Bush Never Said "Imminent Threat"

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 </font>[/QUOTE]Matt, This has gone full circle. You're saying the same thing you were saying when the war began.

That leads me to the following conclusions:

1. You believe the war on Iraq was an unjust war.
2. You believe Blair and Bush lied.
3. You will never believe any differently regardless of the "evidence".

You insistence on replaying this tired old record (casus belli) ad nauseum makes me think that you would rather have Saddam Hussein in Power in Iraq than Blair in power in Britain or Bush in power in the USA.

If I were an Iraqi I would thank Allah for George Bush and Tony Blair every morning.

 

Everybody it seems (Even Democrats) agreed that Saddam posed a threat to the free world.......

"Centrist Democrats of the Democratic Leadership Council (search), who quibble with the president on many fronts, this time agree with Bush, saying the hunt for weapons of mass destruction is not cause for argument.

"If the Bush administration was wrong about Saddam's WMD program, so too was just about everybody else, including U.N. inspectors, the French, the Germans, the Russians and the Chinese, all of whom accepted prior evidence of such a program is beyond doubt," the DLC said in a statement.

Evidence or no evidence, many familiar with the intelligence say they don't believe Saddam voluntarily gave up his weapons after inspectors left in 1998.

"Some are suggesting, certainly, that he destroyed the weapons after 1998 or maybe even sooner," Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., ranking member of the House intelligence Committee, told Fox News. "It's just counterintuitive that he would have done that. His would have been the greatest intelligence hoax of all time, fooling every intelligence agency, three presidents, five secretaries of defense and the entire world into thinking he still had the weapons."

 

not everyone agreed Hardsheller - there were a million people marching through London before the war that disagreed,there were two million marching in Spain that disagreed.

Now where is the evidence of wmd? that is what the war was fought over, let's see them.

 

1) So? Just about everyone was wrong then. Is that how President Bush is going to defend his actions next year, by saying "Well, I was wrong, but just about everybody else was, too."?

2) And how would this be considered difficult to do?

 

Who really cares? I mean really, don't you liberals ever give it a rest?

I just presented evidence that says clearly that the majority of World Leaders believed that Iraq had WMD's. If Iraq didn't then they fooled the world's leaders for years!

Acting on the best information AVAILABLE we went to war.

And again I state the obvious. If I was an Iraqi, I would thank Allah every morning for George Bush and Tony Blair for freeing my country from Saddam Hussein.

 

You must be joking!! Are you actually trying to argue that if he said "Could happen at any time", it didn't count because he did not use the word "imminent". (please read carefully and if you respond, follow my logic please)

You are truly Clintonesque!

 

I have an idea as to why the belief is so widespread that Bush claimed an imminent threat, BESIDES what was said in speeches:

We launched a full military attack against them!

Many of us just kind of figured that we wouldn't launch an attack against someone, killing their citizens, who was not considered an imminent threat.

I guess we were wrong.

 

Every one in America held their breath as the U.S. and British Forces invaded IRAQ.

Mothers and Fathers worried about WMD's.
Wives and Girlfriends and Boyfriends worried about WMD's.
Servicemen and women on the ground worried about WMD's.
The Pentagon worried about WMD's.
The White House worried about WMD's.
The Congress worried about WMD's.
American Citizens worried about WMD's.

The truth is everybody from the CIA on down to the PFC in the Humvee thought Saddam would launch WMD's against Coalition troops.

We acted on the only Information AVAILABLE.

Two possibilites exist. All the Free World's Intelligience Gathering Organizations are incompetent or else Saddam and his Government deceived the world.

If the Intelligience gathering organizations are incompetent - Heads should roll.

If Saddam deceived us....Well He got what he deserved.

Either Way - Iraq is free of Saddam's Leadership or will be soon.

 

I think this saying 45 minutes or Imminent threat not being the same is Clintonian word semantics. In the end it basically means the same. Don't get me wrong - I don't believe Pres. Bush lied - I believe he had bad intelligence info.

 

He had intelligence reports telling him there was no reliable evidence.

He just ignored them. He lied.

 

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 </font>[/QUOTE]Matt, This has gone full circle. You're saying the same thing you were saying when the war began.

That leads me to the following conclusions:

1. You believe the war on Iraq was an unjust war.
2. You believe Blair and Bush lied.
3. You will never believe any differently regardless of the "evidence".

You insistence on replaying this tired old record (casus belli) ad nauseum makes me think that you would rather have Saddam Hussein in Power in Iraq than Blair in power in Britain or Bush in power in the USA.

If I were an Iraqi I would thank Allah for George Bush and Tony Blair every morning. </font>[/QUOTE]Firstly, well remembered! Yes, I am saying the same, because I am consistent. Indeed, to follow your numbered paragraphs in you last post quoted above:-

1. Yes, absolutely.
2. Not necessarily; they either lied or they incompetently allowed themselves to be misled by their intelligence sources without proper verification. Either which way, they should both do the honourable thing and resign.
3. Not quite.I will believe there are WMDs if proof is adduced as to their existence. That does not necessarily however legalise the war ex post facto - it would of course have to be demonstrated that the WMDs posed a real threat to the US and UK and that Bush and Blair knew this at the time.

No, I don't tire of repeating the casus belli 'mantra', nor should anyone who cares even the slightest jot for legality.

If the Iraqias are so grateful, how come they're picking off our troops one by one? For the sake of our militaries, we should never have got ourselves into this unholy mess of pottage in the first place, and we should extricate ourselves from this dog's breakfast now before any more lives are criminally squandered.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

So Matt, You're saying that American and British lives are worth more than Iraqi lives?

If we withdraw before completing the job that will leave millions of Iraqis without a viable government and without hope and protection.

The legality you refer to is a moot point. There will be no prosecution on any of the charges you claim nor will their be any resignations because of illegality. The fact is that this nebulous International Law you keep referring to has been trumped by military action.

Or put more bluntly - Bullets carry more weight than Law Books.

 

And I presume that you will be equally eager to accept that principle from the next armed burglar who breaks and enters your home; as long as he shoots you he shouldn't be prosecuted? (NB; please note I would in no way wish that upon you but pose it as a purely hypothetical question)

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Sorry but your British mentality is unable to grasp the reality of the American mindset.

The Armed Burglar who breaks and enters my home is faced with more fire power than he could possibly carry in plus he faces a determined adversary who will see to it that his career in crime is terminated prematurely.

 

Matt: not so nebulous. International Law is well-documented - you only have to read the Hague Convention, the Geneva Conventions, the UN Charter and any other international treaty to get a feel for it; then you have the ICC decisions etc....so it can hardly be said to be much of a 'moot point' either.

Are you seriously propounding a doctrine of 'Might is Right' here?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

We agree on something at last

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Matt B. wrote - "Are you seriously propounding a doctrine of 'Might is Right' here?"

Nope just stating the obvious which by the way has been obvious since time began and sin raised its ugly head.

References: The Bible, History, and Present Reality.

 

Then you *are* stating the doctrine of "might is right". In which case, you have no right to complain when it is used against you, or against countries or organizations that are important to you. You can't have it both ways - although I see you doing your best to try.

Moreover, if might is right, then Assyria, Babylon and Rome had every right to invade Israel. Why? Because they had the might to do so.

 

No True Blue,

I'm not advocating "Might Makes Right". I'm advocating that Might has to be used responsibly to preserve the safety of any nation or group of nations.

That's why we're lucky to have George Bush and why Britain is lucky to have Tony Blair. Two men who were willing to go against the opinion of the world in order to do what had to be done.

Osama believes Might Is Right
Saddam believes Might is Right

You can never understand the Iraqi War until you get the characters straight.

 

Then you need to go back and explain your comments about international law. Because that is precisely the question that was put to you by the previous poster, and your answer indicated you believe in "might makes right."

Not really. Both countries are served very poorly by their leaders. Both leaders were willing to fabricate intelligence, make false claims about WMDs, and take their countries into war in order to achieve long-term control of oil fields in the Mideast.

No wonder the public and world opinion was against them.

Bush and Blair believe Might is Right. That is why they were willing to violate international law and the laws of their own countries to invade Iraq.

Evidently I understand far more about it than you do.