Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Ted Kennedy's Speech: Treason or disagreement?
Topic Started: Apr 6 2004, 11:18 AM (2,094 Views)
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Dwayne
Apr 8 2004, 04:58 PM
First off, Bush never said what you, with quotes and all, claimed he said. He's made claims that the terrorist hate American freedoms and I think it's good he keep re-enforcing that fact, because it transcends every aspect the debate.

Actually he did, word for word. Unfortunately, I can't put my hands on the reference to that exact quote right now. But here are a bunch of quotes that say the same thing in different words. I never meant that he used exactly the same words every time:

September 11, 2001:
"America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0010911-16.html

September 20, 2001:
"On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country."

"They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."

"Freedom and fear are at war."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20010920-8.html

September 24, 2001:
"But we are talking about a campaign against people who hate freedom."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20010924-4.html

September 25, 2001:
"Well, I think this: I think 100 percent of the Japanese people ought to understand that we're dealing with evil people who hate freedom and legitimate governments, and that now is the time for freedom-loving people to come together to fight terrorist activity. "
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20010925-1.html

---------------------

I don't have time to go through every speech for you, but there are quite a few just in the same month as 9/11. I guess you haven't been paying much attention. :rolleyes:

Quote:
 
As for Salman Pak, you don't hear Pres. Bush talking repetively about the reference samples of biological agents found in Iraqi scientist homes that David Kay talked about, but just because Pres. Bush doesn't talk about it every day, once a month, or whatever does not mean that the evidence is without merit.

No, it doesn't mean that, but what it does do is make me wonder "why" which also means I'm not going to blindly accept that this is all it's cracked up to be. It doesn't make sense. Bush is running this year for President. This isn't just any year. People have been seriously questioning his motives for going to war with Iraq and he should be GLOATING that he has evidence like Salman Pak to defend himself with. Can you seriously say YOU wouldn't be rubbing your opposition's nose in it if it was you? It just doesn't add up.

Quote:
 
There's so much evidence to support the fact that Saddam was a bad guy. He could not be trusted to disarm he did support terrorism. To deny this requires one to wilfully ignore evidence that he wasn't a threat.

Don't put words in my mouth. I have never said Saddam isn't a bad guy. Nor did I say he wasn't a threat. I haven't even said he wasn't an imminent threat. What I HAVE said, is there has been no evidence that he was an imminent threat and as time goes on, my common sense leads me to BELIEVE that he was no IMMINENT threat.

Did Saddam need to be unseated? Absolutely. But, without an imminent threat to the U.S., it's an international matter and should be an international responsibility. And it didn't have to be made our biggest priority at a time when terrorism that was immediately threatening our country should have been. I wonder how much progress terrorists have made with their next planned attack on the U.S. while we've been busy pouring time, resources, and attention into Iraq and therefore making those amounts unavailable to homeland security...
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Adrian
Lieutenant Commander
One of the charges with Mr. Kennedy's speach is that this is one of the most dishonest administrations in recent memory.
Remember when Press Secretary Ari Fleisher would stand up and claim the outgoing Clinton Administration vadalized the White House? Outraged, congressman Bob Barrdemanded an investigation from the General accounting Office. When the General Services Administration, on behalf of the GAO, asked the administration for their catalogue of vandalism, the White House admitted "(there was) no record of vadalism". It was a lie.
Remember when canidate Bush said "If called upon, by the commander in chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report, 'Not ready for duty, sir'" (showing Clinton had gutted the armed forces). Richard Armitage had to come before the Armed Service Commitee a few days later. Ranking member Carl Levin asked Are those two divisions ready for duty, or aren't they?". Armitage repied "I believe those two divisions, Senator, are ready for duty." It was a lie.
In the first debate with Gore, Bush said "By far the vast majority of my tax cuts go to those at the bottom". The bottom 60% got 14.7% of the first tax cut. It was a lie.
In his Earth Day speach he promised dedication to the enviroment. It was a lie
Iraq is an imminent threat. It was a lie; now that our troops are there, Americans are in danger.
This is just a small sample, but you get the picture.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Quote:
 
Dwayne
Apr 8 2004, 04:58 PM
First off, Bush never said what you, with quotes and all, claimed he said. He's made claims that the terrorist hate American freedoms and I think it's good he keep re-enforcing that fact, because it transcends every aspect the debate.

Actually he did, word for word. Unfortunately, I can't put my hands on the reference to that exact quote right now. But here are a bunch of quotes that say the same thing in different words. I never meant that he used exactly the same words every time:

September 11, 2001:
"America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0010911-16.html

September 20, 2001:
"On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country."

"They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."

"Freedom and fear are at war."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20010920-8.html

September 24, 2001:
"But we are talking about a campaign against people who hate freedom."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20010924-4.html

September 25, 2001:
"Well, I think this: I think 100 percent of the Japanese people ought to understand that we're dealing with evil people who hate freedom and legitimate governments, and that now is the time for freedom-loving people to come together to fight terrorist activity. "
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20010925-1.html

I don't have time to go through every speech for you, but there are quite a few just in the same month as 9/11. I guess you haven't been paying much attention. :rolleyes:

Did you actually read what I said?

Let me simplify this for you, President Bush didn't say, "terrorists can't stand freedom".

I'm not saying that he hasn't said things along those lines, but that exact thing? No. And since he didn't say that, don't put quotes around it as though it is something that Pres. Bush said.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
As for Salman Pak, you don't hear Pres. Bush talking repetively about the reference samples of biological agents found in Iraqi scientist homes that David Kay talked about, but just because Pres. Bush doesn't talk about it every day, once a month, or whatever does not mean that the evidence is without merit.

No, it doesn't mean that, but what it does do is make me wonder "why" which also means I'm not going to blindly accept that this is all it's cracked up to be. It doesn't make sense. Bush is running this year for President. This isn't just any year. People have been seriously questioning his motives for going to war with Iraq and he should be GLOATING that he has evidence like Salman Pak to defend himself with. Can you seriously say YOU wouldn't be rubbing your opposition's nose in it if it was you? It just doesn't add up.

Give me a break; the reason I can name Salman Pak, Zarqawi and other things is due to the fact the administration has talked about these things. Salman Pak was brought up on FoxNews on more than one occasion and it is talked about outside of media circles. It's received mutliple mentions in transcripts listed on CNN. The fact is, Salman Pak was talked about.

I get the feeling you're so obtuse in your visceral partisan hatred of GW Bush, that when you hear a person speaking favorably for the Bush Administration, you really don't hear what is said, but you hear what you want to hear. Anything that doesn't fit in with your notions is forgotten.

And I can tell you right now, if George W Bush were running around repeatedly gloating about Salman Pak, you people would twist it around into a negative, just like a "Mission Accomplished" sign is twisted around to mean "we won the war". No, what happened is just was the sign said, we accomplished a mission - that being we took Baghdad and ousted Saddam from his seat of power. We still had a war and no one from the Bush Administration claimed the war was over.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
There's so much evidence to support the fact that Saddam was a bad guy. He could not be trusted to disarm he did support terrorism. To deny this requires one to wilfully ignore evidence that he wasn't a threat.

Don't put words in my mouth. I have never said Saddam isn't a bad guy. Nor did I say he wasn't a threat. I haven't even said he wasn't an imminent threat. What I HAVE said, is there has been no evidence that he was an imminent threat and as time goes on, my common sense leads me to BELIEVE that he was no IMMINENT threat.

President Bush never said Saddam was an imminent threat!

In fact, the President went as far as to say, the threat was so great, we cannot let it become imminent. It fact is, it all comes back to intent. Saddam had the intent, therefore there was a threat, and how "imminent" that threat was, could only be measured in how close they were to attacking.

Here's how you would verbalize a threat - "I want to fly an airplane into a building"

Here's how to verbalize an impending threat - "I'm planning an operation to fly an airplane into a building."

Here's how to verbalize an imminent threat - "I'm in the process of carrying out a plan to fly airplanes into a building."

Saddam Hussein was an impending threat. He'd had already shown a desire to attack America and had fired on American aircraft multiple times. America lost soldiers in more than one terrorist attack in attempting to "contain" Saddam. Saddam and his boys had plans and considering what we're up against in the War on Terror, taking Saddam out of Iraq is like defeating Rommel in North Africa.

With the War on Terror, there are nations that support terrorism. You do realize this. Right?

You also realize that Iraq has always been considered such a country? The Left is so enamored with Richard Clarke, well, here's a nice quote from Richard Clarke about Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, "These countries have provided sanctuary to terrorist groups. They have funded terrorist groups, trained terrorists, and provided intelligence and weapons to terrorists. So is it beyond reason to think that, if the state sponsors who possess chemical and biological weapons have supported terrorist groups in these ways, they will not provide them with chemical or biological weapons in the future?"

Quote:
 
Did Saddam need to be unseated?  Absolutely.  But, without an imminent threat to the U.S., it's an international matter and should be an international responsibility. And it didn't have to be made our biggest priority at a time when terrorism that was immediately threatening our country should have been.  I wonder how much progress terrorists have made with their next planned attack on the U.S. while we've been busy pouring time, resources, and attention into Iraq and therefore making those amounts unavailable to homeland security...

Sorry, that just won't do. Waiting for Saddam to attack before we could attack, doesn't sound like such a good idea.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
Okay, you may argue that Teddy's interview wasn't treason, and I respect that (for some reason). However, what about the latest words of wisdom to come out of the enlightened mind of Ted "the Red" Rall?

Why not just go to Iraq and fight us yourself Rall?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Dwayne
Apr 8 2004, 09:35 PM
Did you actually read what I said?

Let me simplify this for you, President Bush didn't say, "terrorists can't stand freedom".

I'm not saying that he hasn't said things along those lines, but that exact thing? No. And since he didn't say that, don't put quotes around it as though it is something that Pres. Bush said.

Yes, and I replied to that specific point. Did you read it? :rolleyes: Here it is again:
Quote:
 
Actually he did, word for word. Unfortunately, I can't put my hands on the reference to that exact quote right now. But here are a bunch of quotes that say the same thing in different words. I never meant that he used exactly the same words every time.

I added the bold so you get it this time. If I can put my hands on where I saw that quote, I'll be sure and point it out to you.

Quote:
 
Give me a break; the reason I can name Salman Pak, Zarqawi and other things is due to the fact the administration has talked about these things. Salman Pak was brought up on FoxNews on more than one occasion and it is talked about outside of media circles. It's received mutliple mentions in transcripts listed on CNN. The fact is, Salman Pak was talked about.

No one I've talked with ever heard of Salman Pak. Obviously, it wasn't talked about very much. And if it was a real story, the media would eat it up. So why didn't they? Hmm? And you STILL haven't answered why Bush didn't include it in a State of the Union Address. It doesn't add up.

Quote:
 
President Bush never said Saddam was an imminent threat!

In fact, the President went as far as to say, the threat was so great, we cannot let it become imminent. It fact is, it all comes back to intent. Saddam had the intent, therefore there was a threat, and how "imminent" that threat was, could only be measured in how close they were to attacking.

Nice rant, but now you've completely forgotten the subject. Here again is why I first mentioned "imminent threat" in this thread:
ImpulseEngine
Apr 7 2004, 12:51 PM
If there had truly been an imminent threat, that could change matters because it would then become a stronger domestic issue than an international one.  That certainly hasn't been established so, as far as we know now, we easily could have sat back and let others get more involved.  Without the imminence, it was a stronger international issue than a domestic one.

I was saying that an imminent threat is necessary IMHO before I would agree that it was up to us to consider the Iraq situation mainly our responsibility.

But since you brought it up, I'm not letting you off the hook. We WERE led to believe there was an imminent threat. As far as I know, technically speaking, Bush never used the word "imminent". But that doesn't change the point. "Imminent" was the media's choice of a word for how they interpreted a substantial part of what Bush and members of his administration were telling us before the Iraq war - and it was an accurate and appropriate word. And I guarantee you that if we HAD proven Saddam was an imminent threat, you wouldn't spend so much energy claiming it wasn't said. Instead, you'd be saying "see we told you so!"

To the rest of what you said (which is getting too lengthy to continue quoting):
I repeat, I recognize that Saddam was a threat. But if it wasn't imminent, then there was some time before it had to be dealt with. We needed to use that time to 1) do more to take care of imminent threats elsewhere, and 2) get other countries more involved in taking care of the Iraq problem.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Quote:
 
Dwayne
Apr 8 2004, 09:35 PM
Did you actually read what I said?

Let me simplify this for you, President Bush didn't say, "terrorists can't stand freedom".

I'm not saying that he hasn't said things along those lines, but that exact thing? No. And since he didn't say that, don't put quotes around it as though it is something that Pres. Bush said.

Yes, and I replied to that specific point. Did you read it? :rolleyes: Here it is again:
Quote:
 
Actually he did, word for word. Unfortunately, I can't put my hands on the reference to that exact quote right now. But here are a bunch of quotes that say the same thing in different words. I never meant that he used exactly the same words every time.

I added the bold so you get it this time. If I can put my hands on where I saw that quote, I'll be sure and point it out to you.

Yeah...sure you will. Just like you're going to show us where Pres. Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Give me a break; the reason I can name Salman Pak, Zarqawi and other things is due to the fact the administration has talked about these things. Salman Pak was brought up on FoxNews on more than one occasion and it is talked about outside of media circles. It's received mutliple mentions in transcripts listed on CNN. The fact is, Salman Pak was talked about.

No one I've talked with ever heard of Salman Pak. Obviously, it wasn't talked about very much. And if it was a real story, the media would eat it up. So why didn't they? Hmm? And you STILL haven't answered why Bush didn't include it in a State of the Union Address. It doesn't add up.

Why should Mr. Bush have had to mention Salman Pak in the SOTU? Was there any other facilities he mentioned by name?

Mr. Bush could rattle off 20 different names of Iraqi facilities, yet you could still come back and say, "Why didn't he mention this one? I guess it wasn't that important then."

Your line of argument is illogical for the fact that you're determining the significance of evidence upon the frequency that it's mentioned. It's really a cheap strawman argument.

Anyway, I linked to well over 30 CNN transcripts where Salman Pak was part of the discussion, yet you still act as if it was never mentioned - as if the transcripts didn't exist at all and I never posted a link.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
President Bush never said Saddam was an imminent threat!

In fact, the President went as far as to say, the threat was so great, we cannot let it become imminent. It fact is, it all comes back to intent. Saddam had the intent, therefore there was a threat, and how "imminent" that threat was, could only be measured in how close they were to attacking.

Nice rant, but now you've completely forgotten the subject. Here again is why I first mentioned "imminent threat" in this thread:
ImpulseEngine
Apr 7 2004, 12:51 PM
If there had truly been an imminent threat, that could change matters because it would then become a stronger domestic issue than an international one.  That certainly hasn't been established so, as far as we know now, we easily could have sat back and let others get more involved.  Without the imminence, it was a stronger international issue than a domestic one.

I was saying that an imminent threat is necessary IMHO before I would agree that it was up to us to consider the Iraq situation mainly our responsibility.

IMHO???

In my years I've found those claiming "in my humble opinion" are rarely - if ever - humble.

It was American and British responsibility from the very begining. American forces died in many instances throughout the 1990's while enforcing sanctions against Iraq. Need I mention that these were sanctions that France, Germany, Russia, China, North Korea and all the other usual suspects all too willing to ignore.

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of your ignorance. You know damn good and well, or at least you should know, that the media has had it in for this President from day one. The media is generally biased against President Bush, and this is apparent to everyone except hardcore Leftists.

Of course the media is not going to use the positives to retort those on the Left giving supposed news analysis. It's just like the 2000 recounts that were done by independent researchers. If the media wasn't biased, they'd immediately shutdown these claims that Al Gore won. The fact that they don't, prove their bias, and so it's not a surprise the media doesn't mention Salman Pak.

Quote:
 
But since you brought it up, I'm not letting you off the hook.  We WERE led to believe there was an imminent threat. As far as I know, technically speaking, Bush never used the word "imminent".  But that doesn't change the point.  "Imminent" was the media's choice of a word for how they interpreted a substantial part of what Bush and members of his administration were telling us before the Iraq war - and it was an accurate and appropriate word.  And I guarantee you that if we HAD proven Saddam was an imminent threat, you wouldn't spend so much energy claiming it wasn't said.  Instead, you'd be saying "see we told you so!"

Bullcrap.

If you were lead to believe that, then that's a perfect example of you hearing what you want to hear, because you cannot produce one Bush speech or speech from anyone in the Bush Administration where it is claimed Iraq was an imminent threat.

Quote:
 
To the rest of what you said (which is getting too lengthy to continue quoting):
I repeat, I recognize that Saddam was a threat.  But if it wasn't imminent, then there was some time before it had to be dealt with.  We needed to use that time to 1) do more to take care of imminent threats elsewhere, and 2) get other countries more involved in taking care of the Iraq problem.

You're unrealistic and/or ill-informed - France, Russia, China and others, were wanting to end sanctions against Iraq, and they were being paid under the table by Saddam.

What "threats elsewhere". Why don't you name those threats?

We were chasing bin Laden through the mountains of Afghanistan and the Pakistan dictator wasn't doing anything, because he didn't really think we were all that serious about the War on Terror. We knew that eventually bin Laden would get more fighters from Arabia to Afghanistan, but the only way to get at him was through Pakistan.

We had to do something to "Beat the grass to startle the snake" and draw out potential fighters headed for Afghanistan.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
You're unrealistic and/or ill-informed - France, Russia, China and others, were wanting to end sanctions against Iraq.


France and Russia put down proposals to increase the powers and equipment available to the inspectors. They felt, with some justification, that we hadnt exhausted all other options before going to war.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Adrian
Apr 8 2004, 05:02 PM
Borther! You miss a couple of days and see what happens!
AB and Dwayne's claims of the Salman Pak training center really bothered me. Could I really have missed a link? Why wasn't this reported? If I were the Press Secretary, I'd be jumping up and down every day, announcing this as the link between Al Quieda and Sadaam.
After an exhaustive (and exhausting) search, I found tons of stuff from conservative pundits (Rush Limbaugh et al) and finally found some of the reports from when the Salman Pak site was actually captured by US forces. I did, however, come across several reports that it was actually a counter-terrorist training ground as in this Global Policy Center reprint of the New York Post article (New York Post).
CIA rebuttals to the claims that it was a terrorist training center have all been classified, but the article claims that an ex-CIA station chief thought that the site was "rinky-dinky" and not seriously a training site. CIA rebuttal position papers have supposedly been censored under "national security" concerns. The source says that these papers discount the Salmon Pak as a terrorist training center.
Even discounting that, the reports like PBS's interview on Frontline of a Iraqi Captain who ran some of the administrative facilities only saw some people who looked like conservative Moslems (he didn't even know where they were from).
When US troops captured the facility they thought it was also a WMD site. Nothing found.

I don't know how many times I have to say this.

Salman Pak trained al Quida terrorists on ways to capture an airliner with minimal weapons.

Did you read 24's link about bioweapons posted above?

You must not have searched too hard...

Why is it that you have such difficulty in admitting you are wrong?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
ImpulseEngine
Apr 8 2004, 02:40 PM
AB,
Charges under the US Code would have to stand up to objective analysis, not anti-Ted Kennedy opinion. IMHO, they wouldn't. This is just a witch hunt. :rolleyes:

I think that they COULD, given the guts to actually pursue this. Unfortunately, most of the upper echelons in my party had their spines removed when they were elected to Congress.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Adrian
Apr 8 2004, 05:36 PM
One of the charges with Mr. Kennedy's speach is that this is one of the most dishonest administrations in recent memory.
Remember when Press Secretary Ari Fleisher would stand up and claim the outgoing Clinton Administration vadalized the White House? Outraged, congressman Bob Barrdemanded an investigation from the General accounting Office. When the General Services Administration, on behalf of the GAO, asked the administration for their catalogue of vandalism, the White House admitted "(there was) no record of vadalism". It was a lie.
Remember when canidate Bush said "If called upon, by the commander in chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report, 'Not ready for duty, sir'" (showing Clinton had gutted the armed forces). Richard Armitage had to come before the Armed Service Commitee a few days later. Ranking member Carl Levin asked Are those two divisions ready for duty, or aren't they?". Armitage repied "I believe those two divisions, Senator, are ready for duty." It was a lie.
In the first debate with Gore, Bush said "By far the vast majority of my tax cuts go to those at the bottom". The bottom 60% got 14.7% of the first tax cut. It was a lie.
In his Earth Day speach he promised dedication to the enviroment. It was a lie
Iraq is an imminent threat. It was a lie; now that our troops are there, Americans are in danger.
This is just a small sample, but you get the picture.

1) The Clinton Administration White House staffers DID vandalize the White House. They did such mature things as a) removing the "w" keys from all of the computers, b) changed the phone extension cards forcing the White House phones to be reprogrammed ($12,000), and c) dumped trash in offices. Admittedly, the damage was NOT $200,000, but there was damage.

2) "I believe those two divisions, Senator, are ready for duty." So you consider a guess by the DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE under Bush, not Clinton to be fact? Let me tell you the Chain of Command of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (who would have this knowledge):

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the principal military adviser to the President, Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Council (NSC), however, all JCS members are by law military advisers, and they may respond to a request or voluntarily submit, through the Chairman, advice or opinions to the President, the Secretary of Defense, or NSC.

The State Department is not in their CoC! So he would not have this knowledge. Secondly, how would CANDIDATE Bush make one statement (presumably before he was president) and then testify before Congress "a few days later"??? You are either fishing with this one, or your source is faulty. Armitage has been Deputy Secretary of State since March 26, 2001. Bush was a candidate until November 7, 2000. Which is it?

3) You are really nitpicking here.

In the first debate with Gore, Bush said "By far the vast majority of my tax cuts go to those at the bottom".

THE GREATEST PERCENTAGE OF TAX REDUCTION WENT TO THE LOWEST INCOME BRACKET, FROM 15 TO 10 PERCENT! So, no lie.

4) Earth Day speech. Would you care to quantify this, or are you just giving your opinion again.

5) George Bush NEVER said Iraq was an imminent threat. This has been discussed ad nauseum here. Please keep up. You're getting INCREDIBLY DESPERATE.

Geez, I love the left :rotfl:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Dwayne
Apr 9 2004, 02:43 AM
Why should Mr. Bush have had to mention Salman Pak in the SOTU? Was there any other facilities he mentioned by name?

Mr. Bush could rattle off 20 different names of Iraqi facilities, yet you could still come back and say, "Why didn't he mention this one? I guess it wasn't that important then."

What a complete load of bull! Are there 20 facilities to supposedly show a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda? Funny, Salman Pak is the only one I've heard anyone mention. If there are 20, then Bush is even MORE foolish for downplaying all 20 of them! But there aren't 20 are there, so your point is just hot air. He should have mentioned it there because, according to you, the media is refusing to mention it and it's an important point to enhance his credibility on the Iraq matter - something he obviously needs in this election year.

Quote:
 
Your line of argument is illogical for the fact that you're determining the significance of evidence upon the frequency that it's mentioned. It's really a cheap strawman argument.

That's NOT how I'm determining the significance. There are many factors that go into whether an event is significant and it is the total of them that formulates my judgment. The information on Salman Pak certainly got my attention because it does appear to show a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. However, the combined pieces don't fit right. If, objectively speaking, this definitively establishes that connection, then in an election year when people are coming out of the woodwork to criticize Bush for taking us to war without significant evidence for that connection (among other things), Bush would certainly be reiterating the evidence. That's just common sense. The FACT that he's not doing so implies that he doesn't consider Salman Pak to be definitive evidence. So then neither should you or I.

Quote:
 
Anyway, I linked to well over 30 CNN transcripts where Salman Pak was part of the discussion, yet you still act as if it was never mentioned - as if the transcripts didn't exist at all and I never posted a link.

Where did I say or even imply that it was never mentioned? What I said is the point is not being emphasized and was never emphasized. But it obviously should be emphasized if it's really the proof that has been claimed. Furthermore, I went through the first 10 or so of those CNN links and, well, did you...? Most of them were just literal mentions of Salman Pak with no details. None of the ones I looked at were by anyone from Bush's administration. A couple were from Rush Limbaugh - a right-wing extremist who will spout anything that supports Bush or denounces Bush's opposition whether accurate or not. After the first 10 were like those, I gave up wasting my time.

Quote:
 
IMHO???

In my years I've found those claiming "in my humble opinion" are rarely - if ever - humble.

:loling: Gee, now that was really a point worth making! :rolleyes: That is, IMHO! :rotfl: :rotfl:

Quote:
 
Frankly, I'm sick and tired of your ignorance.

Feel free to ignore my posts anytime.

Quote:
 
You know damn good and well, or at least you should know, that the media has had it in for this President from day one.

Oh, so now it's all the media's fault. :rolleyes: Bush, of course, is responsible for nothing.

Quote:
 
It's just like the 2000 recounts that were done by independent researchers. If the media wasn't biased, they'd immediately shutdown these claims that Al Gore won.

Not that you'd be interested in any accurate information if it was against Bush anyway...

Quote:
 
The fact that they don't, prove their bias, and so it's not a surprise the media doesn't mention Salman Pak.

The media... again...? How about Bush or Rice or Rumsfeld or any number of members of Bush's administration. You know full well that if they started PUSHING the story, the media would have to pick it up because the PUSHING alone would be a story if nothing else. You know full well that Bush's administration for some reason doesn't WANT to push it. But you can keep living in your fantasy blame of the media if you prefer. I mean it couldn't possibly be Bush's responsibility to get the word out now could it. :rolleyes:

Quote:
 
You're unrealistic and/or ill-informed - France, Russia, China and others, were wanting to end sanctions against Iraq, and they were being paid under the table by Saddam.

Try thinking outside the box sometime.

Quote:
 
What "threats elsewhere". Why don't you name those threats?

Since I don't have access to classified information, I'm not in a position to name them. But if you honestly think they have all been eliminated now, you really must be naive.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
No, Bush never specifically said, “Iraq is an imminent threat.” But he sure as heck implied it every time he used specific key words and phrases in conjunction with each other. Everything about his speeches led me to the conclusion that Saddam was an imminent threat to not only his neighbors but the US. Bush now reminds me of a politician who tries to scare the hell out of the elderly by saying that their Social Security is about to run out on them…so ELECT ME and I will fix your problems.

Bush cleverly used 9/11, terrorism, the “what ifs” if terrorists were able to use a WMD (supplied by Saddam) here in the States, to play on our fears and to create a sense of urgency concerning the removal of Saddam. Saddam was a grave threat, he threatened world peace, blah blah blah.

So no, “Iraq is an imminent threat” was never said as far as I can find, but the message, the implication, was interlaced in speech after speech.

******
"The danger to America from the Iraqi regime is grave and growing. The regime is guilty of beginning two wars. It has a horrible history of striking without warning. In defiance of pledges to the United Nations, Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. Saddam Hussein has used these weapons of death against innocent Iraqi people, and we have every reason to believe he will use them again.

Iraq has longstanding ties to terrorist groups, which are capable of and willing to deliver weapons of mass death. And Iraq is ruled by perhaps the world's most brutal dictator who has already committed genocide with chemical weapons, ordered the torture of children, and instituted the systematic rape of the wives and daughters of his political opponents.

We cannot leave the future of peace and the security of America in the hands of this cruel and dangerous man. This dictator must be disarmed. And all the United Nations resolutions against his brutality and support for terrorism must be enforced.

American security, the safety of our friends, and the values of our country lead us to confront this gathering threat."

Which is it Mr. President? Is it grave or a gathering threat? A lot of double-talk here. No doubt why some of us believe there was an imminent threat and others don’t.http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021005.html


“Confronting Iraq is an urgent matter of national security.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0/20021012.html
**
"President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
Remarks by the President on Iraq
Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
Cincinnati, Ohio
8:02 P.M. EDT

"Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat."

"The threat comes from Iraq."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20021007-8.html


"The chemical attack on Halabja -- just one of 40 targeted at Iraq's own people -- provided a glimpse of the crimes Saddam Hussein is willing to commit, and the kind of threat he now presents to the entire world. He is among history's cruelest dictators, and he is arming himself with the world's most terrible weapons.
And we must recognize that some threats are so grave -- and their potential consequences so terrible -- that they must be removed, even if it requires military force."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...3/20030315.html


"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations. He is a danger to his neighbors. He's a sponsor of terrorism. He's an obstacle to progress in the Middle East. For decades he has been the cruel, cruel oppressor of the Iraq people. "
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030316-3.html


"The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.
The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.

The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep.

Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq. America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. We believe in the mission of the United Nations. One reason the U.N. was founded after the second world war was to confront aggressive dictators, actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the peace."
***

“The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed.
Our government is on heightened watch against these dangers. Just as we are preparing to ensure victory in Iraq, we are taking further actions to protect our homeland.”

“The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030317-7.html



“The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities"


“My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others and we will prevail.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0030319-17.html



"The Iraqi regime's violations of Security Council Resolutions are evident, they are dangerous to America and the world, and they continue to this hour. "

“One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists who would not hesitate to use those weapons. Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases.

We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...2/20030208.html
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Quote:
 
Dwayne
Apr 9 2004, 02:43 AM
Why should Mr. Bush have had to mention Salman Pak in the SOTU? Was there any other facilities he mentioned by name?

Mr. Bush could rattle off 20 different names of Iraqi facilities, yet you could still come back and say, "Why didn't he mention this one? I guess it wasn't that important then."

What a complete load of bull! Are there 20 facilities to supposedly show a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda? Funny, Salman Pak is the only one I've heard anyone mention. If there are 20, then Bush is even MORE foolish for downplaying all 20 of them! But there aren't 20 are there, so your point is just hot air. He should have mentioned it there because, according to you, the media is refusing to mention it and it's an important point to enhance his credibility on the Iraq matter - something he obviously needs in this election year.

You're full of it. Whether there are 1 or 100 facilities - the point is that regardless of how many facilities I could name, you could always find another facility.

The simple fact is, there are links between Salman Pak and terrorism, but you're so partisan and craven, you just brush it off with a wave of the hand.

Web sites that mention Salman Pak listed on Google...
113 mentions from government sites
85 mentions from military sites
1,530 mentions in various organizational sites
6,480 mentions from all sites

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Your line of argument is illogical for the fact that you're determining the significance of evidence upon the frequency that it's mentioned. It's really a cheap strawman argument.

That's NOT how I'm determining the significance. There are many factors that go into whether an event is significant and it is the total of them that formulates my judgment. The information on Salman Pak certainly got my attention because it does appear to show a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. However, the combined pieces don't fit right. If, objectively speaking, this definitively establishes that connection, then in an election year when people are coming out of the woodwork to criticize Bush for taking us to war without significant evidence for that connection (among other things), Bush would certainly be reiterating the evidence. That's just common sense. The FACT that he's not doing so implies that he doesn't consider Salman Pak to be definitive evidence. So then neither should you or I.

Again, your logic is flawed. You know it - I know it - everyone else should know it.

Pres. Bush isn't a callous self promoter like Clintoon. If in the election, he is faced by idiotic suggestions that there were no links between Iraq and al Qaeda, it will be brought up at that time.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Anyway, I linked to well over 30 CNN transcripts where Salman Pak was part of the discussion, yet you still act as if it was never mentioned - as if the transcripts didn't exist at all and I never posted a link.

Where did I say or even imply that it was never mentioned? What I said is the point is not being emphasized and was never emphasized. But it obviously should be emphasized if it's really the proof that has been claimed. Furthermore, I went through the first 10 or so of those CNN links and, well, did you...? Most of them were just literal mentions of Salman Pak with no details. None of the ones I looked at were by anyone from Bush's administration. A couple were from Rush Limbaugh - a right-wing extremist who will spout anything that supports Bush or denounces Bush's opposition whether accurate or not. After the first 10 were like those, I gave up wasting my time.

That's right - those were mentions. If you want details, then you ought to go to: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm

The fact is, the White House has mentioned Salman Pak on multiple occasions, but I'd suspect that it's not mentioned more often only because the Bush Administration considers the proof prima facie, and quite frankly they have way more important things to do than hand hold you through a tour of the evidence.

The facts are out there and you will either accept it or not, and no amount of boosterism from the President will change your view ... of that I'm certain.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
IMHO???

In my years I've found those claiming "in my humble opinion" are rarely - if ever - humble.

:loling: Gee, now that was really a point worth making! :rolleyes: That is, IMHO! :rotfl: :rotfl:

Thanks for making my point.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Frankly, I'm sick and tired of your ignorance.

Feel free to ignore my posts anytime.

Likewise

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
You know damn good and well, or at least you should know, that the media has had it in for this President from day one.

Oh, so now it's all the media's fault. :rolleyes: Bush, of course, is responsible for nothing.

Yes - I want Pres. Bush to send Ashcroft over to CNN, ABC, CBS, NPR, et al, and force them to defend the President when possible.

You're pathetic.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
It's just like the 2000 recounts that were done by independent researchers. If the media wasn't biased, they'd immediately shutdown these claims that Al Gore won.

Not that you'd be interested in any accurate information if it was against Bush anyway...

How cheap.

Why don't you provide some accurate information if you think you can.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
The fact that they don't, prove their bias, and so it's not a surprise the media doesn't mention Salman Pak.

The media... again...? How about Bush or Rice or Rumsfeld or any number of members of Bush's administration. You know full well that if they started PUSHING the story, the media would have to pick it up because the PUSHING alone would be a story if nothing else. You know full well that Bush's administration for some reason doesn't WANT to push it. But you can keep living in your fantasy blame of the media if you prefer. I mean it couldn't possibly be Bush's responsibility to get the word out now could it. :rolleyes:

THE POINT IS, WHY SHOULD THE ADMINISTRATION BOOST ONE SPECIFIC FACILITY OR ANOTHER TO ADDRESS ONE SPECIFIC FACET OF THE DEBATE WHEN IT'S SUCH A SMALL PART OF THE EVIDENCE?!?!?!?!

The FACT that Zarqawi was able to operate in Iraq and received medical care in Baghdad should be more important as proof of the al Qaeda/Saddam link than any building or facility.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
You're unrealistic and/or ill-informed - France, Russia, China and others, were wanting to end sanctions against Iraq, and they were being paid under the table by Saddam.

Try thinking outside the box sometime.

When you pull your head out of your arse, then you might begin to realize the only one 'thining in a box' is you!

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
What "threats elsewhere". Why don't you name those threats?

Since I don't have access to classified information, I'm not in a position to name them. But if you honestly think they have all been eliminated now, you really must be naive.

That's a cheap deflection. If you don't have access to the information, then how can you even make an argument one way or another.

But of course, I don't think all threats have been eliminated - if the threats had all been eliminated, the war would be over.

The point was, which you've waltz around, is that given the fact the no one in the Middle East was taking the United States seriously about this War on Terrorism, and that every day, week and month that went by, was just one day, week and month closer to the point we'd find al Qaeda being based out of some other country.

You Leftoids wanted America to focus on Afghanistan exclusively, while never addressing the casus belli of Osama bin Laden. You wanted America to focus on Afghanistan, while ignoring the threat to terrorism that American forces were facing in the Persain Gulf.

You're are totally ignorant of strategy and how a war must be fought.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Dwayne
Apr 9 2004, 05:40 PM
Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Frankly, I'm sick and tired of your ignorance.

Feel free to ignore my posts anytime.

Likewise


If you two don't choose to take this option, I am going to assume you are enjoying the give and take and not step in.

However, do cut back on the name-calling. :angry:

Edit: And Dwayne, no yelling :no:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
24thcenstfan
Apr 9 2004, 12:17 PM
No, Bush never specifically said, “Iraq is an imminent threat.”  But he sure as heck implied it every time he used specific key words and phrases in conjunction with each other.  Everything about his speeches led me to the conclusion that Saddam was an imminent threat to not only his neighbors but the US.  Bush now reminds me of a politician who tries to scare the hell out of the elderly by saying that their Social Security is about to run out on them…so ELECT ME and I will fix your problems. 

Bush cleverly used 9/11, terrorism, the “what ifs” if terrorists were able to use a WMD  (supplied by Saddam) here in the States, to play on our fears and to create a sense of urgency concerning the removal of Saddam.  Saddam was a grave threat, he threatened world peace, blah blah blah. 

So no, “Iraq is an imminent threat” was never said as far as I can find, but the message, the implication, was interlaced in speech after speech.

You have not learned the lesson of 9-11

What is the main complaint bandied about against the Bush Administration from this dog and pony show that's called the 9-11 Commission?

That the Bush Administration didn't act pre-emptively to stop that act of terrorism.

The link that the Bush Administration tried to establish between 9-11 and Saddam wasn't in the act itself, but in how we deal with such threats before those threats are realized.

If in 1998 when bin Laden declared war against America, if America had took his words and actions seriously at that time, we wouldn't have had a 9-11.

Saddam Hussein had uttered threats and taken actions that were largely ignored, and in a post 9-11 world we could no longer rely on an internationally unsupported, opaque and incomplete "containment" to deal with Saddam Hussein.

Another point that Pres. Bush repeatedly made that many just failed to understand or were incapable of understanding, was the nature of the world imminence as it relates to terrorism. When nation-states battle with armies, imminence is apparent - one can see the enemy forces approaching for attack. When you have terrorists planning to carry out attacks, at what point does the threat go from being impending to imminent? The point being, with terrorism you're never going to be certain when a threat has become imminent.

Pres. Bush made it clear on many occasions that it's too difficult to determine imminence and the level of death and destruction that could occur was way too great to wait for that threat to be "imminent" before we dealt with it.

I understand this completely - why cannot you?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus