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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (24046)	1/12/2004 5:41:49 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793670

Was that really necessary? Learn to use google and don't give me homework again.

To: E who wrote (24046)	1/12/2004 7:02:26 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793670

No lies here. Nothing to see folks..... move along <ggg>. Well, well, well. What's the big deal anyway? Now that Bush's comment has been placed in proper context (see below), I agree with his response & why he said it the way he did..... <font size=4> Remember 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'? For Bush, They Are a Nonissue <font size=3><edited - full text at link below><font size=4> ...."So what's the difference?" he responded at one point as he was pressed on the topic during an interview by Diane Sawyer of ABC News..... ....In the interview, Mr. Bush said removing Mr. Hussein from power was justified even without the recovery of any banned weapons. As he has since his own weapons inspector, David Kay, issued an interim report in October saying he had uncovered extensive evidence of weapons programs in Iraq but no actual weapons, Mr. Bush said the existence of such programs, by violating United Nations Security Council resolutions, provided ample grounds for the war. "If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger," Mr. Bush continued, referring to Mr. Hussein. "That's what I'm trying to explain to you. A gathering threat, after 9/11, is a threat that needed to be dealt with, and it was done after 12 long years of the world saying the man's a danger." Pressed to explain the president's remarks, Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said Mr. Bush was not backing away from his assertions about Mr. Hussein's possession of banned weapons. "We continue to believe that he had weapons of mass destruction programs and weapons of mass destruction," Mr. McClellan said on Wednesday..... <font size=5> ....In trying to build public and international support for toppling Mr. Hussein, the administration cited, with different emphasis at different times, the banned weapons, links between the Iraqi leader and terrorist organizations, a desire to liberate the Iraqi people and a policy of bringing democracy to the Middle East. <font size=4> When it came to describing the weapons program, Mr. Bush never hedged before the war. "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?" Mr. Bush asked during a speech in Cincinnati in October 2002..... ....In the weeks after the fall of Baghdad in April, the White House was equally explicit. "<font size=5>One<font size=4> of the reasons we went to war was because of their possession of weapons of mass destruction," Ari Fleischer, then the White House spokesman, told reporters on May 7. "And nothing has changed on that front at all." On Wednesday Mr. McClellan, when pressed, only restated the president's belief that weapons would eventually be found. Mr. Bush, despite being asked repeatedly about the issue in different ways by Ms. Sawyer, never did say it, except to note Mr. Hussein's past use of chemical weapons..... ...."And if he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction?" Ms. Sawyer asked the president, according to a transcript provided by ABC. <font size=5> "Diane, you can keep asking the question," Mr. Bush replied. "I'm telling you — I made the right decision for America because Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction, invaded Kuwait. But the fact that he is not there is, means America's a more secure country." <font size=3> query.nytimes.com

To: E who wrote (24046)	1/12/2004 7:16:41 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793670

So, at best you have provided perhaps one instance where Bush might have said, "we were in imminent danger of a "mushroom cloud" from them,". "I was less sure about their repetitive claims that we were in imminent danger of a "mushroom cloud" from them," And you still perceive that to be an accurate assertion? The 'imminence' spin Message 19469570 A Brief History of The Imminent Threat Canard Message 19469610 Sorting out the "imminent threat" debate <This from a group of like minded liberals> Message 19508187 What "imminent" means. President Delivers "State of the Union" ...."Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."..... whitehouse.gov President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat ...."The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction." 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?.... ....The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies"..... whitehouse.gov