Bush response to 9/11 prevented more attacks

[Steve]

The "imminent threat" line came from Rumsfeld on multiple occasions

Show me where he said Iraq was an imminent threat.

[Sandman]

SCHIEFFER: Well, let me just ask you this. If they did not have these weapons of mass destruction, though, granted all of that is true, why then did they pose an immediate threat to us, to this country?

Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, you're the--you and a few other critics are the only people I've heard use the phrase `immediate threat.' I didn't. The president didn't. And it's become kind of folklore that that's--that's what's happened. The president went...

SCHIEFFER: You're saying that nobody in the administration said that.

Sec. RUMSFELD: I--I can't speak for nobody--everybody in the administration and say nobody said that.

SCHIEFFER: Vice president didn't say that? The...

Sec. RUMSFELD: Not--if--if you have any citations, I'd like to see 'em.

Mr. FRIEDMAN: We have one here. It says `some have argued that the nu'--this is you speaking--`that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent, that Saddam is at least five to seven years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain.'

Sec. RUMSFELD: And--and...

Mr. FRIEDMAN: It was close to imminent.

Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, I've--I've tried to be precise, and I've tried to be accurate. I'm s--suppose I've...

Mr. FRIEDMAN: `No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.'

Sec. RUMSFELD: Mm-hmm. It--my view of--of the situation was that he--he had--we--we believe, the best intelligence that we had and other countries had and that--that we believed and we still do not know--we will know.

Transcript

[strk]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Transcript

to quote Gomer Pyle:

Well Golly!

[Eagler]

no one cares - LOL

landslide Bush!

[Munkii]

Originally posted by Eagler
no one cares - LOL

landslide Bush!

Yep, it's a highly debated issue because no one cares.

[Steve]

sooo you went from "immediate threat"  to"imminent threat"
to almost "imminent threat"


I see.

[Steve]

No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world

Was there a bigger threat?

[Munkii]

Originally posted by Steve
Was there a bigger threat?

Saudi's seemed like a pretty big threat, with there harboring terrorists and all.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Steve
sooo you went from "immediate threat"  to"imminent threat"
to almost "imminent threat"


I see.

Imminent threat, immediate threat...

There's little difference in the meaning and the Bush administration has used both.

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

"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 Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02

"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

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Steve
Was there a bigger threat?

Canada.

[Steve]

Saudi's seemed like a pretty big threat, with there harboring terrorists and all.

I agree that the two-faced POS Saudis need to be dealt with.

[Steve]

Sandman again,  Neither Bush Not Rummy uses "imminent threat"

I remember Bush saying something Like "we need to deal w/ Iraq before it becomes an imminent threat"

It seems like we are quibbling over the details though.  You debate quite glibly. Yet you still haven't answered my questioons about how much is enough.

It's not as if the crimes were recent

They were recent and ongoing!

There is no known link between Hussein and Bin Laden.

This is incorrect, it is now known  Al queda had training facilities in Iraq.  You know the old saying, "The enemy of my enemy....."

Basically you don't believe our Government when they announce these ties.(I'm concluding)
You'd rather believe people like Aziz?  Hussein?

I don't believe for a single moment that Americans are safer because we invaded Iraq.

Here again we disagree. I don't see how we can debate this to agreement, however.  It comes down to two basic ideas.  I believe that Iraq was aiding and abetting terrorists  and you do not.

[gatt]

Originally posted by Steve
Frog,  Were there hundreds of thousands of people murdered, tortured, and raped by Saddam's Regime?

A simple "Yes" or "No" will help me understnad what you feel.

Thank you.

I really would have liked to see the US invading and chasing those bloody south america's dictatorships. Or those in Saudi Arabia or Syria or Lybia or Yemen or south east asia .... They have all murdered thousands of innocent and some of them are still murdering or financing or training terrorists. I guess they have/had more WMD than Iraq as well .... you know, ppl is not so stoopid.

[Steve]

There's bad people all over.. in all the places you named Gatt.. and no doubt some horrible stuff going on.  I hope we can somehow affect changes in all those places.  I know... wishful thinking.

[-tronski-]

Howard backs down on North Korea - “Weapons Threat Real This Time”

Prime Minister John Howard has expressed extreme caution on the possibility of joining any aggressive action against rogue state North Korea, pointing to their likely possession of ‘actual’ weapons.

“Normally when we say war is the last resort it’s just an expression,” said an unusually animated Mr Howard. “But when a country has an arsenal the size of North Korea’s, political bluster like that actually becomes a reality.”

Recent intelligence reports have suggested that North Korea’s nuclear program has produced enough plutonium for up to twelve atomic bombs. According to Howard, this makes a war against Korea infinitely more dangerous than the one waged against Iraq, which possessed enough plutonium to produce three or four glowsticks.

When hearing Howard’s name mentioned, a North Korean spokesperson stated that he would be “bathed in nuclear fire”. Today Mr Howard responded to the statement “Look, I don’t think anyone wants to be bathed in nuclear fire, and speaking for myself, I know I don’t. If that fire can be stalled by a series of fruitless weapons inspections, then I’m all for it.” North Korea refused to be moved however, and suggested that as far as war was concerned, Australia and her allies were “running out of time.”

Howard has refused to rule out negotiations with North Korean leader Kim Jong Il “Rule out negotiations?” said Howard. ”When can we start them? I’ll meet him, I’ll shake his hand, - I’ll even laugh at his jokes if he’s got half the weapons we think he does.”

Critics suggest a cowardly stance could weaken our ties with the US, a view Mr Howard rejects, asserting that whatever damage a weakened ANZUS alliance does to the nation, “it couldn’t do as much damage as North Korea’s barrage of nuclear annihlation.”

 Tronsky