Real World Event Discussions

Capital Offense

POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Sunday, November 16, 2025 04:49
VIEWED: 11738
PAGE 18 of 22

CITIZEN

Monday, September 15, 2008 10:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t remember administration stating that Iraq was an imminent threat.

Quote:

"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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

SWISH

Monday, September 15, 2008 11:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
As far as I’m concerned we have yet to know whether those WMDs exist or not.

Let's test the theory of your open-mindedness according the options you present...

Quote:
It’s possible that Signym Clairvoyance is right and that Saddam destroy at least some of those WMDs – he obviously didn’t destroy all of them, since we’ve found stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq.

So, where did we find "stockpiles"? Cause my understanding is that we didn't. But that's beside the point - in this option #1 you are talking about destruction of stockpiles, so your underlying assumption is that Iraq had tons of WMDs and destroyed them just in a nick of time. Or do you mean destroyed them since 1992? Cause I've seen talks from inspectors who went to Iraq in 1992, and they saw no stockpiles. They saw the beginnings of a weapons program, but no stockpiles of mushroom cloud making weapons.

Point is: in this option, you seem to suggest that Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs in his power in relatively recent times.

Quote:
It’s possible that more stockpiles of WMDs still exist in Iraq to total the unaccounted for amount.

Your option 2: they had WMDs and hid them in Iraq.

Quote:
It’s possible that Hussein had large stockpiles of WMDs transported to Syria or Lebanon or another country.

Your option 3: they had WMDs and hid them outside Iraq.

Quote:
We don’t know – so there’s no way to say what is right or wrong.

Except you seem to be only considering a choice between Iraq having WMDs and Iraq having WMDs, which doesn't allow for as much right and wrong as some other posters here. It does suggest a not very open mind.

Here's my question: Can you allow, with equal weight and consideration, the possibility that Iraq never developed any new WMDs past what they had in 1992? Which, by the end of that war and certainly after years of inspections, wasn't a helluva lot.

Just... can you see that as a valid possibility?

CHRISISALL

Monday, September 15, 2008 12:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t remember administration stating that Iraq was an imminent threat.

Either you're playing with us or somewhere in your mind you've actually come to believe yourself here, either way you've put a LOT of thought into distortion.
Simply weighing facts & evidence takes SO much less energy, Finn.

But you'll keep over-thinking it, I suppose. Have fun.

Byeisall

CHRISISALL

Monday, September 15, 2008 12:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

"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 St

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, September 15, 2008 1:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by swish:
Point is: in this option, you seem to suggest that Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs in his power in relatively recent times.

Since stockpiles of WMDs were found in Iraq by coalition forces, then without question, these weapons existed in Iraq until they were removed by coalition forces. You choose to ignore these WMDs, so that you can claim none were found in Iraq – but that is not true, they were found.

Quote:
Originally posted by swish:
Quote:
It’s possible that more stockpiles of WMDs still exist in Iraq to total the unaccounted for amount.
Your option 2: they had WMDs and hid them in Iraq.

They clearly had WMDs – this much is a fact, not an option. We have not found all that were thought to be unaccounted for.

Quote:
Originally posted by swish:
Your option 3: they had WMDs and hid them outside Iraq.

It’s possible WMDs were transported outside of Iraq.

Quote:
Originally posted by swish:
Except you seem to be only considering a choice between Iraq having WMDs and Iraq having WMDs, which doesn't allow for as much right and wrong as some other posters here. It does suggest a not very open mind.

It’s a fact that WMDs were found in Iraq – that you choose to ignore this says more about your closed mind then anyone else’s. Like I said, I follow the facts. You’ve chosen to ignore facts that don’t sit nicely with the point of view you’ve chosen – you’re point of view is ideological.

Quote:
Originally posted by swish:
Here's my question: Can you allow, with equal weight and consideration, the possibility that Iraq never developed any new WMDs past what they had in 1992? Which, by the end of that war and certainly after years of inspections, wasn't a helluva lot.

Just... can you see that as a valid possibility?

To my understanding, not a lot of evidence exists for continuing production of WMDs in Iraq, but that Iraq had WMDs is without question a fact.

You choose to ignore evidence, I don’t. WMDs were found in Iraq this is a fact – anyone who chooses to characterize Iraq as having no WMDs at the time of the invasions is stretching.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, September 15, 2008 1:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t remember administration stating that Iraq was an imminent threat.
Either you're playing with us or somewhere in your mind you've actually come to believe yourself here, either way you've put a LOT of thought into distortion.
Simply weighing facts & evidence takes SO much less energy, Finn.

But you'll keep over-thinking it, I suppose. Have fun.

In fact, Bush implied that Iraq was not an imminent threat in the 2003 state of the Union Address, which has become known as the Bush Doctrine – to not wait until a threat becomes imminent. The administration was operating on a policy of pre-emptive attack. Although some people may have used the phrase loosely at times, it was made clear that Bush was operating on a policy of preempting an imminent threat, not acting on an existing imminent threat.

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option." President Bush, 2003 State of the Union.

ANTHONYT

Monday, September 15, 2008 3:31 PM

Hello Finn,

Can we agree that the pres and his people did claim Iraq was an imminent threat on at least a dozen occasions, both before and after the speech you cite?

Can we agree that Iraq appears to have had no active WMD program at the time of the invasion?

Can we agree that Iraq appears to have posed no greater threat to us in 2003 than they did in 2000?

I think if we can agree on this, we might reach a consensus of some kind. A middle ground.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Monday, September 15, 2008 4:08 PM

FINN

Quote:
By stockpiles of WMDs, I imply stored WMDs found in Iraq by coalition forces following the 2003 Iraqi war, which you are aware of but ignore.

I will ask again, since it seems to have slipped your notice:

CITES PLEASE?

Kay/ Duelfer DIDN'T find stockpiles of anything. Their conclusion, not mine, was that Saddam did not have ongoing WMD production or even a viable WMD program.

Now, as time went one, bit and pieces of the old program were found: A few drums here, a few shells there. Eventually it added up to 500 pieces or so of miscellany. But certainly not a "stockpile", since it was all 1980s vintage, scattered about, and none viable or ready to use except a couple of drums of mustard gas. Certainly not stored in any organized fashion or recorded location. Like I said: a threat only insofar as somebody might stumble upon them.

So I dunno Finn, you better do some pretty deep googling and show me these "stockpiles" of weapons just ready to deploy... or, according to Rummy ALREADY deployed...'cause as far as I can tell, there weren't any. Certainly not anything matching the Admin's description.

---------------------------------
Any idea, no matter how much you may agree with it, can be radicalized and employed as an excuse for violence. There is no such thing as a righteous or untouchable philosophy, and when you start thinking that there is, you have become an extremist.- Finn Mac Cumhal

SIGNYM

Monday, September 15, 2008 4:22 PM

FINN: Imminent threat:

Quote:
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.

www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b24970.html

GAWD Finn! Are you NOW trying to portray the Administration as never having fear-mongered? It takes delusion of significant proportions to erase the memory of their constantly increasing hysteria. Not only did they use the words "imminent threat" (and similar) they collectively claimed that Saddam had massive stockpiles of-ready-use weapons, that the weapons were already deployed etc.

I KNOW you're smarter than that. You're usually pretty good at putting facts together, but you're waaaay over the line of denial on this.

---------------------------------
Please think responsibly.
A public service announcement.

KWICKO

Monday, September 15, 2008 5:35 PM

Quote:

GAWD Finn! Are you NOW trying to portray the Administration as never having fear-mongered?

I don't think he's saying it never happened, or that they never said it. Like Ronald Reagan and Alberto Gonzalez before him, he's simply resorting to the "I don't recall" strategy; if you say you don't recall or can't remember, you're absolved of all responsibility.

The thing is, he probably DOESN'T actually remember them saying that; he's wiped his mind utterly clean of any fact that might contradict his ideology. In his mind, it doesn't exist, didn't happen, and doesn't matter. That's the only conclusion I can reach, given the evidence.

Mike

This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.