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: Hawkmoon who wrote (132331)	5/9/2004 11:00:27 AM
From: h0db	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Always with the insults, Hawk. That's usually a sign that someone knows they are losing. Even in your rants, you can't fail but to bring up the alledged "Oil for Food" scandal, as is every other defender of the current debacle. This is emblematic of your hypocracy. You alternatively assert that the UNSC allowed, nay REQUIRED, that Saddam be overthrown by force, and in the same breath heap scorn on the UN as a hollow, corrupt institution. If it is hollow and corrupt, it is in part because decades of US policy turned cynically to the UN only to endorse US actions. The body finally said "no," it would not go along, so of course it must be attacked. If the US wants the United Nations to be a respected, responsible body, it must first treat the UN with respect. This administration, more than any other, has done the opposite. If this had been Congress, none of the members would have recused themselves for conflicts of interest: have you looked at the US political system lately? It is for sale to the highest bidder.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (132331)	5/9/2004 11:28:39 AM
From: John Soileau	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I believe you are technically correct that the "i word" didn't pass GWB's own lips back then. Instead, he preferred to say that the threat had "unique urgency". However, during the drumbeat months, the threat posed by Iraq WAS repeatedly characterized as "imminent" by Bush representatives, including his own press secretary. Direct quotes, with dates: "Absolutely." White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03 "This is about imminent threat." White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03 "Well, of course he is." White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett, responding to the question "is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?" 1/26/03 "The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands." President Bush, 11/23/02 "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency." President Bush, 10/2/02 "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02 I'll end with a quote that now makes us all wince, but added to the imminent/urgent/we're all gonna die message that poured from every Administration orifice for months: "Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime...recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03