Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hooray for Tony Snow
AndrewSullivan.com [Rockefeller snowed] ^ | October 13, 2003 | tony snow/ jay rockefeller

Posted on 10/13/2003 5:48:29 PM PDT by Roscoe Karns

Monday, October 13, 2003
Hooray for Tony Snow: On Fox News Sunday, Sen. Jay Rockefeller attacked President Bush for alleging that there was an imminent threat to the United States from Iraq.

Snow, then confronted the senator with a clip from this year's State of the Union address, where President Bush said:


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.


Rockefeller's response:


Rockefeller: Tony, if you listen to that as an average American person would, you, at least myself included, that is talking about the danger of an immediate attack. And in fact, the intelligence committee, the one thing they did not say was that there was, we were in danger of being attacked in this country.

Snow: I'm sorry. We've done a lot of research on this, and the president never said, and we've been looking for it, because a lot of you and your colleagues have said he talked about an imminent threat. And he never did. As a matter of fact, the key argument, was it not, that you can't wait for it to become an imminent threat because then it's too late.

Rockefeller: No. The argument, Tony, was based upon, I was there and I heard the speech, very close, and he was talking about weapons of mass destruction -- biological, chemical and nuclear -- and that was more or less signed off on by the intelligence community. Which raises a whole 'nother set of questions. And the whole problem was that there was a danger of attack. If the word "imminent threat" wasn't used, that was the predicate, that was the feeling that was given to the American people. And to the Congress whose vote the president clearly was trying to argue, or to convince during the course of that State of the Union message.


So, it doesn't matter what the president said, all that matters is that we (the American people and, apparently, much of the Senate) suffer from extremely poor comprehension skills. Yeah, he didn't say there was a threat was imminent, but he used the word, so we were confused.

Of course, Fox News' crack researchers didn't stop there. Rockefeller digs himself a deeper hole after Snow dug up an Oct. 10, 2002 speech by Rockefeller himself.


There has also been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, the question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!


Back to Snow:


Snow: What made you change your mind?

Rockefeller: That's correct. And that's what I felt at the time I cast that vote based upon the intelligence community's analysis of the situation. Particularly weapons of mass destruction. And what the president said in his speech. But the situation turns out not to have been quite like either the intelligence community or the president indicated. And that would be a vote that I would probably not make today based upon the revelations that there don't appear, at least to this point, to be any weapons of mass destruction. I've heard David Kay a number of times now. He has not indicated that. He's talking about perhaps they were all burned up or gotten rid of.


Work your mind around that one. Rockefeller didn't change his mind, but he did. But he didn't. But he was deceived. But it didn't matter. But... But....

That's more flip-flops than you'd see on a summer day at any San Diego beach.

But it gets better. Snow quotes again from the same Rockefeller speech.


But this isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before... He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.


Well, at least that much is true, isn't it? Nope, Rockefeller continues the backpedaling.


Snow: And that, indeed, is what David Kay reported to Congress last week, is it not?

Rockefeller: No. It is not. David Kay did not report that degree of possibility at all to the Congress. And he actually was very clear in his public statements, forget his intelligence committee statements, he was very clear about that. He was not certain about it. He said we had a lot more work to do. It's going another six to nine months to find out if he had these weapons of mass destruction or not.


But as Andrew Sullivan pointed out after Kay made his first report to Congress and the public, it is 100 percent true.

From Sullivan's blog:


* A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.

* A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.

* Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.

* New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.

* Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).

* A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.

* Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.

* Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.

* Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.


Snow is much too nice. Rockefeller is either a liar or an idiot. I'd bet on liar. Seriously, what else can be said about this man's statements?

There are issues here that can be debated, and then there are simple truths.

The simple truth is that Iraq's WMD capabilities were there and were hidden -- and that David Kay reported just that.

The simple truth is that Iraq was working on UAVs and missiles that could threaten his neighbors and U.S. forces in the region -- and David Kay reported just that.

To deny these facts and to attack the president based on that willful deceit is outrageous. Sen. Rockefeller is placing partisan politics above the security of the United States and the troops on the ground in Iraq.

*UPDATE* Fox News' official transcript can be found here.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: foxnews; imminentthreat; jayrockefeller; sotu; tonysnow; trueevidence
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-129 next last
To: Cacophonous
So why didn't the President say it was an imminent threat?

maybe because it wasn't? Remember our goal was to stop saddam before he could nuke our troops or Israel, or pass along chem/boi weapons to his terrorist supporters.

61 posted on 10/13/2003 7:13:18 PM PDT by Sci Fi Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
F'in A.

Had Bush said an attack was imminent, I would have demanded a nuke be dropped in Baghdad and Mecca and Tehran and beautuful downtown Saudi Arabia,... and mebbe one thrown in for good measure at North Korea.

Any more would be over-reacting!

62 posted on 10/13/2003 7:15:12 PM PDT by lawdude (Liberalism: A failure every time it is tried!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
Thanks to Tony Snow and Andrew Sullivan.

Sullivan previously applauded [click here and scroll to Oct. 11, 2003] an alert person (I'm guessing it was a FReeper) who nailed the producer of the PBS Frontline hitpiece about Iraq.

The producer was at the Washington Post website chat, scoll to comments from Boston, Mass. The Frontline lie was the same as Rockefeller was making: the false claim that Bush asserted an imminent threat.

63 posted on 10/13/2003 7:16:37 PM PDT by BillF (Support Our Troops http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/997137/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Xthe17th
Your Senator is a liar, but you knew that.
64 posted on 10/13/2003 7:19:44 PM PDT by BillF (Support Our Troops http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/997137/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BillF
I saw that and posted it here (Frontline concedes).

Andrew Sullivan is great. Best blog on the web.

65 posted on 10/13/2003 7:21:25 PM PDT by Roscoe Karns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
This morning on Fox News, Wendell Goller (sp) showed a clip of Rockefeller from yesterday's interview with Tony. Just Rockefeller spewing his lies. Nothing of Tony calling him on his lies. I was livid. Wendell just threw one of Rockefeller's statements lies in the report like it was gospel. Methinks Wendell's Harley leans to the left.
66 posted on 10/13/2003 7:25:27 PM PDT by auboy (Liberals believe in free speech… theirs not yours.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
It's just occurred to me that when David Kay finishes his report in nine or so months, the government should radidly release a novel-length and reader-friendly but well annotated synopsis, much like The Starr Report and The Starr Evidence, both best-selling books at the time they were released. The mere act of publishing such a report should signal to those in the middle of the political spectrum, where the swing votes in the 2004 election will be, that there's something here of sufficient importance that the mainstream media cannot be trusted to pre-digest it for them.
67 posted on 10/13/2003 7:31:39 PM PDT by lambo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
Right you are. That's where I first read it, on FR. Thanks for posting it.

It just is outrageous how the Dems and much of the media keep repeating "no imminent threat" and "Bush said that there was an immiment threat."

Snow, Sullivan, and Brit Hume are some of the few who keep reminding people of the truth.
68 posted on 10/13/2003 7:33:44 PM PDT by BillF (Support Our Troops http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/997137/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMan55
"I love Tony Snow! Three Cheers!"

Has anyone noticed that FNS has gotten more aggressive in attacking the liar dems where they sit? Tony did it y'day and Brit took on some dem liars this afternoon. He quoted their lies and then... CALLED THEM LIES.

Well, not in so few wrods but he has to TRY to get along in the beltway.

And Cavuto, that roly-poly little trouble maker, did a very good job on some Dem hack this afternoon and called her on her sh!t comments about Rush. He as much as said she was covering truth because she didn't like Rush. He had her backpeddling. Funny



69 posted on 10/13/2003 7:35:48 PM PDT by lawdude (Liberalism: A failure every time it is tried!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
This is exactly why I watch "Fox news" Snow is amoung the best.
70 posted on 10/13/2003 7:38:02 PM PDT by JamesA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns
... based upon the revelations that there don't appear, at least to this point, to be any weapons of mass destruction. I've heard David Kay a number of times now. He has not indicated that. He's talking about perhaps they were all burned up or gotten rid of.

...It's going another six to nine months to find out if he had these weapons of mass destruction or not.

Hmmmm...he sounds a little conflicted. I bet the dems won't let him out to play again anytime soon.

71 posted on 10/13/2003 7:38:12 PM PDT by sandlady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MEG33
I am proud to say the following; "Rush is right!" The left has no new tactics. They simply continue in their old tried and true Communist play book.
Make up an outrageous lie, distort and impune, don't back away, no matter how damaging the evidence against their assertions, and before too long, the public will start to believe it.

These poor wretches just can't accept the fact that their old tricks are not working anymore, ( ie. Califonia Recall)and the ones who do, have nothing new to offer.

Eventhough I enjoy it when a "real" reporter like Snow, catches them in their own muck, and then exposes them for what they are, my joy is but short lived. Because, before the week is over, there is another leftist(with precieved authority) who is gaining media attention with a "New and improved distortion", as they attempt to again destroy someone or something, that is true, good, or correct.
That is why I refer to them as the party of PERVERTS!

What is the difference between a Democrat and a Communist?
The Communist know what they are doing!
I some times wonder if there is a difference?
72 posted on 10/13/2003 7:39:12 PM PDT by Hillarys nightmare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
BTTT!

I'm so sick of this "imminent threat" business. W never said it and he made it pretty darn clear, even to an "average American" the likes of which Sen. Rockfeller apparently has absolutely no respect for. Piss off Rockfeller. I heard the speech and I understood it and I didn't even need some arrogant Senator to tell me what he met. The dems are so pathetic.

73 posted on 10/13/2003 7:42:30 PM PDT by Wphile (Keep the UN out of Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Wphile
The thing is, I thought WE settled this MONTHS ago, simply by looking at the actual speech; back in the days of "yellow cake."

Are they that far behind the news, or are that far ahead?
74 posted on 10/13/2003 7:44:14 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys nightmare
During the Rosenberg anniversary threads,McCarthy discussions,Coulter's book discussions I learned more about the tactic of the communists and radicals.The Soviets loved their useful idiots.Castro has many.The CPUSA had MoveOn linked on their site.
75 posted on 10/13/2003 7:46:24 PM PDT by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Freee-dame
"Finally, a leftie gets challenged. Thank you, Tony!"

Yes, Tony, thank you. But I hope this is just the beginning!!! You will have a much better show if you challenge every twisted lie. Lies that have been out there since May/June. Be firm! be loud! be strong!

76 posted on 10/13/2003 7:46:32 PM PDT by malia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
I guess the dems just think we are stupid. Thank God for FNC. At least they uncover the old quotes and the actual speeches. The rest of the press corps too damn busy fawning over the dems all the time they never bother to check the record.

I think I'll write a letter to the editor tomorrow.

77 posted on 10/13/2003 7:49:45 PM PDT by Wphile (Keep the UN out of Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Cacophonous
So why didn't the President say it was an imminent threat?

My inexpert guess is because Dubya was playing it safe.
He's watched enough Republicans get slit due to a a paper trail.

Besides, Dubya may have decided that Saddam's threat was only about as "imminent" as
maybe the couple of hours (to maybe a week) it would take for some chem/bio WMD to be
synthesized and deployed, as per the scenario Kenneth Pollack made before
Operation Iraqi Freedom was launched. And this would also fit with
what inspector David Kay has found so far.
78 posted on 10/13/2003 7:59:00 PM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Wphile; Miss Marple; Howlin; ohioWfan
See post 56 and ask those questions often when a liberal starts spewing the leftist nonsense that we had no post war plan.

My older brother started to prepare to go to Iraq in June of 2002 and he had nothing to do with any War Plans. The plan was well in the planning and he was preparing for the possibility of post war reconstruction and stability for Iraq, the problem was that the War planners thought Bagdad would not fall for 6 to 8 weeks, not THREE WEEKS

This notion that there was no Post War Plan is HOGWASH, and my brother is proof

79 posted on 10/13/2003 8:01:21 PM PDT by MJY1288 (This is your tagline "Bush/Cheney04", this is your tagline on drugs "AnyOtherChoice/04")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe Karns; madfly; txflake; mhking; 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub; JohnHuang2; Mudboy Slim; ...
Ping
80 posted on 10/13/2003 8:03:51 PM PDT by ATOMIC_PUNK (The difference between Los Angeles and yogurt is that yogurt comes with less fruit. -Rush Limbaugh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-129 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson