:14:26 AM
7/01/05


”

“typical”

“I don't care if Bush claimed it or didn't claim it. I don't care if Saddam could or couldn't hit us with a nuke or other WMD. Those are minor parts of a much bigger game being played out in Southwest Asia and the world.

If I give Bush any slack at all it's because things may be a lot worse that most of us know. Our fiat currency is worth less and less as time goes by. If OPEC members decided they wanted Euros for their oil the U.S. dollar would go into a tailspin. It could start WWIII. Our manufacturing base is heading downhill. It's not coming back in our lifetimes. We have no fossil fuel reserves to speak of that are easy to get at. The national debt and the private debt of Americans is at the breaking point. The general public doesn't know it but we are near where the Soviet Union was before it collapsed in the early 90s. Basically we have shot our wad. Bush may have felt he had no other choice but to seize the oil. That is a scary thought.

But what is even scarier is that half of the population in the US voted for a man that after 911 wanted to bomb everyone ("you're either with us or against us") and declared war on a concept, a word. You cannot declare war on "terrorism". It's like boxing the wind. What we are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq is the best recruiting tool Al-Qaeda ever had. We are breeding jihadists by the thousands. The Arab world despises us. They see through the lies when we claim to be evenhanded in our approach to the Israeli/Palestinian problem. Much of Europe sees us, the US of A, as more dangerous than the Chinese or the North Koreans. It has gotten so bad that American college students studying in Australia are leaving because they are catching so much flack from the locals just for being Americans. It will take years, maybe decades to regain what reputation we had. We are screwed and George Bush and the people who voted for him played a big hand in it. Thanks for nothing Sarge.
last edited: 7/01/05 3:58:56 PM”

“Sarge -

1) There is a difference between launch and strike. Some attacks take much longer to get to the target once launched.

2) Bush was probably deliberately vague about the range within which the attack took place. What is criticial to my case is not that he spelled out the claim that you are looking for, but that he kept the drum beating - we are all in danger from Saddam's WMD, we need to attack him right away.

I fail to understand your fixation on a precise statement about wmd's striking American soil. You seem to want to manouever me into defending a position I have not taken. What I do say is that he and his buddies kept saying things that were pretty darn close. I believe they were deliberately cultivating fear that Saddam could hurt us all any day.”

“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"”
Sarge
10:23:19 PM
6/30/0

Sarge - you must be reading the wrong speech. He said a lot more than that in that specch. No, he did not say your magic words - but you grossly misrepresent what he said.”

“O maybe you just didn't read far enough..:

"We will also continue our efforts to address the grave danger posed by the outlaw regime in Iraq. We will not permit a brutal dictator with ties to terror and a record of reckless aggression to dominate the Middle East and to threaten the United States of America."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030130-16.html

"Saddam Hussein's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction poses a grave danger -- not only to his neighbors, but also to the United States. His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us. And as the President said on Tuesday night, it would take just one vial, one canister, one crate to bring a day of horror to our nation unlike any we have ever known.

That is why confronting the threat posed by Iraq is not a distraction from the war on terror, it is absolutely crucial to winning the war on terror"”

“We've been debating this whole time that Saddam threatened the United States with his WMD, and that that threat was imminent. This entire debate was whether or not Bush lied about that very thing.

NOW you're claiming that wasn't the argument at all.

LOL!

Ok pedxing. I'm done with this.

You clearly aren't serious about finding the truth. You clearly are more interested in standing by websites which clearly push disinformation and lies.

You guys keep coming back to the argument that "They were deliberately vague" about the wording.

You are saying that because THEY DIDN'T SAY WHAT YOU CLAIM.

You want to much to believe that they said that, that you're actually willing to blame them for NOT saying it! LOL

This isn't about them. This is about YOU.

I blamed the media for hyping that aspect of this (the WMDs) before the war, and I still do. The administration did not make that the main point. The media did. I claimed that ALL ALONG. Why? Because I paid attention. I kept up on all of it, not via the press spun summaries, but as it happened live. I saw how the reporters would hammer them trying to get them to say certain things, and when they wouldn't, they'd edit their speech to make it appear as if they "intended" to say something which they did not. Or, at the very least, they'd overemphasize something that the PRESS wanted to stress, but the speaker didn't.

You have been HAD by the media, and by the spin of the left.

But of course, ... they were all just deliberately vague. Right?

NOBODY had yet shown ANY quote that says Bush and co. said the United States was under imminent threat today of an attack by Saddam's WMD. THAT is what is claimed by the left - but it NEVER happened. IT WASN'T SAID. But you know that ... you just chalk it up to "deliberate vagueness".

typical”

“typical”

“"I blamed the media for hyping that aspect of this (the WMDs) before the war, and I still do. The administration did not make that the main point. The media did. I claimed that ALL ALONG. Why? Because I paid attention."
- Sarge
4:24:32 PM


"Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament. "
- Some guy in the media March 6, 2003
7/01/05”

“Um, key words there Vileman are "hyping" and "main point".”

“Also from the same press conference (there is plenty more there):

"Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people."

I don't see any qualifiers there sarge.”

“Right? And? Your point is what?”

“The "mission" is not the "main point"?

OK - I just don't get it.”

“Vile - Um, please tell me where I said Bush didn't say he had WMD.

Again, what's your point?

I never claimed Bush said he didn't have WMD.

Did you read the thread? Just jumping in without a little research first?

Just like when you posted that bogus report ... LOL!

typical
last edited: 7/01/05 5:00:41 PM”

“Throughout that press conference, Bush taleked about how Sadam threatened the continental US in the here and now. Not US interests abroad and not at some uncertain date in the future. He even trotted out the 'oceans can't protect us' meme.

You are denying reality.”

“Yes he did.

If you care to be specific about where he said he could strike us now with WMD, that would be great.”

“LOL !

For you "oceans apart" quote, here's the whole quote:

Saddam Hussein is a threat to our nation. September the 11th changed the strategic thinking, at least, as far as I was concerned, for how to protect our country. My job is to protect the American people. It used to be that we could think that you could contain a person like Saddam Hussein, that oceans would protect us from his type of terror. September the 11th should say to the American people that we're now a battlefield, that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist organization could be deployed here at home.

He is not saying he can send a missile over! If anything, he's comparing it to 9/11 where the terrorists brought the danger to us. In other words, Saddam could send somebody over with a WMD to attack us, which he could.

I could!

You could!

Even my sister could if she wanted to!

The point he was making was we have to change our thinking about threats to the U.S.

CHANGE our thinking!

That means don't assume they will take the traditional approach (I.E. - Missiles, planes, etc.)

Man you guys read into things just out of HATRED!

"careful wording" ... I know ... I know ...”

“To any normal human, that passage says that Saddam could strike the US mainland right now with WMD.

You obviously have different abilities.”