Saddam's On the Clock
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Monday, January 5, 2026 22:02
VIEWED: 13324
PAGE 7 of 16
Quote:
BTW- it wasn't "the press" that jumped on the term, since it appeared in WH documents and in cabinet and VP statements. You CAN read, can't you?
Yes, it was ' the press' that jumped on the imminent thread ' band wagon, after Bush mentioned it in his SOTU speech. If you recall, it was the Lib Dems and the willing Left wing press that erronously spread the lie that Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat, when what he really said is that we must act BEFORE Iraq becomes one. Big, large time difference in meaning there, and no 'parsing of words'. Just one of the many such tricks the left wing media does when reporting 'the news' .
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Auraptor- I quoted several sentences in which key Administration figures used the term "imminent threat" specifically and others used dictionary synonyms. There are more to be found at the posted links.
Yes, it was ' the press' that jumped on the imminent thread ' band wagon, after Bush mentioned it in his SOTU speech. If you recall, it was the Lib Dems and the willing Left wing press that erronously spread the lie that Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat, when what he really said is that we must act BEFORE Iraq becomes one. Big, large time difference in meaning there, and no 'parsing of words'. Just one of the many such tricks the left wing media does when reporting 'the news'
EDIT: Since you insist that Bush and his Administratition did not characterize Iraq as an "imminent threat" then by YOUR reasoning Bush is guilty of violating international law.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It is moot, because moot means debatable, not inconsequential or wrong as you'd like it too mean I suspect, and in that case you're point is also moot, that is open to debate.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Bush has committed no crimes. Iraq was not invaded under false pretenses. Your position is moot.
Quote:It is believed the term Strawman argument comes from the practice dolls used by the army for things like bayonet practice. These straw men were hung up for the express purpose of being torn down by recruits in lew of real men and of course because a raw recruit would be incapable of attacking a real man with a bayonet.
Unless they are Islamic terrorist who are blowing up civilians, then it's ok.
Quote:Where as you would never indulge in petty hatred, baseless accusations and insults of those who hold a different opinion/political affiliation to yourself. You'd never call someone a political hack because they have a different point of view.
There are no attrocities. You're nothing more than a political hack. You have nothing but baseless accusations and petty hatred for those not of your political affiliation.
I hope this post has been enlightening.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Stalin's favorite quote "there are useful idiots everywhere". This hanging has nothing to with The President of the USA. This was descided in a court of Iraq. I guess freedom is working over there.
"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Auraptor- I quoted several sentences in which key Administration figures used the term "imminent threat" specifically and others used dictionary synonyms. There are more to be found at the posted links.
Yes, it was ' the press' that jumped on the imminent thread ' band wagon, after Bush mentioned it in his SOTU speech. If you recall, it was the Lib Dems and the willing Left wing press that erronously spread the lie that Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat, when what he really said is that we must act BEFORE Iraq becomes one. Big, large time difference in meaning there, and no 'parsing of words'. Just one of the many such tricks the left wing media does when reporting 'the news'
EDIT: Since you insist that Bush and his Administratition did not characterize Iraq as an "imminent threat" then by YOUR reasoning Bush is guilty of violating international law.
You keep missing the point. I never said Bush " and his administration " . That was YOUR doing. The original claim has always been trying to lay blame on BUSH, and his 'misleading us into Iraq', by stating an existing 'imminent threat'. I've already pointed out the distortion the press and the Left are guilty of creatiing over this issue. What the administration did was RESPOND to the characterization by the Press in regards to 'imminent threat '. Bush is by no means guilty of violating any international law, and nothing I'm suggesting even remotely implies as such. I have no idea where you're getting that nonsense from, other than thin air.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
It is moot, because moot means debatable, not inconsequential or wrong as you'd like it too mean I suspect, and in that case you're point is also moot, that is open to debate.
Sorry citizen, this is how I was using the word:
moot:
1. Law. Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or settled.
2. Of no practical importance; irrelevant.
Hope any confusion on your part is cleared up.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So Bush has no control over how his appointees present the Administration case? He hides behind a fig leaf of synonyms, disengagement and incompetence?
The original claim has always been trying to lay blame on BUSH, and his 'misleading us into Iraq', by stating an existing 'imminent threat'. I've already pointed out the distortion the press and the Left are guilty of creatiing over this issue. What the administration did was RESPOND to the characterization by the Press in regards to 'imminent threat '
Quote:I'm getting that nonsense from international law.
Bush is by no means guilty of violating any international law, and nothing I'm suggesting even remotely implies as such. I have no idea where you're getting that nonsense from, other than thin air.
google is your friend
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
[You keep missing the point. I never said Bush " and his administration " . That was YOUR doing. The original claim has always been trying to lay blame on BUSH, and his 'misleading us into Iraq', by stating an existing 'imminent threat'. [edited...edited] What the administration did was RESPOND to the characterization by the Press in regards to 'imminent threat '.
Respond, as per Signy's links, as if they did, in fact, say it.
I can't wait to see this one come back to bite you on the ass. I forget what movie it is (I think it's Nobody's Fool with Paul Newman) where someone says "sometimes less is more, and this is one of those times."
So we have two separate entities now when decisions are made, right? The President can imply whatever he wants, whenever he wants; make broad generalizations; use mouthpieces - but if he doesn't say it himself, exactly, then he didn't actually say it, and it wasn't actually his belief or policy. Because Bush isn't ultimately responsible for what happens in his administration. Oooookay. Where, exactly, in your world, AU, does the buck stop? Who is the person in charge of what happens in the White House, or is it no-one?
I'm actually, I think, going to bookmark this thread and hope it exists in 2009. If (God forbid) we have President Hillary, I can't wait for the first time you blame her for some policy or reason she didn't "specifically say," especially if it comes right out of the mouth of her press secretary. Shouldn't take long.
------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V
Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
For Bush or his supporters to stick on that point... he didn't say those exact words just synonyms, it was his people not himself personally.... just sounds so damn cowardly. Does he, or does he not take responsibility for his policies?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME