"IMMINENT" --- here are the exact words used by President Bush

whitehouse.gov | Jan 28, 2003 | Bush and speechwriters

[doug from upland]

At at time where the survival of our nation is dependent upon stopping the Islamist threat to our way of life, I am sicked at the spectacle that is the DemocRATic Party. Ted "Lifeguard" Kennedy said on the Sean Hannity Show that "we were told we would find nuclear weapons." That is bunk. The president never said that.

Other RATS have claimed that President Bush said the threat of attack with WMDs was imminent. No, he didn't say that either.

It is sometimes helpful to use a person's exact words. We have those words. Remember these words. Send them to you local newspaper and get them on talk radio.

"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."

[Cacophonous]

Wrong again. I don't belong to a party, but it's true I tend to vote Republican.

[FormerlyAnotherLurker]

It's early and it's a weekend.
I always catch my mistakes just about 0.73 seconds after I hit 'post'.
Been changed, thanks.

[Camel Joe]

Remember that for them the end justifies the means, they are not really democrats, they are disciples of Marx. Little by little they have stolen our freedoms, made each of us a criminal against the State as they pass laws that are vauge and purposely so. Each layer of law is a trap so that when necessary they can whisk us away into the night. The socialists are stealing our country while we chase after a phantom enemy known to us as a Liberal. There are no Liberals, only socialists who would make us all slaves to the state. While the elite class would serve as rulers and masters.

[Normal4me]

I see it this way. Was the idea that Iraqi forces would somehow invade our country to attack us an "imminent" threat? No. Was the idea of Saddam giving or selling WMD's to terrorist groups covertly an "Imminent" threat? Possibly.

Some people forget all the history behind us going back into Iraq. Remember us going back to the UN and getting another resoulution? All 15 security member nations agreed 15-0 that Iraq was a threat. Remember the UN sending back in their team of inspectors to fumble around sites that Saddam would allow them to visit? Remember when the inspectors left and the Dems cried out to allow the inspections to work for another six months or however long they figured it would take (20 years??)Remember the volumes of data and cd's that he submitted that were outdated and incomplete? I could go on and on....

Saddam was warned repeatedly to cooperate. He was offered the chance for exile and to give up power. He refused all his options and the rest is history.

[mylife]

I can not believe how Bush has handled his Presidency! He has never once stooped to the media or swung at any pitches in the dirt. He tells the truth and lets the chips fall where they may.

Yup! They can say what they will about GW, but you just have to admire the steadfastness of his character.

[Cacophonous]

Oh I understand the logic, and see your point. I just think it's a lousy way for the President to resond to his critics. I would venture that al qaida was not considered an "imminent" threat on September 10, 2003, either.

[hflynn]

Wrong again. I don't belong to a party, but it's true I tend to vote Republican.

Well this appears to be a case of two wrongs make you alright.

[cardinal4]

Doug, I understand your frustration, but the Dem treachery is becoming known. Just because CNN isnt blaring it, the people are starting to pick up on what the Dems game plan is. I think the memo and the filibuster will gain us at least 3 seats in the Senate. Yetserday, one of the lefties at work told me, "Patrick, we dont agree on most, but you were right about the Dem party, what they are doing is wrong." Now coming from this person, these words signal a shift...at least to me. Six months ago this person would have never admitted her party was to blame..

[BraveMan]

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998



"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998



"Iraq is a long way from here, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998



"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb 18, 1998



"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl
Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998



"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998



"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999



"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President
Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001



"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002



"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002



"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002



"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002



"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002



"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-if necessary-to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002



"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockeffer (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002



"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This
he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002



"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002



"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002



Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[Cacophonous]

Why would not belonging to a party be a wrong? I don't feel compelled to blindly support the candidates of one party or t'other. If he's a good man, he's a good man; if he's a lout, he's a lout.

I have voted for dems before, and would again if they ever again produce the most conservative candidate. I don't believe I've ever voted libertarian, but I don't totally disagree with them, either, in fact they say some quality things (though not always). I have voted for independents.

[Cacophonous]

Seems to me the Dems made a better case for invasion (i.e., Saddam and Iraq posed imminent threats) then the republicans.

[Normal4me]

Good point. I would like to see him do another 1 hour Q&A session and really tell us some juicy terrorist facts liek how many have been killed or captured and what intelligence has been gathered.

[BraveMan]

There is a bevy of quotes for you to use. See my previous post . . .

[doug from upland]

Good news. Keep spreading the word. I love how much the RATS hate talk radio.

[not-an-ostrich]

During the Clinton administration the word was "spin", now Democrats have moved on--to "lies".

[Matchett-PI]

"The RATS are really in a trap. .." and RE: #30 "CIA Bombshell: Saddam Financed Lead 9/11 Hijacker" ~ doug from upland

Here's a copy of the letter I sent to some of those RATS back in September of this year:

letters@washpost.com - CC: whitehouse@washpost.com, ombudsman@washpost.com

Subject: Dana Milbank's misleading article
Date: 9-19-03

Greetings,

This is in regards to the misleading article written by Dana Milbank on 18 September 2003 entitled: "Bush Disavows Hussein-Sept. 11 Link"

The White House has never made a specific connection because there is no apparent, definitive, conclusive evidence tying Iraq to 9-11 -- YET, but the White House does suggest that there IS evidence linking Iraq to the 1993 WRC bombing.

A critical thinker, using logic and legitimate powers of deduction (called, "connecting the dots"), would reasonably conclude that if Iraq tried it once they might just try it again --- like on 9-11. Duh!!!

President Bush said these things in his State of the Union speech in January 2002: "... I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer."

"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?"

And he said this aboard The USS Abraham Lincoln:

"Our war against terror is proceeding according to principles that I have made clear to all:

Any person involved in committing or planning terrorist attacks against the American people becomes an enemy of this country, and a target of American justice.

Any person, organization, or government that supports, protects, or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent, and equally guilty of terrorist crimes.

Any outlaw regime that has ties to terrorist groups and seeks or possesses weapons of mass destruction is a grave danger to the civilized world -- and will be confronted." [end excerpts]

This is from The Iraq News Letter on Sun, 14 Sep 2003, published by Laurie Mylroie:

Cheney: Iraqi Link to 1993 Trade Center Bombing

The White House, for the first time, has publicly suggested Iraq might be linked to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

In fact, at the time, New York FBI believed that Iraq was involved, while the US Attorney's office there (focused on securing the convictions of those charged and arrested)
was quite open to the possibility.

Meet the Press
September 14, 2003
Host: Tim Russert
Guest: Vice President Dick Cheney
(Excerpt)

MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it's not surprising that people make that connection.

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don't know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack.

At the time I said no, we didn't have any evidence of that.

Subsequent to that, we've learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved.

The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.

We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in '93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of '93.

And we've learned subsequent to that, since we went into
Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.

[Ed: This is Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was indicted in August 1993, and is the sole remaining fugitive from that attack]

Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in '93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact.

With respect to 9/11, of course, we've had the story that's been public out there.

The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we've never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don't know. [end excerpts]

If, like the NY Times, you ever hope to rebuild your credibility, you will need to correct false impressions like the one that was floated by another one of the well-known, well documented Bush haters on your staff, Dana Milbank.

Thank you.

Warm regards,
[Name and Town]

[doug from upland]

Very well done.

[Cacophonous]

It's a fine letter, and I hope you can handle a critique intended to be constructive: I would do away with the snide remarks and tone. The reason is NOT because the RATs are worthy of respect (or that anything will ever change their minds), but because there are many folks with good instincts that are uninformed, confused, puzzled, etc. It is THESE folks that we need to convince, and a snide tone does not help in that regard.

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP - DRUNKEN SLOB ALERT!