Posted on 09/07/2002 11:43:18 PM PDT by ivegotabrain
Sept. 7 — Seeking to build a case Saturday that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction, President Bush cited a satellite photograph and a report by the U.N. atomic energy agency as evidence of Iraq’s impending rearmament. But in response to a report by NBC News, a senior administration official acknowledged Saturday night that the U.N. report drew no such conclusion, and a spokesman for the U.N. agency said the photograph had been misinterpreted.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.com ...
Remember 911. You seem to have forgotten it. That was the start of the war NOT what we may or may not do with Iraq.
One country at a time!!!
Contrary to Bush’s claim, however, the 1998 IAEA report did not say that Iraq was six months away from developing nuclear capability, NBC News’ Robert Windrem reported Saturday.
To: ivegotabrain
Wow, that is a huge "mistake". He is never going to make a case against Iraq by "misstating" the facts.
# 7 by niki
It wasn't a mistake.
Liberals learned a lot during the Clinton administration about manipulating the facts in the media.
Bush said this morning, "Hussein is building a nuclear bomb!!" All day long in the Sunday news shows, Rice, Powell and others trumpeted the proven fact that Hussein was too dangerous to remain in power. Everyone in the nation listened in fear, wondering when terrorists were going to start smuggling Iraqi nuclear bombs into America.
Tonight, Bush said quietly, "Sorry, I misstated, there's no nuclear bomb." It was a liberal strategic lie, carried out by liberal Republicans.
That's the reason we need to vote third party. A vote for a third party conservative will send the message that we won't put up with lying liberals.
Yes, we were told that "he hasn't even been in office a year", so many times when someone would fuss about what he did or said. I was told "he holds his hand close to his chest" and to just wait. He has a plan.
I waited. He kept doing what Al Gore wouldn't have dared to do. I was told he had a plan.
Now, if I fuss about what Bush says or is doing, I am told we are at war.
Now I am wondering what, does that have to do with what he was doing and did before?
Oh yeah, I remember he hadn't even been in office a year.
How can buildings violate the "no fly zone"?
Well, it doesn't look like we will let him blink.
Yes, but it is OK for an old woman to think fuzzy, I expect more from President Bush.
To: Texasforever
I'm not against invading and overthrowing Hussein, if he is responsible for the WTC attacks. If he is not, then we should be invading Saudi Arabia. To do otherwise is to give an already metastasized executive branch leeway to go to war on its own, Constitution be damned, from here on out. Get some evidence before attacking Iraq.
# 19 by gcruse
President Bush has already violated the Constituition with his personally declared war.
Bush has also violated the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
You appear to have forgotten. I don't need proof to know that we are at war with the Middle East. Iraq is just the next battle and it could actually be the last battle if the rest of these POS regimes finally get the message. It is up to them. We didn't start this damn thing but we will end it in spite of those like you. You may as well get used to it.
"But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."
The US has no desire to do harm to the innocent, nor does it target the innocent. But the government, unlike the common citizen, does have the authority to act as an avenger, while the citizen has only the authority to act in immediate self defense. The government's authority includes addressing not only crimes, but also in waging war against other nations.
And in the law of nations, which is part of our system as well, a nation's people are considered responsible for what their nation does. Which only makes sense; no government can stand if its people see it is evil and are willing to unite against it. And if they do not unite to oppose it then they give their tacit approval for what it does. The people are responsible for what their government does.
"We sin by what we have done and by what we leave undone."
Saddam Hussein is in power because his people are afraid or unwilling to topple him. That is not our responsibility, it is their responsibility. They are welcome to take matters into their own hands at any time and then we will gladly desist.
Thank you, I will be watching and listening, and taping as I always do. I always learn stuff by listening and watching.
Good night.
Get some evidence before attacking Iraq.
To: gcruse
How about being in constant violation of the cease-fire terms at the pause of the Gulf War?
# 21 by Texasforever
President Bush has been in constant violation of the War Powers Resolution from the day he took office, just as Clinton was before him.
I will never forget. But it has only been since we quit bombing Afghanistan that we were told about Iraq.
I am all for taking out whoever attacked us. We were told it was Afghanistan, now we are told it is Iraq.
I don't know what you mean by that, and I am sorry you wasted your time on me. I am not smart enough to debate you.
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.