Sure, no media bias

[jimnyc]

The headlines at Yahoo right now, and quite a few other services:

CIA Boss: Iraq Never an Imminent Threat

WASHINGTON - In his first public defense in the growing controversy over intelligence, CIA Director George Tenet said Thursday that U.S. analysts never claimed before the war that Iraq was an imminent threat. The urgency of such a threat was the main argument used by President Bush for going to war.

Nice twisting of the words by the media! Not one person can quote Bush ever saying Iraq was an imminent threat, yet it makes headlines as if he did say that. The liberals plaster this over and over wherever they can, but can never actually quote what Bush actually said.

Get a clue people, he never stated that. Repeating it 50,000 times won't make it so.

 

[Scourge]

What did he say then? When making the case for war? Specifically.

 

[DKSuddeth]

the headlines is simply to grab the readers attention. The story within is completely factual and describes in great detail how US analysts never said that iraq was in imminent threat.

claiming that yahoo, and other 'liberal biased media' is saying that bush claimed an 'imminent threat' is giving more power to the media than is necessary, wouldn't you agree?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Scourge
What did he say then? When making the case for war? Specifically.

"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."

There you go, specific enough? IT WAS NEVER SAID THAT IRAQ WAS AN IMMINENT THREAT!!

Jesus, do you people actually read the news or just regurgitate what's on moveon.org?

 

[Aquarian]

I started typing but this excerpt says it fine:

Meanwhile, if the White House didn't itself introduce "imminent" into the lexicon of war-boosting, it certainly didn't mind hearing it used. On Jan. 26, 2003, when a CNN reporter asked, "Is he [Saddam Hussein] an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?" White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett answered: "Well, of course he is."

Even after the conflict, this imminence continued to be acceptable. On May 7, 2003, a reporter posed this question: "We went to war, didn't we, to find these [WMD]—because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn't that true?" And White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer responded: "Absolutely. One of the reasons that we went to war was because of their possession of weapons of mass destruction. And nothing has changed on that front at all."

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9869

as for what the admin members themselves had to say, the same article has these items

Instead of admitting that the pretext for war was an overhyped mass of un-intelligence, White House spokesman Scott McClellan has been ordered to celebrate minute distinctions, telling journalists Jan. 27 that it was the media—not the administration—that employed the word 'imminent.' "We used 'grave and gathering' threat," McClellan said, apparently managing not to crack a smile.

A quick search of articles does show that it was the media, not the administration, which applied "imminent" to the danger allegedly posed by Saddam's Iraq. But, as Reuters, The New York Times and a number of other outfits have discovered, while Bush never literally called Iraq an "imminent" threat, he did label the situation "urgent." Vice President Dick Cheney defined it as "mortal" and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld assured us it was "immediate."

skim off the liberal slant of the article and you are still left with the administration fostering a sense of being threatened directly by Iraq.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Aquarian
skim off the liberal slant of the article and you are still left with the administration fostering a sense of being threatened directly by Iraq.

So why not say that? Why not state WHO said EXACTLY what? The press and liberals constantly claiming Bush said there was an imminent threat is comical. I find it funny because I think these twits actually believe he said it!! If someone repeats it long enough and sees it on the conspiracy sites, eventually they'll think it's reality. I expect the twisting when I read moveon.org or commondreams.org, I don't expect to read the slants when I read articles on the AP.

 

[Zhukov]

Meanwhile, if the White House didn't itself introduce "imminent" into the lexicon of war-boosting, it certainly didn't mind hearing it used. On Jan. 26, 2003, when a CNN reporter asked, "Is he [Saddam Hussein] an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?" White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett answered: "Well, of course he is."

Well, isn't that true?

We have interests in the control of the supply of oil in that region. Iraq had previously invaded Kuwait, a U.S. interest in that region, and was perfectly capable of doing so again. He also threatened Saudi Arabia conventionally, another U.S. interest in that region. He had missiles capable of hitting Israel, a third U.S. interest in that region. He was a destabilizing unpredictable force in the middle of the region the world gets much of it's oil. That made him an imminent threat to the stability of the global economy.

 

[MeSSeNJa]

What was said or was not said does not necessarily matter. What I find funny....no....hilarious is that these liberals find themselves booing at this war when not taking in to consideration these aspects:

- Nobody seems to remember 9/11
- 9/11 was caused by terrorists
- Terrorists were supported by Saddam (paying homicide bombers' families $35,000 to kill Jews)
- Revenge is a natural human emotion
- Countless thousands were spared execution for their views and opinions by overthrowing the dictator
- Liberals scream and cry over a war that is not only in OUR best interests but also in the IRAQI's best interest
- Iraq will be a strategic base for launching future operations against terrorists and keeping influence right in the heart of the middle east
- Liberals hold candlelight vigils for those awaiting execution in the name of justice yet support mass murder of the unborn daily
- It is a hypocritical arguement to promote peace and deny the 3,000 on 9/11.
- If our country were to be taken over by Islamic militancy (far-fetched) those on the left would most likely be executed for their views rather than traditional conservatives.

What Bush said does not matter, what he implied was not important, what was done counts. Shame on you for forgetting the 3,000. It's time to take the offensive on this issue.

 

[jon_forward]

nice post!!! and welcome to the board!!!!

 

[modman]

Even though he did'nt say "imminent". It came across that way to the american people and congress after being bombarded by many similar quotes, and perhaps even more "grave" quotes (pun intended), by many administration officials.

 

[wonderwench]

It only comes across "that way" in hindsight due to the cacaphony in the liberal-controlled media that spun his statements to mean what he did not say.

 

[modman]

Originally posted by jimnyc
So why not say that? Why not state WHO said EXACTLY what? The press and liberals constantly claiming Bush said there was an imminent threat is comical. I find it funny because I think these twits actually believe he said it!! If someone repeats it long enough and sees it on the conspiracy sites, eventually they'll think it's reality. I expect the twisting when I read moveon.org or commondreams.org, I don't expect to read the slants when I read articles on the AP.

Who cares if he said it or not, he might just as well have said it cause that is the way it came across. People just wonder why the administration was so worried about a threat that did'nt exist. If this is how they handle an urgent and immediate threat, I can't wait to see what they say when the threat really is imminent. The truth is if they did'nt get the support of the country by saying the things they said, they would never have been allowed to play with thier tanks, and halliburton would'nt have been able to overcharge the U.S. military by millions for thier meals.

 

[modman]

Originally posted by wonderwench
It only comes across "that way" in hindsight due to the cacaphony in the liberal-controlled media that spun his statements to mean what he did not say.

Who needs to spin anything. Was it colin powell who said Iraq could launch a chemical attack in 45 minutes? Or make chemicals in 45 minutes? If that itself does'nt say imminent, I don't know what else does.

 

[wonderwench]

Oh yes. The legendary 45 minutes.

Yes, Iraq could have launched an attack on Israel within that time frame. Israel is our ally - and allowing it to be annihilated is not in our national security interests.

 

[jimnyc]

Who cares if he said it or not, he might just as well have said it cause that is the way it came across. People just wonder why the administration was so worried about a threat that did'nt exist.

And when they made their decisions they were going on intelligence that stated certain threats did exist. I suggest you read Tenet's speech from earlier today.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by MeSSeNJa
What was said or was not said does not necessarily matter. What I find funny....no....hilarious is that these liberals find themselves booing at this war when not taking in to consideration these aspects:

- Nobody seems to remember 9/11
- 9/11 was caused by terrorists
- Terrorists were supported by Saddam (paying homicide bombers' families $35,000 to kill Jews)
- Revenge is a natural human emotion
- Countless thousands were spared execution for their views and opinions by overthrowing the dictator
- Liberals scream and cry over a war that is not only in OUR best interests but also in the IRAQI's best interest
- Iraq will be a strategic base for launching future operations against terrorists and keeping influence right in the heart of the middle east
- Liberals hold candlelight vigils for those awaiting execution in the name of justice yet support mass murder of the unborn daily
- It is a hypocritical arguement to promote peace and deny the 3,000 on 9/11.
- If our country were to be taken over by Islamic militancy (far-fetched) those on the left would most likely be executed for their views rather than traditional conservatives.

What Bush said does not matter, what he implied was not important, what was done counts. Shame on you for forgetting the 3,000. It's time to take the offensive on this issue.

-9/11 and iraq have no connection
-9/11 and iraq have no connection
-surviving family members were paid by hussein, it was not a paycheck to homicide bombers
-we attacked iraq for revenge of what?
-are we the worlds police? protectors? the ultimate rule in who leads a country and who does not? (imperialism at its finest maybe?)
-a war in iraq is hardly in americas best interests when we already have a presence in the middle east and, again, are we the judge of who leads countries across this planet?
-"Liberals hold candlelight vigils for those awaiting execution in the name of justice yet support mass murder of the unborn daily"
what does this have to do with anything even close to a war in iraq? it doesn't.
-"- It is a hypocritical arguement to promote peace and deny the 3,000 on 9/11." Its an equally hypocritical argument to say the iraqi war is for revenge of 9/11 when iraq is not connected with 9/11 AND the iraqi war is for the 'liberation' of iraq when the far right care nothing about its own unfortunate people in their own country.
"- If our country were to be taken over by Islamic militancy (far-fetched) those on the left would most likely be executed for their views rather than traditional conservatives." And this has what to do with the war in iraq again?

What Bush said does not matter, what he implied was not important, what was done counts. Shame on you for forgetting the 3,000. It's time to take the offensive on this issue.

what a load of unadulterated bullshit. you and all the other loyal republicans would be screaming bloody murdering liar to ANY democrat that would have done the exact same thing and you damn well know it.

 

[modman]

Originally posted by jimnyc
And when they made their decisions they were going on intelligence that stated certain threats did exist. I suggest you read Tenet's speech from earlier today.

From what I hear Tenet and Rumsfeld can't get thier stories straight. If the administration was smart, they would just shut thier mouths becuase they are only making it worse for themselves when they speak.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by modman
From what I hear Tenet and Rumsfeld can't get thier stories straight. If the administration was smart, they would just shut thier mouths becuase they are only making it worse for themselves when they speak.

Nevermind 'what you hear', can you point out these discrepancies?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
what a load of unadulterated bullshit. you and all the other loyal republicans would be screaming bloody murdering liar to ANY democrat that would have done the exact same thing and you damn well know it.

Now THAT's a load of bullshit. I would have expected action against Iraq regardless of who was in office. I supported Clinton when he took action in 98 as well.

 

[MeSSeNJa]

- 9/11 and Iraq DID have a connection, it's by the ideals that they support son! Not all things have to be directly connected every time. "Any state that supports or harbors terrorists" sound familiar? So we got backing by all the democrats when bush spoke those words but now...oh no...now that we try to enforce policy then that's bs!
- They freaking paid their families 35,000 dollars! Or the equivelance of it. I do not see how you can argue this fact?
- By being the only superpower...yes we do decide who controls what countries across this planet. Sorry but that's what you get to do when you have nobody that is remotely close to your status.
- It shows how hypocritical your arguements are! Pray for those who have killed but defend killing by labelling it "choice"
- I care deeply for Americans. I could care less for those who decide not to work and just benefit off the government Ya know in Sweden 1 out of 6....let me repeat that...1 out of 6 able-bodied working-age citizens choose to let the government take care of them. Do you want to bring laziness to this country? Get off your ass and work for your money instead of getting something for nothing! Welfare needs to get cut so severely it's unbelieable...I do understand that about 5% of citizens in a capitalist country need to be unemployed in order for job turnover rates to function properly. But this should be for only the 6 months it takes to find another job.
- Again another arguement to show that YOU are fighting FOR your enemy.

Michael Savage said it perfectly when he said that Islamic militancy has repeated history. Savage predicted a few years ago that Islamo-fascists are the new Nazi's of our time. I cannot believe you do not see the fascism (doing what appears necessary) that they portray especially in the dictators that control these countries. The execution squads and secret police don't sound familiar?

Liberalism...lol...do your worst