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

To: liberallarry
This is what Bush actually said. What are we to make of it? Does he believe the threat is days away, weeks away, months away, years away? Common sense tells us that he believes it is close - weeks or months, rather than years - and that's in line with what Clinton said in 1998.

That Bush did not, under any circumstances, say the threat was imminet. And your assertion that he or the Adnimistration did, is a lie.

46 posted on 08/09/2003 9:08:25 AM PDT by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]


To: TomB
Here's the SOTU

Transcript of President Bush's second State of the Union address, delivered to Congress Tuesday night.

Bush identifies the threat

Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation.

And offers a policy for dealing with it

Different threats require different strategies

He singles out Saddam because he is

A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States

and justifies exteme (military) action because

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving.

and

And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

But then he goes on to say that, while the threat is not imminent we must act anyway. To allow it to fully emerge is to court disaster. What he means is that we have no evidence of specific plans to attack us, but Saddam has a history of wishing to do so, is already armed is trying to increase his armament, and is actively allied with those who've already showed a capability for delivering devasting blows.

If you want to say that my earlier characterization of the threat as "immediate" is a lie - feel free.

50 posted on 08/09/2003 9:50:28 AM PDT by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

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