Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (106166)	7/18/2003 3:35:43 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi wstera_02; Re: ""Does "within one year" count as imminent?" Not according to webster." BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! LOL!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Look, when it gets so tough that prevaricators have to pull out dictionaries to prove that they didn't use the word "imminent" in describing Iraq as a threat, well you know that they're in as deep shit as Clinton was when he talked about the definition of "is". Bush didn't claim that Iraq was an "imminent" threat, his claim was that it was an "ongoing" threat. That is, the threat was already present. It was sooner than imminent. Example, Bush speech of October 7, 2002: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat Whitehouse.gov ... Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons? ... Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. [Bilow: Great emotions, lousy logic.] ... After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon. ... Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people of Iraq. The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban. The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family. ... 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. [Bilow: This was a lie.] ... whitehouse.gov Furthermore, the moron wrote it into law! The war authorization was dependent on Iraq being a "continuing threat": ... The bill authorizes the President to use the U.S. armed forces to: (1) defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. It also directs the President, prior to or as soon as possible (but no later than 48 hours) after exercising such authority, to make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that: (1) reliance on further diplomatic or peaceful means alone will not achieve the above purposes; ... ... policyalmanac.org But none of this bullshit about the definition of words is going to help Bush. The fact is that more and more Americans recognize that he spun (lied) us into a war that was unnecessary and unwinnable. His goose is cooked. -- Carl