this story hasn't been commented on yet, I don't know. However, after reading the article, no, Bush didn't specifically say that Iraq was an "imminent" threat. Amazingly, he never uttered those words, although many in his cabinet and administration did.

This guy must have a good speechwriter. Either that, or he's much smarter than he lets on.

He never said the threat was imminent, but it was "urgent". Sort of like the difference in connotation between a parlous threat and a perilous threat.

And we all thought Clinton was smooth. ;)


But, I do concede that these recent tactics following revelations of no weapons being found are misleading and ethically questionable. In the end, hairs are being split to justify a war using non-existant evidence. I think Bush should just admit that weapons of mass destruction may never be found. However, he should stick with his conviction that the war was just. Polls show people would support him whether WMD's are actually found or not. So, he should at least be honest about the intelligence failure, acknowledge that he may have been wrong regarding the principal justification for the war, and move on with the rebuilding of Iraq.

Do you think our government would have still voted in favor of the war without the urgent need to disarm Iraq?

Also referring this to the Cuba missle crisis gives people the idea that the threat was pretty damn imminent.

I don't think he will come out and say that there are no WMD there because there may still be some there. Also people will like the flavor of this over no WMD's and he does have to think about the election.

Can you site ONE instance where he said that Iraq was "an imminent threat"? No? Didn't think so...

... cause he never said it. If I remember correctly, he did suggest we remove Saddam BEFORE he BECAME an imminent threat though. Big difference.

Lame try, Burn. At worst, Bush is guilty of relying on intel that wasn't 100%.

They never did show us any good solid proof of anything except for a bunch of truck driving around in the sand.

Would our government still have voted? Doubtful, I really don't know. However, a majority of people don't care whether or not we find anything. But the poll Im referring to was about a month or two ago, so who knows how people feel now?

You bring up the Cuban Missle Crisis. But in politics, if you didn't say it, you didn't say it. He didn't say the threat was imminent. You just inferred it was imminent. So, its your fault. ;) See how the reasoning goes? Politicians never lie; they just don't tell the truth. In politics, almost nothing said is ever explicit enough or detailed enough to be called a lie.

He may not come out as saying there are "no WMD's there". And, he doesn't have to. All he has to say is that "we may never find WMD, but regardless the war was just." He should just be vague, uncertain, but stick to his initial principals and convictions of a just war.

And, people will love him for it. Thats how it works.

Yep it seems that it will be a hair-splitting semantics game that will be played in the near future.

"Politicians never lie; they just don't tell the truth."

The sin of omission. Great way to get out (weasel) of an argument. A poor debate tactic knowing full well what you were trying ot say then denying you said it based on the actual word being used to describe what you said. :eyemouth:

"Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals...except the weasel."

Uhm, did you read what he said?

He said it WASN'T 100%. this is because we didn't happen to see any fucking missiles sitting out in the open being polished for the spy satellites to capture pictures of.

That is how we know it isn't 100% proof. 100% is total proof, we didn't have total proof, thus the intel wasn't 100% showing there were WMDs or anything other than there was a high possibility that there were.

Something you accused me off before.

It's pretty obvious that there weren't any missles or anything sticking out. I just question if our intel was good and things were blown out of proportion.

The point I was trying to make here wasn't about the WMD - we all know they don't exist. I was pissed off that Bush can get away with dancing around words (just like Clinton, only this time it cost 500+ lives) and not be held accountable for it. Tony Blair is about to drown in this shit and yet we give Bush a free pass because he said "urgent" and not "imminent"? WTF is that?

It's politics, as D&C accurately put it. But that doesn't mean I can't bitch and complain :)

...WMD - we all know they don't exist

We do? OK, yes it's looking less and less likely there are any... but we don't know for sure they don't exist. Given the evidence AT THE TIME, most people and most countries (even those opposed to the war) believed they existed.

Under Saddam, Iraq was a country we previously fought a war with, tried to assasinate an ex-president, continually shot at coalition aircraft that were flying in accordance with the terms of Iraq's surrender. If we believed they had- or could quickly get- WMD's, it wasn't unreasonable to consider Saddam an urgent threat.

To say that Bush isn't being held accountable is ridiculous. It's not like there's a lack of scrutiny about this- I have the news (yes, Fox News) on right now; guess what the big story is right now? David Kay, weapons inspector.

H.P. you know my feelings about the war in Iraq but I do agree that we cannot say there are no WMD in there. I think it would be harder to prove that than proving there is at least one there.

"To say that Bush isn't being held accountable is ridiculous. It's not like there's a lack of scrutiny about this" - In my eyes being held accountable is much more than public scrutiny.

You questioned HP in regards to his 100% statement. He said the information wasn't totally accurate. This is TRUE.

If the intel was blown out of proportion then it isn't 100% accurate. You can't really question something that is 100% certain.

Perhaps we're just not on the same wavelength here so I'll stop posting after this reply.

All I was saying was it is also possible that the intel was 100% (or close to it) yet it was disregarded or things were made to look worse than they were.

Sorry if I didn't state that clearly the first time.

Depends on what you mean by "being held accountable". Especially since this is an election year, he is first and foremost accountable to the voters. As long as there is sufficient scrutiny that the public is able to make an informed decision, they can hold him accountable in any way they wish.

If the voting public decides to give him a pass, that's their decision; either way he'll face the consequences. It would be different if the media wasn't covering the issue and there was some big cover-up, but that's not the case here.

If by "being held accountable" you mean that he should face the consequences that YOU would impose- too bad. Not everyone agrees.

"we all know they don't exist."

I take it you have been there personally sifting through that giant kitty-litter box called Iraq then right?

"If by "being held accountable" you mean that he should face the consequences that YOU would impose- too bad. Not everyone agrees" - No shit, this site would get a lot less traffic if everyone agreed. "Too bad" - I'm crying over here, could you pass me a tissue? What I'm getting from your view is that there is no chance that bush is guilty of anything. I didn't know you were absolutely correct. I'm sorry, I must be imagining all the people who believe Bush is a crook. I know that is not proof of anything, but I find it funny that you can't even acknowledge that there is even a chance of this. And please don't go off on some big lefty liberal tirade. I'm a republican and I believe he is a crook.

It isn't my view "that there is no chance that bush is guilty of anything". The possibility always exists... but "anything" is a bit vague, don't you think? If you are going to throw around accusations (like saying that Bush is a "crook"):

1. Be specific.

2. Provide evidence.

Otherwise you're just engaging in mindless name-calling.

The impression I get is that you want Bush hung out to dry... but aren't able to elaborate any legitimate reason as to why.

I've said what I said in the past and I'll stick my ground. I was plenty specific before. My evidence proving his guilty is as strong as your evidence proving his innocent. He IS innocent until proven guilty, but I still have my beliefs.

I agree, anything was a bit vague, but I'm trying not to dig up the old dirt on this one. I hope you understand.

I don't want Bush hung out to dry, but I would like to see some serious investigations into why he pushed so hard for this war. There are far greater security threats of this nation and the world and I really do not feel Iraq was number 1. Look at N. Korea for instance. I believe this movement was for the oil with the humanity and security aspect being a nice big whopper for the world to eat. The movement for the oil might have actually been a defensive move for this nation, or it might have been for profit, or the war could be completely just. If the war was for the oil and for a defensive move than I could let that go knowing we a greedy nation. I think only time will tell at this point what the truth is. However, every day that passes brings us more evidence that this was either a huge fuck-up or the war was for the wrong reason. With this I mean the WMD, the aluminum tubes, the uranium, the range of their missles--intelligence that was so strongly acted upon. With this I ask you a question...What is more likely, that intelligence misses some important piece of information, or intelligence that accidentally comes up with threats from no where? I just find it so hard to believe that we came up with all this false information about things that didn't even exist. How does that happen? I do believe that error, deciept, or stupidity can play into this but NOTHING has been proven true except that the people were treated poorly and saddam was a naughty boy.

I really don't care if you agree 1% with this. I'm not trying to prove jack shit. This is just my opinion and please respect it.

Yes, as a matter of fact he was combing the desert in a manner similar to spaceballs.

link]"> [link]

Don't believe me? Go to www.capmag.com and click on the "Reason vs. Terrorism" link or the "Free Iraq" link. We next need to take down Iran...

-Hank Rearden

Come on Hank! Do you really believe everything posted on the net? At least 99% of the stuff on the whole net is just opinion, gossip and urban legend.
Even if they quote their sources, better personally check the source. Pretty simple to say "Elvis is alive and living in Bullhead City, AZ according to the New York Daily News". Sounds impressive when you consider the source, but did the NYDN ever say that? NO! I just made it up.

These dem's are just too funny. Talk about setting the standards on hypocrisy. sheesh.

Howard "I can't believe we got this far" Dean
John "Let's not let Vietnam divide America unless a Republican is President" Kerry
John "I have all the money I need and special interests" Edwards
the professor and Mary Ann.....

Wow.....unbelievable. Unqualified. Which one has a Harvard MBA?