Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. They point out that Iraq didn't attack the U.S. and we shouldn't have gone to war with them. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history.
Most of these claims come from liberals in the Democratic Party. I decided to take a look at history and see if using that criterion who else could be called the "worst" president.
FDR (a democrat) led us into World War II against Germany, Italy, and Japan. Neither Germany nor Italy ever attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year. That's 1 Democratic President, 4 years and 450,000 American lives
Harry Truman (a democrat) finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year. That's 1 Democratic President, 3 years, and 55,000 American lives.
John F. Kennedy (a democrat) started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Lyndon B. Johnson (a democrat) turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year. Finally in the 1970's Richard Nixon (a republican) pulled us out of Vietnam. That's 2 Democratic Presidents, 1 Republican President, 13 years, and 58,000 American lives.
Bill Clinton went to war in Bosnia WITHOUT UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. The Clinton administration was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama had/has attacked us on multiple occasions.
In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put arms inspectors in Libya without firing a shot, and captured Saddam Hussein, who slaughtered at least 300,000 of his own people. We lost about 600 soldiers, an average of 200 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home. That's 1 Republican President, 2 1/2 years, and about 600 American lives.
Then the Democrats complained about how long the war on terror is taking, but...
It took less time to take Iraq than it TOOK JANET RENO TO TAKE THE BRANCH DAVIDIAN C0MPOUND! THAT WAS A 51-DAY OPERATION!
We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for LESS TIME THAN IT TOOK HILLARY CLINTON TO LOCATE THE ROSE LAW FIRM RECORDS IN HER OWN OFFICE!
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took TED KENNEDY TO CALL THE POLICE AND GIVE HIMSELF UP AFTER HE HAD AN ACCIDENT WHILE DRUNK AND SANK HIS OLDSMOBILE IN THE CHAPPAQUIDIK RIVER KILLING THE YOUNG LADY WHO WAS HIS PASSENGER!
And Finally...
IT TOOK LESS TIME FOR THE U.S. MILITARY TO TAKE IRAQ THAN IT DID TO COUNT THE VOTES IN FLORIDA IN 2000!!!!
But for some reason the Democrats didn't complain about how long any of that took!
Hmmm.....
Author Unknown
I was thinking along a similar line today, but focused on just Clinton and GW. Clinton was impeached and held in the highest kinds of moral contempt by a large segment of Americans because he lied about several things, all of which were about his personal needs (money, sex). People like me were never terribly troubled by all of this because it did not smack of the core lack of morality I hold as critical in a president.
Now people like me hold GW in equal contempt as Clinton did to his detractors, but for very different reasons. I think his judgment in going into Iraq was seriously flawed, as it was not part of a well-defined idea of the response to terriorism. As it plays out, I feel much less safe than I did before we invaded Iraq, and I have serious questions about his motivation - I think he believed there were WMD's there, but it was a convenient pretext. The consequence of these actions are much more profound that a little jizm on a blue dress and a land deal in Arkansas, and they have my moral compass up in arms.
So I take two impressions away from this: how you and I form moral judgments are very different. And it does seem that this is a very real polarity in America, one that seems to me to be a pot simmering and ready to boil over, to no one's advantage.
And the second one is: think about the year 1904. Largely rural, but increasingly industrial, we got 3 new pieces of information a day (I'm just making these numbers up to make the point). We mainly talked with people in our community, and we had a LOT of time with no intrusion from any media - and thus, very little marketing.
Now we get 30 pieces of new information an hour, from multiple meida sources - TV, radio, newspapers, magazines, the web, etc. "Interruption marketing" coming at a pace that we scarcely have time to think and reflect and evaluate. All of them are markting to us. Politicians and government are marketing to us, using very sophisticated psychological methods to influence us, primarily emotionally.
So, I think it's really important to be a little skeptical about our positions. Bottom line, Clinton and Bush and Kerry all lie because they market. They all exploit because that's the only way to get coverage.
And meanwhile, intelligent people, well-organized and well-funded, look at our way of life, see it as bankrupt (and they have a point there), and want to wreck havoc with awesome weapons becausee they want to force another moral vision upon us.
So what's my point? I don't think either candidate has done anything to convince me that they have the real moral and intellectual and leadership stones to truly lead through something this complex. The point of all the Janet Jackson tits-on-TV is we know we're in the moral toilet. The question is, with the marketing approach to everything, how do we get out? And just what is the coalescing morality as we shift into the Information Age, anyway?
Great post pal! Truly.
Although I am not in agreement with your reasoning as to why so many people disliked Clinton so intensely. As far as the BJ in the White House that is NOT why he was impeached by the Congress, it was because he committed PURJURY on national television in his quest to deny Paula Jones her day in court. Jone's charge was one that has been thrust on American managers and business owners by a liberal democratic party kowtowing to NOW. Sexual Harassment. If you are in business it is almost impossible to not know someone who has faced this charge in one form or another. If it's not a serious charge, fine, take it off the books, if it is, then it should apply to everyone, even the President.
Moreover, I think the disgust with Clinton had more to do with the backroom deal for Medical Reform led my his un-elected spouse, travelgate, Whitewater, illegal foreign campaign donations, all the weird deaths of close Clinton associates, last minute pardons, etc. There were too many odd happenings in his administration to list here.
In my opinion Bush has prosecuted the retaliation for 9/11 and the war on terrorism as well as anybody could. Lately I think he has been hindered by the public decent from the opposition. I wish he would just focus on Iraq right now and blow off comments from Kerry, etal. He will not get the core democratic vote anyway, no matter what he does. As proved by his numbers post 9/11the majority of American's want the terrorist annihilated. This also in my opinion is our most important issue, and I don't believe that Kerry will carry the battle to their house!
Unfortunately your point on marketing is very accurate. It would seem to me that many Americans vote for the candidate that they perceive will grant them the most "free" entitlements, never considering who is actually paying for them. Not unlike elementary school elections where more recess's are promised.
is that you realize that personal morality (money,sex) is the
ONLY kind of morality. Without personal morality, there is no corporate or national morality. As a nation, we need to return to ethical standards (and no 'situational' ethics).
Now, I'll be the first to admit that my own morality is not of the highest caliber (I do engage in this hobby, after all) but then I have not aspired to a leadership position, either.
"Clinton ... lied about several things, all of which were about his personal needs (money, sex)."
If you believe this nonsense, then you simply weren't paying attention.
Clinton lied about supporting a middle class tax cut. He raised taxes.
Clinton lied about the economy under Bush the Elder being "the worst in 50 years." Did his cocaine-induced haze cause him to forget the Seventies?
Clinton lied about the Travel Office firings, subjecting at least one person to a malicious prosecution rejected by a federal jury in D.C. in less than two hours.
Clinton lied about the government shutdown; it was his policy goal, but he blamed congressional Republicans.
I could go on, but the point is made.
Clinton lied even when the truth would suffice (the Travel Office people were employees at will, and could have been fired for no reason; they were, but charges of corruption were trumped up against them), and about much more than "his personal needs (money, sex)."
And more servicemen/women have died AFTER the so called quick "taking" of Iraq, what a tragedy. Plus you mix apples and oranges with your list of Presidents' wars.
-- Modified on 4/3/2004 8:56:05 AM
How do I mix apples and oranges? (Did you get that phrase from MoveOn.org?)
Vietnam was never a declared war, 58,000 American deaths.
Korea was never a declared war, 55,000 American deaths.
So using your logic, 113,000 American deaths under Democratic Presidents with no beginning of hostilities and no war? In time honored fashion, war is usually considered over when all "organized" resistance is killed or captured. Possibly most of these current problems would have been eliminated if we would have just killed all of the resisters, but, that would make us as evil as Hussein. Our humanity it seems is seen as weakness by these thugs. We release them and they pick up their guns again and shoot us in the back, when we kill them we are castigated by the Arab media. Go figure, we are either weak or murderers.
Obviously you dislike Bush, fine, but just find a better argument, the war rants have no historical merit!
Funny when I attack Kerry (there are plenty on this page alone), you never reply, if I says even a minuscule thing against Bush you feel you have to reply immediately, lol.
I can tell you if Gore was the president he might very well have been the worst president. I thought the race in 2000 was simply a dog race between two of the worse politicians ever, of course until this comoing race in 2004, which will be even worse.
Well, when you attack Kerry, you're doing God's work. 
When you attack Bush, you're wrong.
Easy explanation.
Why in heavens name would I post in defense of Kerry? I think he is very possibly the worst (considering Carter I could be wrong) candidate the democratic party has ever inflicted on America.
Unlike yourself, I think that Bush has done a pretty good job. I have my issues with some of his actions, but overall, I think he is the right man at this time. Every single democratic primary candidate would relegate our National Security to the whim of UN "coalitions". I want a president who cares more about America than world opinion. Bush does!
Although, U.S. Grant and Rutherford B. Hayes are certainly in the mix with him.
I will admit that, prior to his pulling out too early, and letting the Taliban and Al Qaida reconstitute themselves, Afghanistan was the high point of Bush's Presidency. However, his domestic record of economic non-achievement, and the UNMITIGATED DISASTER of his foreign policy since the Iraq invasion put Bush very close to the top of the list. It takes an incredible arrogance or simple delusion to claim Iraq as a success. After the Iraqis thank us again with a few more of our folks getting dismembered and hung from bridges, perhaps you'll understand how they actually feel about us in that country.
You have no idea what you are talking about. We have never pulled out of Afghanistan, our forces are still there, have been killing, capturing, and chasing Taliban and Al Qaeda members for the last 2 years and we have just recently had success with getting Pakistan to actively move into the border region in force to push the scum into our guns. Its called a "hammer and anvil" attack. As a former Marine (Active duty, Scout Team Leader, "C" Co., 3rd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 1995-1999) and Army National Guardsman ("B" Co. 1st Battalion/124th Infantry, 2000-present, just returning from Iraq) I am very familiar with what has been going on in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
It is not a delusion to say that Iraq is a success, nor is it arrogant. It is common sense!!!!!!!!!!!! We are fighting there, instead of here. Everyday, the frequency of attacks is less and less and the attacks are more and more confined to specific locations where resistance is strong. This is a classic counter-insurgancy operation. These types of operations takes a long time, they are costly, and are very dynamic. As more and more Iraqi's are being trained and are being stood up as operational units, the better the situation will become. Make no mistake, we will be there for a long time and we will be at war in many places around the world for what could be decades. The alternative to not fighting is to tell the terrorists and their enablers, like Saddam's Iraq, that they can continue to push their agenda un-opposed. Not on my watch!
If I take your belief that things are going badly as a serious belief and not a cynical, politically motivated attack against President Bush, I will just chalk it up to ignorance. However, In my opinion you are a cynical, partisan Bush hater and left wing idiot. When you claim things in Iraq and in the larger scope of the war are going badly simply because there is resistance you fall right in to the trap our enemies are counting on you to fall in. They want the US public to be weak, take your attitude, turn against the war, lose the will to fight, and change governments to one that will stop fighting them like the cowardly Spanish people did. Using your logic, we've lost every war where our enemies resisted against us, which is pretty much all of them.
Finally, I find it personally offensive that you have this attitude towards the war considering I just got back from fighting it!!!!!!!!!! I lost friends in this war!!!!! I have personally sacrificed for this war. I and most every other member of the armed forces still believes very deeply in the good we are doing! So, don't you dare lecture me about arrogance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And, if any group is delusional, it is the lot of you out there who refuse to acknowledge the importance of this war and the success we have had thus far!!!!!!!!!! Not being touched by the reality of this war has made some of you very complacent. This is a real war. This is not a game and I am sick and tired of hearing from those of you who treat it as a debating strategy to unseat a President you don't like. Be a patriot, give President Bush the support he needs to win the war and stop your monday morning quarterbacking. You will have ample opportunity to debate about what direction you think the country should head after the War. Then you all can afford to be as cynical as you want!
And I certainly agree that there is ignorance involved. YOUR ignorance. Is it possible that this is another alias for Bribite? Nobody else on this board besides he and now you have demonstrated such singleminded zeal and ignorance of the actual evidence in forming your pro-Bush mindless arguments as he.
Saddam HATED Al Qaida. Al Qaida HATED Saddam. When we attacked Iraq, it is a FACT that substantial amounts of our forces in Iraq were actually re-deployed from Afghanistan, and meanwhile the Taliban and Al Qaida HAVE significantly re-constituted themselves in Afghanistan, and Al Qaida has ALSO moved into the leadership vaccuum that we created in Iraq by deposing Saddam. The Iraq invasion was the SINGLE best thing that has happened to Al Qaida EVER. It validated all of their anti-U.S. rhetoric, and gave them both a powerful recruiting tool, and MILLIONS of newly-dissaffected Arabs with a new hatred of the U.S. from which to recruit from.
It would have been a success if we had been through when Bush said we would be. And you saying that the majority of the armed forces this is not true in my area. Everyone of the people that has returned from Iraq that I have had the pleasure of meeting, have said what a mess it is over there and can not believe that the commander in chief lied in order to get them there.
Furthermore, I am a patriot. I have seved my time in the service and am proud that I did. I am a patriot that stands up against the likes of a President that has put the USA in further danger by lieing to attack a coutry to finish daddies war.
And please calm down, these posts are not personal attacks against you.
You have a pretty strict definition of success, since no plan in war survives the initial engagement. If you want God to laugh, tell him your plans.
I'd call liberating 25 million people a success. I'd call removing a dictator who threatened his neighbors, used poison gas on the Iranians, and used poison gas on his own people (the Kurds) a success. I'd call removing a dictator who murdered more than 300,000 of his own people over 30 years a success. I'd call killing his two sons, who were perhaps worse than he, a success. I'd call the fact that we haven't experienced a major terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11 a success. I'd even call having Islamist terrorists descending on Iraq to engage us there a success (better there than here).
Most of the people that I know who served in Iraq support our efforts. It's abundantly clear that most Iraqis support our efforts. The only people who don't are people who hate America as it is, American power, and American hegemony in the world. And yes, I can say that about you without challenging whether you are a "patriot," since you apparently define the term as loving America the way you wish it to be, rather than the way it is. You are clearly part of the "blame America first" crowd, in the telling words for former UN Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick.
The notion that Bush "lied" to get us there is just another far Left canard ("lie") to attack a successful President they despise. At least of those who held Clinton in contempt (as Peggy Noonan has noted, there's a difference) were right when we accused him of lying. Those of you on the far Left who keep beating this "Bush lied" drum simply make it up, attributing things to the Administration that it never asserted.
I defended Bush and his administration up until the point that the lies were made public.
So I guess I am a typical flip flopper as the republicans define it.
You continuously bring Clinton into this, I think you would like to see him run again.
Poops hopeless!
"I defended Bush and his administration up until the point that the lies were made public. "
Not possessing the rational skills to check it out for himself, regurgitates the same statement over and over and over...
I was pondering just who most of the Kerry rhetoric is addressed to, who is stupid enough to embrace a guy who is complaining about gas prices when he voted for a $.50 a gallon gas tax, who voted for the war, now condemns the President for the war, etc, etc.
Then I read these posts and I find my answer. The dumb and dumber.
I continuously cite my references. I have yet to see one post of yours that leads to any sound evidence of the misinformation that you are so apt at conjuring up.
There is a statement in the following article that sums up the way most far right and far left politicos handle all situations in their lives. "My political enemies think the earth revolves around the sun," he'll say. "That's their prerogative. I happen to disagree."
http://slate.msn.com/id/2095237/
You say we simply make it up - please list the lies the left has made up. Let's see how they hold up.
You won't, though. You have nothing to base that statement on, or you would have been more specific.
Please, trot them out. I'd be fascinated.
unless of course you were an actor in Black Hawk Down.
1/502 Inf.(AA), 2nd Bgde, 101st Airborne Div. 1984-1987.
1/503 Inf.(AA), 2nd Bgde, 2nd Infantry Div. (ROK)1987-1988.
3/75 Ranger Regiment, 1988-1990.
Member of TF RED, conducted combat jump at Rio Hato during Operation Just Cause.
CIB, Ranger Tab, Jump Wings, AA Wings, Pathfinder Badge.
Are you trying to make a point? Or do you just have a habit of posting ass-wipe comments.
RLTW
First Germany and Italy "declared war" on the US after we were attacked by the Japan! I don't think anyone would fault a President for going to war witha country that declared war on US.
In Korea and Vietnam the US was assisting the goverment of that nation defend itself (I'm not saying it was right or wrong). In Bosnia we were trying to stop the Genocide that was going on.
In Iraq you did not have any of these conditions. You had a President that declared Iraq a threat, and set out to distroy the government of Iraq. (No evidence of any threat ever exisited!)
In the past the US has gone to war to aid other nations ( i.e. Korea, Vietnam, WWI) or after being attacked (i.e. WWII) But not without some provation (Until now).
Even in the Cival War the Confederacy attacked the union troops at Fort Sumter first!
The "imminent threat" supposedly posed by the non-existant WMDs turned out to be bullshit, as well.
First of all, no one used the words "imminent threat" in the run up to the war. The words "gathering threat" were used with respect to the threat from Iraq.
As far an imminent threat, what about the fact that we were being attacked every day in iraq when they were firing at our planes in the no-fly zones for 10 years?????????!!!!!!!! Every one of those shots they fired at our pilots was pretty damn imminent to them and was an act of war. Every one! Those violations of the cease fire and 8 years of other violations of the cease fire alone were justification for the war. As a matter of fact, we were in a state of war with Iraq all the way up to the recent war, during it, and we are still in a state of war. The reason we were already in a state of war has do do with the defintion of a cease fire. A cease fire, for all of you out there who don't seem to get this, is a suspension of hostilities that is contingent upon adherance to the specific stipulations contained in the cease fire agreement. If they are violated it is perfectly justifiable to resume hostilities becuase you are still in a state of war. The fact that almost all of them were quickly ignored and then violated after Clintion had taken office, justified continued military operations to force them to comply. Clinton should have had contiuned the war and gone after a regime change way before Bush finally had to in the wake of 9/11. The only thing Clinton did was bomb a couple of times then sign the "Iraq Liberation Act" in 1998 which made it the policy of the US to remove the regime in Iraq. However, Clinton did not follow that up in any meaningful wa and left that for others, just like he left Bin Laden for others.
The WMD issue was and is more a long term security issue. It wasn't bullshit that they had WMD becuase they used them, we found them after the first war, and destroyed what we found but they just kept on hiding WMD related programs and refused to account for quantities of WMD's themselves that were known to have been made but were not accounted for in numerous declarations. I don't care if they actually destroyed the WMD or stopped actively producing them after we left. The reason I don't care is because even though we have not found the actual missing stockpiles of WMD since the war, we have found ample evidence of his programs to produce them and we have found the there was an active counter-intelligence operation to disguise and hide these operations. If we had not gone to war and the inspectors found nothing significant then left, Iraq could have resumed WMD production and any intelligence we had to the contrary would have been ignored by the UN because they, in all their incompetence, would have considered the matter closed. Iraq would then have been free to produce whatever WMD it wanted and pass it to all of its terrorist allies to use against the US and especially in Israel.
In fact, he occassionally used the term "imminent NUCLEAR threat"
That turned out to be a complete misrepresentation of the truth.
One thing NOBODY in the administration ever DID say, however, is the words "Al Qaida" in ANY public utterance at all, prior to 9/11. So obviously, they never considered Al Qaida an "imminent threat". They DID, however, consider Iraq to be one, or at least they sold that theory to the American Public, repeatedly.
I wish you'd stop lying on behalf of this Administration - they don't need your lies, as they do a fine job of lying on their own.
"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
In my view, the American people (including myself - I supported the war before I found out that Bush lied to me, and became pissed off at him because I don't like being lied to) did not buy into the war because the Iraqis were firing at our planes.
They bought into the war because they believed there was a very real chance that Iraq would pull another 9/11 in the US in the near future. You can claim that they were hysterically overreacting to what Bush actually said, but if so, I saw little effort by Bush to correct their perceptions.
Regarding your first paragraph:
The Bush Administration is now saying it never told the public that Iraq was an "imminent" threat, and therefore it should be absolved for overstating the case for war and misleading the American people about Iraq's WMD. Just this week, White House spokesman Scott McClellan lashed out at critics saying "Some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent'. Those were not words we used." But a closer look at the record shows that McClellan himself and others did use the phrase "imminent threat" – while also using the synonymous phrases "mortal threat," "urgent threat," "immediate threat", "serious and mounting threat", "unique threat," and claiming that Iraq was actively seeking to "strike the United States with weapons of mass destruction" – all just months after Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted that Iraq was "contained" and "threatens not the United States." While Iraq was certainly a dangerous country, the Administration's efforts to claim it never hyped the threat in the lead-up to war is belied by its statements.
In Their Own Words: Iraq's 'Imminent' Threat
January 29, 2004
"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
"Well, of course he is."
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question "is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?", 1/26/03
"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. ... 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 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
-- Modified on 4/4/2004 7:23:25 PM
Every one of those statements, if they are accurately qouted, are and were true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Even David Kay, the guy you love to tout because he said he did not think Iraq had WMD at the time of the war said in the same testimony that "In many ways, Iraq was more dangerous than I thought before"
Unfortunately, you rely upon the far Left lie that the Administration asserted the threat was "imminent."
It never did so. That's why the policy was controversial. Presumably, even most of the critics would support action against an "imminent" threat. The policy was controversial because it was one of "preemption," i.e., removing the threat before it became "imminent."
The straw man is a popular target for the far Left. This one is no more real than any of the other fantasies that the far Left spews.
Pick your statement. Remember, statements by Bush spokespersons count as his, as he never contradicted them.
"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
"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03
"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 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
For the months leading to the Iraq invasion, there was a steady drumbeat of administration heavyweights weighing in as to the immediate danger that Saddam Hussein posed, as Puck ably shows. I particularly liked Condi's allusion to a "mushroom cloud" appearing in the U.S, if we didn't act immediately to overthrow Hussein. About as much subtlety as the oil supertanker that bears her name.
Those who think otherwise must be auditioning for the lead role in the sequel to the movie "Momento".
Each time their ridiculous statements are deflated they shift to another straw man - neither is man enough to step up and admit to error.
You mean the genocide that was claimed to be going on. Evidence after the fact seems to indicate that, if there really was any 'genicide going on', it was the other way about. Exhumations of what mass graves have been found seem to indicate that Billy Jeff and the UN actually put us on the wrong side of that conflict.