http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/1/29/17733/6012

"Sandman" wrote in message
...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/1/29/17733/6012


Bush's "imminent threat"
by kos
Thu Jan 29th, 2004 at 17:07:32 GMT

David Sirota at the Center for American Progress' Progress Report lays waste
to the administration's claim they never said Iraq was an "imminent threat".
In fact, Scott McClellan repeated this ludicrous charge just a couple of
days ago:
""I think some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent.' Those
were not words we used." - White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 1/27/04
Given our muzzled White House press corps, Bush might've been able to get
away with rewritting history. But they can't control Google, nor one
enterprising think tank fellow who knows how to wield it.
"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

"Absolutely."

- 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

Where is there any evidence that this is not what everyone in the
intelligence community believed? Clinton said most of this in 1998. He
just didn't have the balls to do anything about it. Just like he turned
down Bin Laden when he was offered up on a silver platter and Clinton knew
he was involved in the first WTC attack.

Stop with the propaganda and try supporting your cause with objective, in
context information. Oh wait, I keep forgetting, you're a Democrat and
that's not how you guys work.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Where is there any evidence that this is not what everyone in the
intelligence community believed?

You "news" sources have always been nothing but right-wing propaganda media
bobble-heads. Why someone who professes publicly to be a political
"independent" repeatedly does nothing but spout programmed administration
lies is utterly astounding.

It has lulled your dull mind to the *fact* that numerous sources in the CIA,
Defense Department, Department of the Secretary of State, Pentagon, and
independent WMD research institute spokesmen have spoken out, on record,
that Cheney twisted arms at the CIA numerous times to "mold" the
"intelligence" to the Cheney/Bush propaganda agenda - IOW, that this and the
British administrations *clearly*
"massaged" the so-called "intelligence" to deceive the world that their
outlandish version of the facts was nothing more than something based on
"solid intelligence". One small example: An expert recently testified that
this is the first time in history that a Vice President has visited the CIA
with "suggestions", which, according to him, means only one thing within the
way the CIA works: give the VP what he wants, or look for another job.

Only rational conclusion: the so-called intelligence was so "cooked"
politically by Cheney, et. al., that the rationales reiterated for going to
war were mere political machinations based on false propaganda based on
complete distortions and direct contradictions of what the real
"intelligence" actually represented.

By now this is common knowledge. Get up to speed, Mikey - it's about time
you quit living in your delusional Faux-News time-warp.

"Sandman" wrote in message

"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

Where is there any evidence that this is not what everyone in the
intelligence community believed?

You "news" sources have always been nothing but right-wing propaganda
media bobble-heads. Why someone who professes publicly to be a
political "independent" repeatedly does nothing but spout programmed
administration lies is utterly astounding.

It has lulled your dull mind to the *fact* that numerous sources in
the CIA, Defense Department, Department of the Secretary of State,
Pentagon, and independent WMD research institute spokesmen have
spoken out, on record, that Cheney twisted arms at the CIA numerous
times to "mold" the "intelligence" to the Cheney/Bush propaganda
agenda - IOW, that this and the British administrations *clearly*
"massaged" the so-called "intelligence" to deceive the world that
their outlandish version of the facts was nothing more than something
based on "solid intelligence". One small example: An expert
recently testified that this is the first time in history that a Vice
President has visited the CIA with "suggestions", which, according to
him, means only one thing within the way the CIA works: give the VP
what he wants, or look for another job.

Only rational conclusion: the so-called intelligence was so "cooked"
politically by Cheney, et. al., that the rationales reiterated for
going to war were mere political machinations based on false
propaganda based on complete distortions and direct contradictions of
what the real "intelligence" actually represented.

Here's a non-Republican, non-Democrat view of the behavior of the current
leading Democratic party presidential hopefuls:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/fe...dems-f08.shtml

Please note that this article was first published about a year ago, 8
February 2003.

"Following US Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the United
Nations Security Council February 5, leading Democrats rushed to support the
Bush administration's war drive."

"In particular, the candidates for the 2004 Democratic presidential
nomination were most anxious, with one exception, to applaud Powell's
report."
"Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, a longtime supporter of a US war
on Iraq, was the most bloodthirsty, calling for an invasion in the coming
weeks. Lieberman suggested that UN support, while preferable, is not
necessary. "Patience is a virtue," he said, "but too much patience with
dangerous lawlessness is a vice."

"Kerry declared, "With such strong evidence in front of them, it is now
incumbent on the UN to respect its own mandates, and stand up for our common
goal of either bringing about Iraq's peaceful disarmament or moving forward
with the decisive military victory of a multilateral coalition."Sen. John
Edwards of North Carolina indicated his retroactive support for the Bush
administration, saying that he has "long argued that Saddam Hussein is a
grave threat and that he must be disarmed. Iraq's behavior during the past
few months has done nothing to change my mind." Edwards commented,
"Secretary of State Powell made a powerful case. This is a real challenge
for the Security Council to act."

"Kerry told Powell, "We are all gratified that the administration finally
came to the United Nations and made its case to the world. This is a
vindication of your position and that of many of us in the Congress who have
long pushed for something less unilateral and more the hard work of
diplomacy."

Quotes from leading non-presidential-candidate Democrats:

"Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota asserted that Powell
"made a powerful, methodical case that put the onus on Saddam Hussein now."
Asked how much longer the inspectors should be given, Daschle said, "I don't
know ... not indefinitely."

"Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, top Democrat on the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, called the Powell litany of lies a "powerful and
irrefutable case."

"Senator Hillary Clinton of New York termed it "compelling,"

"Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy said, "It's clear that, after today's
indictment, Saddam Hussein has only one final chance to comply and disarm."

"California's Senator Diane Feinstein declared that Powell made "the most
comprehensive and compelling case that may have been made," adding, "I no
longer think inspections are going to work."

"Representative Jim McDermott of Washington praised Powell's speech along
the same lines as Kerry. "I believe it's good they've come forward with the
information," he said. "They should have done it a long time ago. Give it to
the inspectors and let the inspectors go out and decide."

"Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi merely noted that Powell had
presented no new evidence. She said, "We must exhaust all alternatives, such
as the continuation of inspections, diplomacy and the leverage provided by
the threat of military action."

"Rep. Charles Rangel of New York came the closest to actually criticizing
Powell, commenting, "I've read things here that as a former federal
prosecutor I couldn't take to a grand jury. I feel sorry for Secretary
Powell. There's no way he's an Adlai Stevenson."

"Sandman" wrote in message ...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/1/29/17733/6012

And it is of course also important to point out that George Tenet now
claims the CIA never said there was an imminent threat:

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/7888121.htm

"Sandman" wrote in message . ..

Only rational conclusion: the so-called intelligence was so "cooked"
politically by Cheney, et. al., that the rationales reiterated for going to
war were mere political machinations based on false propaganda based on
complete distortions and direct contradictions of what the real
"intelligence" actually represented.

The problem is that because the administration's rhetoric is so far
from reality, it has become deeply partisan simply to observe the
obvious:

There was no imminent threat
Iraq had no WMD
Iraq was not connected to 9/11
There is no budget surplus
There is no job growth
etc. etc. etc.