Bush Never Said "Imminent Threat"

I disagree. I don't think people are as dumb as you're assuming. I think most people understand the difference between saying that something is going to happen and it's possible that something can happen.

How in the world is it straining when they are two different words?

This is exactly what I told Mozier you guys would do. You know you can't make a case out of Bush's words, so you just redefine the words.

Ah, yes, I knew it would eventually come to "quagmire". You guys all read off the same script.

You just keep on believing that.

 

Here's a bit of reality from Vint Cerf and , who were among the most instrumental people in building today's internet:

"On September 28, 2000, Bob Kahn and Vint Cerf released a statement to key Internet mailing lists stating their unequivocal belief that Gore played an important role during his congressional years in supporting the Internet:


I am taking the liberty of sending to you both a brief summary of Al Gore's Internet involvement, prepared by Bob Kahn and me. As you know, there have been a seemingly unending series of jokes chiding the vice president for his assertion that he "took the initiative in creating the Internet."

Bob and I believe that the vice president deserves significant credit for his early recognition of the importance of what has become the Internet.

I thought you might find this short summary of sufficient interest to share it with Politech and the IP lists, respectively.

==============================================================

Al Gore and the Internet

By Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf

Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development.

No one person or even small group of persons exclusively "invented" the Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among people in government and the university community. But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.

Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective.

As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept. Our work on the Internet started in 1973 and was based on even earlier work that took place in the mid-late 1960s. But the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises.

As a Senator in the 1980s Gore urged government agencies to consolidate what at the time were several dozen different and unconnected networks into an "Interagency Network." Working in a bi-partisan manner with officials in Ronald Reagan and George Bush's administrations, Gore secured the passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in 1991. This "Gore Act" supported the National Research and Education Network (NREN) initiative that became one of the major vehicles for the spread of the Internet beyond the field of computer science.

As Vice President Gore promoted building the Internet both up and out, as well as releasing the Internet from the control of the government agencies that spawned it. He served as the major administration proponent for continued investment in advanced computing and networking and private sector initiatives such as Net Day. He was and is a strong proponent of extending access to the network to schools and libraries. Today, approximately 95% of our nation's schools are on the Internet. Gore provided much-needed political support for the speedy privatization of the Internet when the time arrived for it to become a commercially-driven operation.

There are many factors that have contributed to the Internet's rapid growth since the later 1980s, not the least of which has been political support for its privatization and continued support for research in advanced networking technology. No one in public life has been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving Internet than the Vice President. Gore has been a clear champion of this effort, both in the councils of government and with the public at large.

The Vice President deserves credit for his early recognition of high speed computing and communication and for his long-term and consistent articulation of the potential value of the Internet to American citizens and industry and, indeed, to the rest of the world."

The myth makes a great story, but not all great stories are true. You're a sucker only as long as you let them fool you.

 

Yes, we know.

 

I ain't no liberal. I am a libertarian.

I don't hate President Bush. I just want to see someone else besides him as president after January 20, 2005.

I am no claiming that President Bush lied. I believe he was pushed into invading Iraq by a bunch of war-mongering neo-cons like Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Perle.

And this Jonah Goldberg whose article was used to start this thread is an apologist for the neo-cons at www.nationalreview.com.

 

It's amazing how Bush supporters try to paint anyone who is against his policies as a liberal. Much of the criticism comes from the right, since Bush is a liberal. The liberals complain about him mainly from a partisan perspective, since he is (supposedly) a Republican.

If you support Bush's policies, here is what you are for:

Massive increases in federal involvement in education, both financially and operationally.

Massive increases in the federal budget, for social programs and foreign adventures.

Promotion of the homosexual agenda through high level appointments of homosexual activists.

Continuation of Clinton era Presidential Directives, including women in combat and gays in the military.

Huge deficits, over a HALF TRILLION and rising rapidly toward a TRILLION DOLLARS ANNUALLY.

Loose immigration policies.

Support for the National Endowment for the Arts, made famous for using tax money to fund a crucifix in a jar of urine and a picture of our Saviour in a toilet (sorry, this was difficult to type, and very offensive, but it needs to be addressed and I'm not the one supporting it).

Re-entry of the US in support of UNESCO, which Ronaly Reagan got us out of and even Bill Clinton did not get us back into.

Support for the "judges" who forced removal of the 10 commandments from an Alabama courtroom.

SO, I ASK YOU, FOLKS, JUST WHO ARE THE LIBERALS HERE???

 

By "neocons", of course, you mean Jews?

 

You mean as amazing as your insistence on inserting domestic issues that have nothing to do with the topic at hand in order to draw attention from your own untenable position?

 

who has advanced the position that he said imminent threat - no-one but you and the op-ed!

The argument is that he was no threat to the west.

My word! do you not get bored of beating your strawman?!!?

 

OK Mike, I admit that all the liberal things that Bush has done domestically are off topic so I'll drop them here. I only hope that you'll be honest enough with yourself to consider them.

As to the topic at hand, it seems that the whole case for Bush is being made over one word..."imminent".

So what if he didn't use the word? It's perfectly obvious, if you look at his speeches and others from his administration that he painte Iraq as a threat to us AT THE TIME, and also, without actually saying it, hinted strongly that there were ties between Hussein and 9/11.

This reminds me of another President whose credibility hinged on the definition of "is".

 

What do you mean "So what if he didn't use the word?" Your whole argument hinges on whether or not he used the word.

If he didn't, and there's no evidence to suggest that he did, then you guys are exposed as the political ideologues you are.

 

(I read, PA Jim, where you dropped the domestic issues, but one of them was incorrect anyway. You wrote, "Huge deficits, over a HALF TRILLION and rising rapidly toward a TRILLION DOLLARS ANNUALLY." Today's news in the financial papers disproves this assertion.)

 

Mike - did he say Iraq was a threat or not?

 

I'm not Mike but I can answer this. He said there was an "Axis of Evil" that included IRAQ, IRAN, and NORTH KOREA.

All Three represented a threat to the free world.

 

On what basis did Iraq pose a threat to the free world?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

The List is long.

1. Iraq Provided Compensation to Families of Suicide Bombers in Palestine thus fostering more attacks and making Iraq sponsors of international terrorism.
2. Iraq provided safe haven for thugs from around the world including at least one known terrorist group.
3. Iraq Invaded a free country (Kuwait)
4. Iraq did not keep the terms of surrender from the First Gulf War.
5. Iraq attempted to assasinate the President of the U.S.
6. Iraq failed to comply with numerous U.N. resolutions demanding accountability for its weapons programs.
7. Iraq consistently violated the basic human rights of its own citizens including genocide.

Those are just a few of the reasons IRAQ made it on the short list of the Axis of Evil.

 

ah - but the reason for the war was that Iraq had wmd that it could use against us and supply to terrorist groups

A few quotes:

"If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us . . . But the suggestion that we are doing this because we want to go to every country in the Middle East and rearrange all of its pieces is not correct."

Colin Powell
Interview with Radio France International
Feb 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Bush - State of the Union Address

"We are greatly concerned about any possible linkup between terrorists and regimes that have or seek weapons of mass destruction...In the case of Saddam Hussein, we've got a dictator who is clearly pursuing and already possesses some of these weapons.. A regime that hates America and everything we stand for must never be permitted to threaten America with weapons of mass destruction."

Dick Cheney - source

"Iraq could decide on any given day to provide biological or chemical weapons to a terrorist group or to individual terrorists,...The war on terror will not be won until Iraq is completely and verifiably deprived of weapons of mass destruction."

Dick Cheney - source

 

The List is long.

1. Iraq Provided Compensation to Families of Suicide Bombers in Palestine thus fostering more attacks and making Iraq sponsors of international terrorism.
2. Iraq provided safe haven for thugs from around the world including at least one known terrorist group.
3. Iraq Invaded a free country (Kuwait)
4. Iraq did not keep the terms of surrender from the First Gulf War.
5. Iraq attempted to assasinate the President of the U.S.
6. Iraq failed to comply with numerous U.N. resolutions demanding accountability for its weapons programs.
7. Iraq consistently violated the basic human rights of its own citizens including genocide.

Those are just a few of the reasons IRAQ made it on the short list of the Axis of Evil. </font>[/QUOTE]All of the above had been the case for years and had provided no pretext for war. No, it was the alleged claims of wmd which provided the alleged 'threat' and the supposed casus belli

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

No. Most neo-cons are not Jews and very few Jews are neo-cons.

Unless someone is described as a Jew or describes himself as a Jew, I don't even know they are. I guess one is supposed to figure that out by last names, but I have never paid enough attention to that kind of thing to know the difference.

 

Not really. If you are referring to the news that the federal government just had a record $374 billion deficit in fiscal 2003, you need to know the truth. That number includes the Social Security surplus for fiscal 2003. If you remove that surplus from that number, then you will have a much more accurate picture of how much the national debt actually increased during fiscal 2003. And it ain't a pretty sight.