Lies...Damned lies!

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Bullypulpit, Jan 31, 2004.

  1. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    <center><h2><a href=http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df01282004.html>Bush Claims to Never Say Iraq Was "Imminent Threat"</a></h2></center>


    <i>Facing mounting pressure over charges that the White House deliberately misled the American people about Iraq's WMD, President Bush is now claiming that U.N. weapons inspectors were not allowed into Iraq before the war. Yesterday, the president said, Iraq "chose defiance. It was [Saddam's] choice to make, and he did not let us in."1

    But U.N. weapons inspections led by Hans Blix began on November 27th, 2002, as noted by the State Department at the time.2 Over the course of the next five months, those inspections found "little more than 'debris'" from a WMD program that had long since been destroyed.3 The weapons inspectors were forced to leave when Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq.4 President Bush then "refused to permit the U.N. inspectors to return to Iraq."5

    When asked about the issue yesterday, White House spokesman Scott McClellan claimed the entire WMD issue was unimportant because the Bush Administration had never said Iraq was a threat. He said, "the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent'" to describe the Iraqi "threat" - not the Bush Administration.6

    But the record shows the Administration repeatedly said Iraq was an "imminent threat." On May 7th, less than a week after the president announced the end of major combat operations, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked, "Didn't we go to war because we said WMD were a direct and imminent threat to the U.S.?" He replied, "Absolutely."7 Similarly, in November 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, "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?" Most notably, Vice President Cheney said two days after President Bush's 2003 State of the Union that Saddam Hussein "threatens the United States of America."8</i>

    Sources:

    1. President Bush Welcomes President Kwasniewski to White House , 01/27/2004.
    2. "Weapons Inspections to Begin in Iraq November 27", US State Department, 11/25/2002.
    3. "Blix Downgrades Prewar Assessment of Iraqi Weapons", Washington Post, 11/22/2003.
    4. "Weapons Inspectors Leave Iraq", CBS News, 03/18/2003.
    5. "Bush bars UN weapons teams from Iraq", SMH, 04/24/2003.
    6. Press Briefing, 01/27/2004.
    7. Press Briefing, 05/07/2003.
    8. "Confronting Iraq Crucial To War Against Terror", Truth News, 01/30/2003.

    The fabric of lies used to justify Dubbyuh's dirty little war is becoming more and more threadbare with each passing day. Face it, the emperor has no clothes.
     
  2. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    This post is asinine. You bold "Bush Claims to Never Say Iraq Was "Imminent Threat"" and then offer NOTHING that shows he did say that. BUSH addressed the nation AND NEVER said there was an imminent threat.

    Why did you bold what you did and then offer zilch to show he did in fact state those words?
     
  3. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Also:

    You quote McClellan from 1/27/04 saying the administration never said there was an imminent threat. Not to mention this was stated over a year after congress voted for war and nearly a year after the war started.

    You then quote Fleischer from 5/7/03. This wasn't Bush speaking, was it? And wasn't this AFTER the war already began?

    Then you quote Rumsfeld. Not once did he even state that Iraq was an imminent threat. He explained why you shouldn't wait until that point.

    Then you quote Cheney saying Iraq was a threat to the USA. Hell, I thik Iraq was a threat to the entire world! But nonetheless, the words imminent threat weren't spoken.

    So your whole article is crap. It makes a BOLD statement and then offers proof to the contrary!

    Thanks for clearing up this matter and proving me right, yet again.
    :laugh:
     
  4. wonderwench
    Online

    wonderwench Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Verbatim from Bush's 2003 STOTU speech:

    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.

    Bush did not say the threat was imminent - he said we should act before it became such. The left and the elite media have spun his words to be the opposite of what he said.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
     
  5. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    ...Gettin' y'all so hot and bothered.
     
  6. eric
    Online

    eric Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    We are not the ones who are ticked off because Bush is in office. Matter of fact I am loving it ! His tax cuts have done wonders for my portfolio !

    There seems to be a pattern of you posting things that have no basis in fact, and being called on it everytime. Makes one look a little foolish !
     
  7. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Better than being like you and reading until we are stupid. Nevermind, it's obvious you didn't even read the article! :laugh:
     
  8. Johnney
    Offline

    Johnney Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2003
    Messages:
    4,330
    Thanks Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    IOWA
    Ratings:
    +141
    :trolls:
     
  9. wonderwench
    Online

    wonderwench Guest

    Ratings:
    +0

    Honey, it takes a lot more than misquoting Bush to get me hot

    ...or bothered.

    :D
     
  10. Scourge
    Online

    Scourge Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Now that we know there were no WMDs, and that the REAL reason was to 'liberate' those poor Iraqi's, we basically went to war (invaded another country) be cause we wanted to.

    By Bush's own rationale, every other country on earth should invade us because we may pose a threat in the future (we've demonstrated no care for international law or the geneva convention, and invade other countries when we fel like it) so we can easily be clasified as a 'Rogue" nation.

    In terms of terrorism of course it isn't the people we've abused or murdered... it's our 'freedom' they hate... I forgot. Too bad that was one of the first things out of Bush's mouth after 911... he blew any shot at directing American discussion towards figuring out what is really going on. Far better to tie a flag over your eyes and chant 'USA!' than actaully examine our part in the terrorism that exists on this planet.
     

Share This Page