's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

The Bush continues the slight of hand...(49 posts)

The Bush continues the slight of hand...Dwayne Barry
Jan 27, 2004 3:35 PM
So CNN just showed Bush's response to reporters questions today concerning Kay's comments that WMD wouldn't be found in Iraq.

First, he wanted to point out that he said leading up to the war that Saddam was a "growing" threat. Funny, I thought he was an imminent threat and I don't see how if he didn't have WMD and wasn't developing them that the threat was "growing".

Second, and I quote (more or less), "Given what happened on 9/11, we couldn't afford to rely on the good intentions of Saddam Hussein." Once again linking the two events, but not really! I don't know why the majority of Americans think Saddam was directly involved in 9/11?
Jan 27, 2004 4:13 PM
With his credibility and judgement in ruins, "good intentions" are the the straw that Bush is dangling from.

Its not his fault that the absense of significant weapons programs in Iraq turned out to be one of those "unknown unknowns".
Ironic.Jon Billheimer
Jan 27, 2004 4:38 PM
How long are the American people going to keep buying endless deceptions? Does the public actually want to be misled? Is this a case of the people getting the government that they deserve? I'd really like to know. I guess I'm in a particularly despairing mood today!
I'm thinking "yes", . . .czardonic
Jan 27, 2004 4:50 PM
. . .the people want to be misled.

What is in it for them to come to terms with the truth? The knowledge that they were duped and manipulated. The knowledge that their sacrifice in lives and treasure was for naught (or not much). The knowledge that this war was not a function of hard-nosed realpolitik, but irrational lashing-out. The knowledge that the if they are fighting a war on terror, they are the terrified.

You know what they say about ignorance. . .
Jan 27, 2004 5:38 PM
Maybe the public has too much of an ego to admit they got fooled. If they go ahead and actually vote for Bush again, they definitely deserve what they get. Unfortunately America is a team sport, so we all have to go down with the ship.
We're left with evidence of "WMD program activities"...PdxMark
Jan 27, 2004 5:37 PM
Not actual WMD programs, mind you, WMD program ACTIVITIES. Saddam WANTED WMDs, therefore he was a threat.

But, the good Bushie lapdogs here will wag their tails and woof that we fought Saddam for the Iraqi people. No other oppressed peoples warrant such American magnanimity, of course because... and then we hear once again about the threat posed by Saddam's WMDs.

But Human Rights Watch explained in detail this week how the Iraq war failed to pass muster on humanitarian grounds.

including facts such as the absence of imminent threats to large numbers of people, that most atrocities were years or decades old, etc. Our bleeding heart Conservatives will, no doubt, eagerly defend the necessity of freeing the Iraqi people without delay in view of the threat posed by Saddam's WMDs.

You might have missed the reports on the Human Rights Watch report. It was covered in the International Herald Tribune, Japan Today, Financial Times (a yellow sheet Communist rag), oh and the Washington Times. Most all of the US press missed it.

Damn liberal bias in media.
Hang on there, Mr. Glass Half Empty.czardonic
Jan 27, 2004 5:49 PM
What about sticking it to the damn liberal Dumocrats and keeping the GOP in power?

That's gotta be worth a "known unknown" number of Iraqis delivered to the Ultimate Liberty.
Stay the course.PdxMark
Jan 27, 2004 6:33 PM
That's right. Just gotta stick to the National Defense message.

IRAQI WMDS ... (never existed). IRAQ AND AL QAEDA... (were never connected). IRAQ AND 9/11.... (were never connected). IRAQI DEMOCRACY .... (does nothing about Israel/Palestinian problem at the root of Middle Eastern militancy). WON THE AFGHAN WAR.... (but are losing the Afghan peace to druglords & warlords).

And if you slip off of the National Defense message:

UN SUCKS..... (but we need it to establish government in Iraq). ALLIES SUCK.... (until we realize that we can't rotate through 1/2 our combat forces at a time).... DEMOCRATS CREATE FISCAL MESSES..... (except that in the past 30 years Repubs have had larger deficits the Dems).

Four more years.
In a way, george made his words ring true.MR_GRUMPY
Jan 28, 2004 5:27 AM
Iraq is now full of Al Qaeda.
I think that is another misperception...Dwayne Barry
Jan 28, 2004 5:43 AM
from what I've heard the experts say the vast majority of the attacks are from Sunnis, the traditional supporters of Saddam and the group that stands to lose the most in the new Iraq. So far Al Qaeda is a small player, and the Kurds and Shiites (which represent the more fundamentalist Islamic groups in the country) are largely behaving.
What ifContinental
Jan 28, 2004 9:19 AM
What if prior to invading Iraq Bush had told the public that he didn't know if Iraq had WMD or not and he didn't no if there were Al Qaeda links, and there was no way to find out because the UN inspections were ineffective and Saddam was a master of deceit. Even a low risk of Saddam with WMD is an unacceptable risk, so we're going to invade. Would he be in a better position now?

I think he would be.
Well I think, Bush did "know" Saddam....`Dwayne Barry
Jan 28, 2004 11:35 AM
had WMD because that's what most of the intelligence community thought, and the administration was somewhat selective in what they believed because they were looking for a reason to invade. At Kay's hearing before the Senate committee today a few pre-war reports that did "get it right" were highlighted (but these were the minority).

I want to give Bush et al. the benefit of the doubt but when you see them continue to draw the dubious link between 9/11 and Saddam, their falure to admit the gross intelligence short-comings that are now apparent and the fact that the likes of Cheney are saying there is unquestionable proof of a WMD program in Iraq (the two "hydrogen" vans) which Kay himself said is an opinion held by almost no one in the intelligence community it is quite hard. They need to admit the mistake, figure out why it happened and move on, not continue with their double-talk.

I think Kay hit it on the head when he said we knew Saddam had WMDs at one point, so everyone was looking for any hint that he still had them and assuming the hints discovered proved he did. Additionally, the scientists' and Saddam's defiant attitude just fed into this phenomenom. What we know now (according to Kay), ironically, is that the inspections worked and Saddam apparently had dismantled his WMD programs.
Bush never said Saddam was an imminent threat ...HouseMoney
Jan 28, 2004 9:37 AM
I'd suggest you and all the other bumper-sticker-mentality-liberals go back and re-read his SotU Address transcripts from last year.

What he did say, was that he felt it was right to be proactive in this conflict because he didn't want to wait until we were facing an imminent threat (i.e., by then it's too late). If you can be intellectually honest, you should be able to make the distinction. You may have valid reason(s) for being against the war in Iraq. But don't put words in our President's mouth!
Hang around here long enough...Dwayne Barry
Jan 28, 2004 10:01 AM
and I think you'll find I don't fall into the liberal category (nor would I put a sticker on my car!).

Intellectually honest? You've got to be kidding if you don't think that the impression (even if he didn't explicitly say it, which I'm not sure I believe you on that one) conveyed by Bush and administration was that Saddam was an imminent threat and that's why we went to war.
I believe he believes it.czardonic
Jan 28, 2004 10:59 AM
GOP dead-enders. What a waste.
Let us all refresh our memoriesredmenace
Jan 28, 2004 11:27 AM
and watch HouseMoney parse this speech on the Teflon razor of his distinctions.
I see your problem.DJB
Jan 28, 2004 12:54 PM
You're assigning equivalency to "grave threat" and "imminent threat". But as OldEdScott has told us, words, both in journalism and foreign policy have very specific meanings.

"... And Novak's use of JOURNALISTIC language IS as precise and parsable as an algebraic equation. 'Senior administration official' has a SPECIFIC meaning according to the rules of journalism, rules I know by heart."

OldEdScott "I call TREASON! Yes, I do!" 10/2/03 9:54am

That's why this comment by the President in a 2002 press conference is important:

"Q They're not an imminent threat, though?"

"THE PRESIDENT: You know, that's an operative word..."

Now, the question he's answering is about North Korea, but it shows that he understands the importance of the word imminent. Imminent refers to how soon something might happen. Grave does not.
I see yours.czardonic
Jan 28, 2004 1:10 PM
President Mush-Mouth's words must be taken at their precise definitions. Now we are in real trouble.
Guess it depends on the definition of "is". (nm)94Nole
Jan 29, 2004 4:55 AM
Honored you chose to cite me, soOldEdScott
Jan 28, 2004 1:21 PM
since you present me as an expert, let me rush to add this: As a speechwriter, I recognize very well when someone is deliberately trying to make you think he's saying something, when by the narrowest of shaved defintions he can later come back and say that's NOT what he said.

Clinton, yes, did it -- I'll go ahead and get that out of the way so the Sean Hannitys hereabouts don't have to rear up -- all politicians do it, and Bush is doing it here.

Yeah but let's be clear....Dwayne Barry
Jan 28, 2004 1:32 PM
at least about the 2 BIGGIES where this has occured in the last 2 prez's administration. Clinton was doing it about a hummer in the oval office, Bush is doing it about taking the country war. Clinton's parsing of words weren't the justification for actions that led to 500+ American dead and a 80 billion dollar bill for the American taxpayer.
Coming from me, that goes without saying.OldEdScott
Jan 28, 2004 1:34 PM
For some of these jokers, the hummer is a far graver issue.
Yeah but let's be clear....DJB
Jan 28, 2004 2:22 PM
There's a huge difference between relying on mistaken intelligence and lying about it.

Don't be fooled into thinking that there wasn't a threat bacause we haven't found caches of WMD. 9/11 changed our thinking about containment as a policy. The new policy is "disarm or we'll disarm you". Saddam had every chance to comply with the sanctions and he chose not to.

Keep in mind that almost every time our intelligence turns out to be faulty, it usually underestimates the threat, not overestimates it.

Here's a recent example:

"Colonel Muammar Gadafy of Libya has been buying complete sets of uranium
enrichment centrifuges on the international black market as the central
element in his secret nuclear bomb programme, according to United Nations
nuclear inspectors.
The ease with which the complex bomb-making equipment was acquired has
stunned experienced international inspectors. The scale and the
sophistication of the networks supplying so-called rogue states seeking
nuclear weapons are considerably more extensive than previously believed.
The purchase of full centrifuges, either assembled or in parts, marks a
radical departure in what is on offer on the black market, sources said.
While it is not yet clear where Col Gadafy obtained the centrifuge
systems, at least 1,000 machines, believed to have been made in Malaysia,
were seized last October by the Italian authorities on a German ship bound
for Libya.",14139,1125310,00.html
I never said the president...Dwayne Barry
Jan 28, 2004 2:38 PM
lied leading up to the war, but I think at this point it is becoming dangerously close to lying (by at least some members of the administration). I said he, like Clinton minces his words, particularly on linking Saddam and 9/11 is where he is most guilty.

Kay made it pretty clear today that he doesn't think we will find any WMD caches, because not only can't they find those, when they dig deeper they can't find any evidence of any programs in the recent past. Mind you, the total "evidence" we have for WMD is 2 "hydrogen" vans, some aluminum piping and about 50 artillery shells that could have been used to deliver nerve agents. Furthermore, all the generals claim they didn't have any WMDs, but are convinced their fellow generals did (which if you think about it, may in part, explain why Saddam kept of the facade of WMD possession).

Let's keep our eyes on the prize, the reason for going to war with Saddam was WMD and the threat they pose to you and I, NOT violation of UN sanctions. Over, under-estimate, whatever, the key issue is why are they so bad at gathering accurate intelligence? The Bush admininstration, at least publicly, still has it's head in the sand because it won't admit the error.
Pardon my assumption.DJB
Jan 28, 2004 3:04 PM
It seemed like you were comparing Bush to Clinton concerning the severity and consequences of their lies.

"the reason for going to war with Saddam was WMD and the threat they pose to you and I, NOT violation of UN sanctions"

Iraq was sanctioned by the U.N. because of their WMD.

"Over, under-estimate, whatever, the key issue is why are they so bad at gathering accurate intelligence"

I don't think the intelligence was totally wrong. Much of the intelligence was correct.

"The intelligence community accurately reported that Hussein was hiding things, that he was pursuing WMD programs, that senior members of the Iraqi military-industrial complex were convinced Iraq was pursuing WMD. Given Iraq's record, it would have been heroic to connect those dots into the picture we now think we see, namely, that it was mostly Iraqi actors deceiving each other and everyone else."

I haven't read Kay's testimony yet, and I have to leave in a minute, but have you read Kay's first report? It indicates that Saddam had every intention of pursuing and acquiring WMD.
There is no doubt...Dwayne Barry
Jan 28, 2004 3:36 PM
Saddam violated the sanctions (mainly in regards to rocketry, remember he even destroyed some of these leading up to the war, didn't he?).

The growing consensus seems to be that he also dismantled his WMD programs. Kay admitted today his pre-war assessments were wrong. The testimony today was telling because Kay agreed with the premise of all the Republican questions (yes Saddam violated the sanctions, yes Iraq is better-off with him gone, etc.) except the grasping at straws by some of them that there were WMD (or programs).

The bottom-line is we went to war based on Saddam's possession of WMDs (and the implied link that he would get them to terrorists to be used on us!), and this assessment was in all probability wrong.
actually, long history of intelligence overestimatingrufus
Jan 28, 2004 6:38 PM
and the neo-cons screaming that their estimates were too soft, and they needed to take a harder line. towards the end of the soviet union, the neo-cons were taking the cia to task saying they weren't taking the soviet threat seriously enough, that the soviets were hell-bent on bringing the US down, their military and economic might was far more than we knew, and were up to all sorts of devilish activities to implement that goal. they wanted us to take a more hardline stance against them.

once the soviet union crumbled under its own weight, it was amazing just how much we had overestimated their capabilities, and how we never saw the collapse coming.

and now that the neo-cons are in charge of this administration, we see them up to their old tricks. that's why rummy formed the defense intelligence agaency in the pentagon, cause he and the other neo-cons felt that the other intelligence agencies were looking at things with too soft a view. so they took this info and interpreted it themselves, viewing everything in terms of the worst possible outcome.

and that's a hallmark of this administration, taking the intelligence gathered, throwing aside all the caveats, the maybes, the "it could indicate, but it could also show that", the warnings that there just wasn't enought info to tell, the info that could indicate different possibilities, and kept only that which indicated the worst possible scenario. and that's what they took to congress and the american people.
Honored you chose to cite me, soDJB
Jan 28, 2004 2:00 PM
I think your statement about the precision of words was pretty clear.

But, it your claim was true, Bush wouldn't have said this in the 2003 SOTU speech:

"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."

It can't be put any more clearly than that.
It can't be put any more clearly!?czardonic
Jan 28, 2004 2:12 PM
Perhaps it can't be hedged any more throuroughly.

Iraq isn't and imminent threat. But if we don't do something right now to prevent it from becoming and imminent threat, we will be too late.

It is kind of an imminent, imminent threat.
That's the quote I was looking for !!HouseMoney
Jan 28, 2004 2:36 PM
The link redmenace posted was not the SOTU. Don't need a teflon razor for this one, "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Not the same as, "We must act because we are facing an imminent threat.", which is how the anti-Bush crowd heard it.
I think they're unwilling to see the difference. (nm)DJB
Jan 28, 2004 2:41 PM
How uncooperative of them.czardonic
Jan 28, 2004 2:44 PM
Who's side are they on, anyway?
Beats me. (nm)DJB
Jan 28, 2004 3:08 PM
Sure, that one paragraph is right-on.OldEdScott
Jan 28, 2004 5:14 PM
If that's your justification for war, put it out there. We, the American people, can discuss it. But it's buried in 2000 words of closely-sliced spin and prevarication. Surely you see this. If not, there's really not much I can say to you.
I'll assume you read it b4 you posted it ...HouseMoney
Jan 28, 2004 1:02 PM
So, again, where exactly does GWB in this address use the phrase "imminent threat" when describing Saddam? He only used the word "imminent" once, when he was talking about pending military action, but not in re a "threat".

Some of what he did say, "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."

Proactive (or preemptive) rather than reactive. Look, I'm too busy to waste my time trying to change the mindsets of posters called "redmenace" &/or "czardonic". I'm sure the far-left can drum up enough reasons to bash President Bush where you don't have to make stuff up!
There's that teflon razor.czardonic
Jan 28, 2004 1:08 PM
He never said the exact words "imminent threat". Case closed.
Let's parse this part of Bush's QUOTE.dr hoo
Jan 28, 2004 1:18 PM
"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us".

KNOWING: What did we know? What did you tell us? What did you tell congress? How much of that was wrong? How do you justify a PREMPTIVE war without an explicit vote to DECLARE WAR?

REALITIES: Real things. Not made up stuff. Not outing a spy because you want to quash dissent.

AMERICA: We, the people.

MUST: Gotta do it.

Was the case strong? Were lies told? Were agendas in place with longstanding ties? Was the administration "hasty"? Did they need to be hasty? MUST we?

NOT IGNORE THE THREAT: We are going to kick some butt.

MUSHROOM CLOUD: ha. So, he was NOT claiming they had nukes on the flimsiest of evidence? Sure.

Yeah, not using "Imminent threat" makes it all OK!

Go back to your couches and watch some cable.
Nice try ...HouseMoney
Jan 28, 2004 2:21 PM
Here's what the initial poster in this thread wrote (bold font added):

First, he wanted to point out that he said leading up to the war that Saddam was a "growing" threat. Funny, I thought he was an imminent threat and I don't see how if he didn't have WMD and wasn't developing them that the threat was "growing".

Here's what GWB said in his address (to use the quote you referenced):

"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us".

Growing, gathering? Yes. Imminent? No. Moving towards imminent? Maybe. That's why he laid out the case to act in a preemptive manner. UN Sanctions? Worthless. Saddam should've been taken out in '91 as soon as he reneged on the cease-fire agreement before the ink was dry.

The 105th US Congress backed regime change in '98. Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act on Oct. 31, 1998. Both the House & Senate in Oct. '02 voted to approve an Iraq war resolution (by margins wider than in '91). Now, if you want to debate whether there was bad intel info that went into that vote, that's a different topic.

I don't like watching cable on my couch. During the winter, I prefer to watch it while I'm riding my indoor trainer!
You realize you are relying on one speech of many.czardonic
Jan 28, 2004 2:39 PM
I wonder why?
Feel free to give us an example. (nm)DJB
Jan 28, 2004 3:06 PM
Of what? I already conceded that Bush never said. . .czardonic
Jan 28, 2004 3:50 PM
. . ."imminent threat". He also never said that Saddam had the capability sending an RC plane to spray an American City with deadly toxins or microbes. Nor did anyone in his administration conjur images of mushroom clouds or boast conclusive knowledge that Saddam was on the verge of having nuclear weapons. Bush never said that Saddam was in cahoots with Al Queda either. Satisfied?

I just wonder what your explanation is for the overwhelming number of Americans who not only believe these wild fantasies, and overwhelmingly attribute these beliefs to the Administration. Are people who supported the war just stupid or delusional?
O.K. I recant...Dwayne Barry
Jan 28, 2004 1:21 PM
it wasn't an imminent threat (not that I ever put it in quotes as if to put words in the president's mouth), but that's not the point anyway!

The point is that the threat was clearly exaggerated considering what we now know, and that the administration has failed to admit the error. Furthermore, they are perpetuating the error by pretending it didn't happen and grasping at straws to justify the WMD claims.
"gathering against us"rufus
Jan 28, 2004 6:24 PM
us, meaning america. not against israel, or pakistan, iranians or kurds, but americans.

and where is the evidence that shows the gathering threat? powell's address to the UN? the two hydrogen trailers? where is the evidence of peril directed against us?

final proof. how about any proof? and surely, if we had this intelligence that was unreproachable, then it would tell us when there was an imminent threat, and not just the possibility of one at some point down the road, depending of course, on whether sanctions would eventually be lifted and saddam would resume his "dozens of weapons of mass destruction related program activities".

maybe he would give bad stuff to terrorist groups. or maybe not. intelligence couldn't tell for sure. but hey, you know, he probably would have, so let's take him out now.
Why does it matter if Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat ...bboc
Jan 28, 2004 2:44 PM
Drip, Drip, Drip....
The Bush administration made it absolutely clear from the beginning that this was a war to liberate the oppressed Iraqi people. No one ever said anything about any kind of threat to America, or American intrests, WMD or otherwise. You are all a bunch of revisionist historians. Drip, Drip, Drip.
New doctrine of preemption makes "imminence" irrelevant...mdehner
Jan 28, 2004 1:28 PM
I thought it had become clear that the current administration no longer feels an immediate, grave, or imminent threat was required to justify war:

"The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction— and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.

The United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging threats, nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression. Yet in an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek the world's most destructive technologies, the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather. We will always proceed deliberately, weighing the consequences of our actions."

From "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America"
Yeah, all you need isOldEdScott
Jan 28, 2004 1:42 PM
'imminent threat-related program activities.' That should pretty much do it.
Bush went after a red herring and took us along for the rideStarliner
Jan 28, 2004 3:06 PM
Let's cut to the chase - Saddam was NOT a grave threat to our national security. He was a thug, and we didn't like him, but what intelligence was there that would have allowed one to responsibly make a connection between Iraq and our national security? None.

Al-Quaeda had Saudi Arabian connections. The 9/11 hijackers were mostly Saudi. Saudi fundraising groups around the world reportedly keep terrorists funded and in operation.

If Bush is truly security conscious, wouldn't he have picked Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq as the primary battleground in his War on Terrorism?
some interesting administration quotations:dr hoo
Jan 29, 2004 10:57 AM
"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."

- White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03

"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."

- President Bush, 7/17/03

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."

- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."

- President Bush, 7/2/03


- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."

- President Bush 4/24/03

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."

- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."

- Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."

- President Bush, 3/19/03

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."

- President Bush, 3/16/03

"This is about imminent threat."

- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."

- Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."

- Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."

- Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."

- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. They not only have weapons of mass destruction, they used weapons of mass destruction...That's why I say Iraq is a threat, a real threat."

- President Bush, 1/3/03

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."

- President Bush, 11/23/02

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"

- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."

- President Bush, 11/3/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."

- President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American
more:dr hoo
Jan 29, 2004 10:58 AM
"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."

- President Bush, 10/28/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."

- President Bush, 10/16/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."

- President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."

- President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."

- President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."

- President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."

- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."

- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."

- Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02