Bush's "Imminent Threat" Lie!

Self | 2-6-04 | Always Right

[Always Right]

Bush’s ‘Imminent Threat’ Lie!

In making the case for war to the American people, President Bush clearly stated the primary reason for war was that Iraq’s WMD posed an imminent threat to the US. Ted Kennedy, Dennis Kucinich, Helen Thomas, Howard Dean, AP, UPI, New York Times, LA Times, network news, and many more have all told us this fact. Many go on and tell us how Bush mischaracterized or even lied about the threat. The problem with this story is, it is not Bush who is lying. Bush never said imminent threat or anything remotely close when he made the case for war.

On October 7, 2002, Bush addressed the nation on prime time television and laid out the case for war to the American people. Bush started out the speech by characterizing Iraq as a ‘grave threat to peace’ and mentioned Iraq’s ‘drive toward an arsenal of terror’. Bush statements here are not about an imminent threat to the US, but a future threat to peace.

Bush talked about Iraq’s failure to meet its obligations it agreed to as conditions to ending the Persian Gulf War and Saddam’s ‘eleven-year history of defiance’. This defiance by many is considered the primary justification of war. However, Bush’s critics conveniently don’t mention this.

Bush went on to describe Iraq’s chemical weapons programs and Saddam’s willingness to use them. Bush then asked, ‘does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?’ Bush is clear, Iraq might be dangerous now, but the real threat is in the future.

Bush next discussed Iraq’s ties to terrorists, most notably ‘Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people’. Bush also noted a relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq, but Bush stayed clear of suggesting that Saddam had any role in 9/11. Bush’s critics pretend that Iraq had no involvement with terrorists, and tell us that the real enemy is al Qaeda. But without places like Iraq that financially support, train, and harbor terrorists, groups like al Qaeda and their likes could not easily exist. Besides, we are in a war against all terrorists who threaten us, not just al Qaeda.

The later part of Bush’s speech emphasized the human right abuses and the need for freedom in Iraq. “The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family. On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.” Normally those critical of Bush are very sympathetic towards human rights issue, but here that argument doesn’t seem to rate.

President Bush laid out a strong case for war to the America people and formed a multi-national coalition of support. The case for war included defiance of peace agreements, future threats from WMD, Iraqi support for terrorists groups, and massive human right violations. ‘Imminent threat’ was not only not the primary justification of war, but was not even used at all. War critics will point to a couple of statements by Bush aids long after the fact and when the words were put in their mouths by reporters, but not by Bush and not when the case for war was being made. The reporting of this lie is reckless, and the rhetoric in repeating this lie is reaching all time lows. The real liars must be called out.

[Always Right]

God Bless Ronnie on his birthday.

[ovrtaxt]

Ronaldus Magnus is 93, right? May he dwell in peace.

[FairOpinion]

In one of his speeches, Bush specifically said that we don't want to wait until the threat is imminent, because by that time it's too late, or something to that effect.

The point was to deal with the threat BEFORE it becomes imminent.

[Always Right]

In one of his speeches, Bush specifically said that we don't want to wait until the threat is imminent, because by that time it's too late, or something to that effect.

It is amazing how much lying is done to try to convince the American public Bush is lying. I didn't really go into the lying about Bush acting unilaterally with Britain and 30 some other countries...

[FairOpinion]

The Dems understand the "BIG LIE" theory.

You repeat a lie often enough, and people will think it's the truth.

I wish the Bush administration, Republicans and conservatives would take a more active role in refuting the Dems lies, every time they utter them -- which of course would keep us busy, but otherwise those lies seep into the public consciousness and can't be eradicated.

The "Saddam had no WMD" is another big lie. There is a tremendous amount of evidence that he had them before the war. The question about "what happened to them" is legitimate, but just because we can't find them now doesn't mean he never had them. Yet, the Dems have been successful in presenting it that way, because nobody is contesting their assertions.

[Boot Hill]

"...we are in a war against all terrorists who threaten us, not just al Qaeda."

Damn good post, AR.

--Boot Hill

[swilhelm73]

The amusing thing is - some of the Democrats now claiming Bush called Iraq an imminent threat, used that very term themselves, even though he did not.

But hey, why are we surprised? Democrats often use Goebbels' tactic of the big lie.

Whether it is anything from the great Willie Horton ad to Reagan/Bush 41's cold war victory when faced with facts they can't deal with the Left just lies about them...and continues to do so in the hope that if they repeat such shamelessly enough they can convince those who pay only passing attention to politics.

[Carry_Okie]

While I think Saddam was an eventual threat to America, I have questioned the timing of this war from the beginning. The military was already overextended had not yet recovered from eight years of neglect (or worse). I also think we have more serious eventual threats to this country operating in our own hemisphere. Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, and, frankly, Mexico come to mind.

Why the hell are we still in Bosnia and Kosovo? Give that problem to the Urpeons and let them fix it, seeing as they think we should let them take the lead.

[Boot Hill]

Ping.

[Texasforever]

I also think we have more serious eventual threats to this country operating in our own hemisphere. Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, and, frankly, Mexico come to mind.

Oh for pete's sake.

[Always Right]

The "Saddam had no WMD" is another big lie. There is a tremendous amount of evidence that he had them before the war. The question about "what happened to them" is legitimate

That is a good way to put it. Say matter of factly 'Saddam had em, the question is what happened to them'.

[FairOpinion]

Another excellent point from Bush's speech:

"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril."

[Always Right]

thanks for the comment.

[FairOpinion]

Here is an excellent editorial, which lays out the reasons, that the Iraq war is more than justified.

Michael Costello: The (Iraq) war was Saddam's fault
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1072391/posts

[FairOpinion]

I second it -- excellent post, good job. It's good you took the time to lay it all out, and I agree that the liars need to be called out and their lies exposed.

[Carry_Okie]

Oh for pete's sake.

Cuba has been developing biowarfare capability since the days of the Soviet Union. Fidel has been noted cooperating with Mr. Chavez. There are credible reports of Cuban portable bio-warfare labs already in Venezuela. Mr. Chavez has also had cooperative dealings with FARC, which has what any rational person would call a significant "white powder delivery" capability.

Mr. Lula is on record intending to seek the capability to produce nuclear weapons.

[FairOpinion]

Castro also had connection to Iraq. Maybe that's one of the places Iraq's WMD went.

[Broadside Joe]

This is what the President said in the State of the union address 2003.

"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."

[Mo1]

Ted Kennedy, Dennis Kucinich, Helen Thomas, Howard Dean, AP, UPI, New York Times, LA Times, network news, and many more have all told us this fact

These clowns are the American version of the BBC

[FairOpinion]

Thanks for that quote.

I was looking for that -- I remembered he said something like that, but didn't know when and exactly what he said.