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

Skip to comments.

ATTN lying Democrats and the clueless - here's what the President said about "imminent threat"
Whitehouse.gov ^ | 2003 | Bush speechwriter

Posted on 09/04/2006 6:54:49 PM PDT by doug from upland

2003 STATE OF THE UNION

For three years, we have heard lies from the Democrats and from their willing accomplices in the MSM. It has been a non-stop assault. They have been emboldening our enemies because all they care about is their own power.

On Sean Hannity radio, the bloated drunken lifeguard Senator from Massachusetts actually said - "We were told we would find nuclear weapons."

Here is an excerpt of what was really said. Read the entire speech again, and you will see why the President had no choice after the attack on 9-11. The Dems had a choice. They chose to carry on a campaign bordering on treason rather than support the commander in chief while we are at war.

"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."


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: democrats; imminentthreat; islamofascists; liars; thread; waronterror
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-39 next last

1 posted on 09/04/2006 6:54:53 PM PDT by doug from upland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

Great post.

I wish more emphasis was made of what President Bush has consistently said.

I am also offended at how little is said of the human rights justifications which were substantial in the President's justiification. The Media and the dems have erased this from the public memory. I think that speaks volumes of their character. The barbaric nature of the regime has no impact on media contempt for our war in Iraq.

Anti warriors are pro genocide. I will never stop saying this.


2 posted on 09/04/2006 6:58:42 PM PDT by lonestar67
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lonestar67

"The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it."


3 posted on 09/04/2006 7:01:22 PM PDT by doug from upland (Stopping Hillary should be a FreeRepublic Manhattan Project)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
Valid point. There was a tactical political mistake in pulling out the weapons inspectors and claiming they were prevented from entering in the first place. That, and other confusing statements generated a lot of distracting flak, and was probably what irritated chief weapons inspector David Kay into criticizing the admin. even tho he actually supported the war.

In a hyperventilating political atmosphere you got to watch your back at every step.

4 posted on 09/04/2006 7:02:41 PM PDT by detroitdarien
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

"Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened."


5 posted on 09/04/2006 7:02:42 PM PDT by doug from upland (Stopping Hillary should be a FreeRepublic Manhattan Project)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: detroitdarien

Weapons inspectors were not allowed under the palaces.


6 posted on 09/04/2006 7:03:38 PM PDT by doug from upland (Stopping Hillary should be a FreeRepublic Manhattan Project)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

"Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities."


7 posted on 09/04/2006 7:04:26 PM PDT by doug from upland (Stopping Hillary should be a FreeRepublic Manhattan Project)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland


"The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it."


8 posted on 09/04/2006 7:06:01 PM PDT by doug from upland (Stopping Hillary should be a FreeRepublic Manhattan Project)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them."


9 posted on 09/04/2006 7:06:38 PM PDT by doug from upland (Stopping Hillary should be a FreeRepublic Manhattan Project)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
Doug, the public record on this is as clear cut as you demonstrate. ANY journalist with an ounce of gumption could slice and dice these lying democRATs without raising a sweat. Russert could do it, Chrissie Matthews could do it ... any of them. But they don't. They abandon their responsibilities and become complicit in the process. It is disgusting.
10 posted on 09/04/2006 7:06:39 PM PDT by NonValueAdded (Tom Gallagher - the anti-Crist [FL Governor, 2006 primary])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

"U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them."


11 posted on 09/04/2006 7:06:53 PM PDT by doug from upland (Stopping Hillary should be a FreeRepublic Manhattan Project)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

It's good to remind those who have twisted the Presidents words of what he really said.
You have had some very god posts today Doug, interesting reading and viewing.


12 posted on 09/04/2006 7:07:44 PM PDT by JerseyDvl ("If you attack Americans, we'll defend your right to do it."- The Democrat Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

Unfortunately, the President did not answer their lies until recently.


13 posted on 09/04/2006 7:07:56 PM PDT by doug from upland (Stopping Hillary should be a FreeRepublic Manhattan Project)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
"The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax..

Something else to understand about this - it doesn't take a lot of room to store 25,000 liters. My backyard swimming pool is an oval, 15' wide X 30' long X 4' high. That amounts to roughly 13,000 gallons or over 50,000 liters. It would be incredibly easy to hide or dispose of so little liquid.

14 posted on 09/04/2006 7:08:49 PM PDT by Dilbert56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

if Iraq had been run by David Koresh, the Left would have no problem with the invasion. At least, that's what I have to conclude.


15 posted on 09/04/2006 7:09:54 PM PDT by Tall_Texan (I wish a political party would come along that thinks like I do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) was a law passed by the United States Congress authorizing what was soon to become the Iraq War. The authorization was sought by President George W. Bush. Introduced as H.J.Res. 114, it passed the House on October 10 by a vote of 296-133, and by the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.


16 posted on 09/04/2006 7:10:35 PM PDT by doug from upland (Stopping Hillary should be a FreeRepublic Manhattan Project)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

Actually, they have announced their intention to attack. That is what is behind the call from Osama for the US to convert to Islam. He's required to give an opportunity for us to convert before he attacks...he's done so at least 3 times now.

According to Ammanpour on CNN, Al Qaeda already has a fatwa issued that allows them to take up to 10 million lives in the US.

The problem is, liberals are too stupid to understand that they've been warned.

17 posted on 09/04/2006 7:11:51 PM PDT by highlander_UW (I don't know what my future holds, but I know Who holds my future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

Even in W's 2002 SOTU speech, he described Iraq as a " grave and gathering danger ". Bush was extremely careful not to overplay the threat which makes it all the more galling that Democrats have openly lied about it for political gain.


18 posted on 09/04/2006 7:12:51 PM PDT by kylaka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: highlander_UW
liberals are too stupid to understand that they've been warned

Actually, they would respond that Bush was warned. They would contend that they couldn't have done anything about it, even if they'd wanted to. Practiced at having your cake and eating it too, makes them especially dangerous.

19 posted on 09/04/2006 7:17:28 PM PDT by kylaka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

Likewise, the Dems speak as though Iraq was ONLY about WMD's. Bush further elaborated in Feb. the reasons for invading Iraq in an speech to the Amer. Enterprise Inst.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030226-11.html

10, 15 reasons?


20 posted on 09/04/2006 7:25:35 PM PDT by Smartaleck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-39 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