Have you read some of the comments there? It's high comedy. All the obsessive Bush haters and other assorted tinfoil hatracks taking Spinsanity to task for having the nerve to be objective and point it out when the left lies.

Dean, why don't you post what the administration DID say? We would be better able to discuss the "facts" of this argument. In my book, implying that there was an imminent threat is nearly the same. Be that as it may, this democrat always wanted to get rid of Sadaam, I'm just pissed that Clinton didn't take him out, but he would have faced the same tinfoil asshats from the GOP as Bush is facing from the wacked-left.

Dude. What do you want? How can I reprint an entire year's worth of statements for you?

Why don't you just go read the SpinSanity articles, Tim? They did the research, they give the quotes, and they conclude the simple facts: this claim never came out of the administration, period.

Do you want to state that you thought that you heard things that were not said? Then let me ask you this: did YOU ever believe that Saddam was about to launch an attack on the American homeland? I never did, and I don't believe I know anybody who did. So who the hell was "fooled?" Fooled into what? Who are these people, and where are they?

This reminds me of the ridiculous notion that "70% of Americans believe Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks," when in reality the surveys all showed the same thing: about 70% of Americans believed that was there was a possibility he might have had something to do with it--which is a radically different thing.

But you still had these goofballs running around saying, "Hey Dick Cheney said 'we don't know if Saddam had any connction to 9/11 or not,' which obviously fooled most Americans into believing that Saddam was behind 9/11!" What? How the hell does that follow?

I've said it a million times and I'll say it again: the American people are not fools, and are not sheep. So can we please just get HONEST? Can we discuss the ISSUES, and try to be fair to each other's perspective? This persnickity shit-picking over things no one ever even said drives me bonkers. Don't you get tired of it?

Dean, I read the content at SpinSanity.

And with all due respect I think you are mischaracterizing them as being definitive on the issue of "imminence."

I'd encourage everyone to read the entire set of articles at SpinSanity for yourselves and make your own judgement based on the facts as presented.

I've said it a million times and I'll say it again: the American people are not fools, and are not sheep. So can we please just get HONEST? Can we discuss the ISSUES, and try to be fair to each other's perspective? This persnickity shit-picking over things no one ever even said drives me bonkers. Don't you get tired of it?

Dude, you're preaching to the choir.

And another thing...the only person who keeps on using the words "sheep" and "American people" in the same sentence here is you.

This is all a tempest in a teapot by people who will not vote for Bush anyway. That includes you, Ara.

You want to know what most Americans think? Second of all, they heard Bush say "...we cannot wait until the threat is imminent. I will not ignore a grave and gathering threat."

But first of all, many (perhaps most, perhaps not) had a similar thought sometime in the late mornnig or afternoon of 9/11/01: "Now we are finally going to have to settle Saddam---like we should have in 1991 but wimped out on."

You Anybody But Bush folks are pushing a losing argument. What Bush has said over and over again is, "I will not allow a known threat to continue to grow. I am not willing to see any American city destroyed by someone who is a clear and self-acknowledged threat to the USA."

Your counter-argument is saying, "We want a President who will ignore a threat, and who is unwilling to protect the US, and who is willing to risk losing Boston or New York or Seattle. Who won't act unless the French and Germans and Russians give us permission to protect ourselves."

This is a damned hard argument to sell.

There is no clear border between "imminent threat" and "non-imminent threat".
This is like arguing whether he IMPLIED a "gorple threat" or "non-gorple threat"

Nobody threatens my gorple and gets away with it.

Imminent death to all gorples in the mother of all battles using Star Wars technology inspired by exposed mammary glands in the mother of all football games! And no going AWOL in the middle!

Gibberingly Yours,
Wince

hey fred:

You have no idea what I think, so just shut up and listen OK? --

I got no problem with knocking Saddam out; I'd like nothing more than blow him up with a suicide bomb belt every fucking day for the rest of his life to pay him back for all the Israelis he offed by backing that bastard thug Arafat.

What pisses me off is a President, this President, who makes decisions based on what he sees and what he hears; I think a President like that is ultimately destructive and dangerous.

This President is living in some Platonic unreality zone. I much prefer the Aristotelian world, myself.

Look it up, OK? and stop lecturing me, you pencil-neck, bug-eyed, buck-tooth goober.

But of course I mean that in a nice way.

:^)

Sounds like somebody threatened Ara's gorple.

"What pisses me off is a President, this President, who makes decisions based on what he sees and what he hears"

Personally, I always poke out my eyes and cut off my ears and replace them with other peoples' eyes and ears, so that I can see and hear what everybody else sees and hears before making a decision. Painful, but highly effective.

What threat?

Shep sort of asked my question for me. Which is, let's assume they didn't say "imminent." It's word games on either side, frankly. So taking that evil word "imminent" out of the equation, exactly what threat *did* we think Iraq posed? Exactly how would Dean Esmay characterize it? And knowing what we know now, were they any kind of threat to the United States?

Dave T.

Just for that, you have to write an 800 word essay on the difference between the Platonic and the Aristotelian perception of reality.

Smartass!

:^)

Fred:

Same question. How was Saddam a credible threat to the United States? Tell me *exactly*, since I'm sort of thick that way. How exactly was he going to destroy an American city - with some sketches on a cocktail napkin?

This stuff would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

I do wish to know why we did go to war? He claims it was still justified. There was no imminent threat, whether he claimed it or not. There were no WMD found. He did not have connections to Al Queda, and, if it was human rights, than the situation was not changed by 9-11 and the justification has no connection whatsoever that event. Many would accept that, but he was gassing his own people in the late '80's. 9-11 did nothing to change that, so if it was this, stop tying in 9-11.

To make the Middle East more safe for Democracy? Bring stability to the region, end the threat of blackmail by OPEC countries, and relieve the neighboring region to the EU of the possible dangers so close to the West?

There are arguments for this, but you cannot stop at just Iraq with this reasoning. Such a plan would take years, and the voters might not like it. There are plenty of neocons who go for this, and all of the economic, social, and political benefits that we could gain from this.

If this was it, than they should have said so, and allowed the voters to decide if it is sufficient reason for war. Some in the administration do not appear to trust the voters to make up their own minds on such matters.

Or are we now going to fall back on saying, "We were following Clinton's ideas on Iraq!" That sure is a hot recommendation. Mr. Drop a bomb whenever the polls go down is about as good a source as going to Bob Packwood for lessons on sensitivity towards women. Or having are former president teaching grade school children sex-ed.

Bush and his administration obviously thought we should have gone to war. They should learn not to be elitist and tell us why! They appear not to trust us when the reasoning changes all of the time.

There is obviously another reason. The one I mentioned I've seen in several places. It is an honorable one. They could have told us if it was. Still, if the voters do not approve, and they lose an election, that is the voters' decision!

This idea is someone else's, not Bush, but it is one that one could have argued at the time, and still could. Considering the tenacity in which Bush holds to it being justified, I presume it was not for base reasons.

Changing why it was so leaves either there was another reason he was afraid would be both necessary and unpopular or he thought certain things were true, they weren't and will not admit the administration made a mistake.

I've heard reasons for it that make some sense, but they were never argued before the war to us. You can't do something, find your reason for it was based on inaccurate info, and than look for justification later. The end does not justify the means. We still need to know why we did, not why, after the fact, we discoved the benefits of the war.

Adam writes:

How was Saddam a credible threat to the United States? ... How exactly was he going to destroy an American city - with some sketches on a cocktail napkin?

so now "threat" is a synonym for "going to destroy an American city" in your mind? *eye roll*

and we have no right whatsoever to be concerned about anything which doesn't meet that threshold. um, right?

nice try at moving those goalposts about a thousand yards back.

which American city was "destroyed" on 9/11/2001? 12/7/1941? i wonder if there have *ever* been any "threats" (by your criteria) to the US. presumably not.

Ok, here's what the folks at Spinsanity have to say:

"Those defending Bush most often point to an excerpt from the President's 2003 State of the Union speech in which he explicitly said Iraq was not an 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.'"

Sorry Dean, but Spinsanity has QUITE a spin.

"...he explicitly said Iraq was not an imminent threat..."

WTF, over? That sounds like CRAP! I don't know about you, but a "gathering storm" is a threat. A threat that WILL become imminent eventually is... oh, that depends on what your definition of "is" is.

As God said to Noah (via Bill Cosby): "RIGHT"

As Neil Bush said, "I opened the door and there were these two girls. I thought they came with the room."

Blixa:

I was just pushing back against what Fred himself said:

-----------
But first of all, many (perhaps most, perhaps not) had a similar thought sometime in the late mornnig or afternoon of 9/11/01: "Now we are finally going to have to settle Saddam---like we should have in 1991 but wimped out on."

What Bush has said over and over again is, "I will not allow a known threat to continue to grow. I am not willing to see any American city destroyed by someone who is a clear and self-acknowledged threat to the USA."
-----------

It wasn't me who equated Saddam and destroying American cities. It was Fred. It wasn't me conflating (again) Saddam and 9/11. It was Fred. And I think these are serious charges that deserve some backup. I want to know what sort of a real threat Fred thinks Saddam posed to the United States directly.

If you read Spinsanity for more than 5 minutes, you have no choice to conclude that the Bush administration is 99% full of shit. Well, at least they are consistent.

Off the subject - Are threads in Dean's World "Gay" from birth, or do they choose to turn "Gay" after the 13th post? Or maybe, they really had no choice in the matter.

Either way, deficits don't matter. Reagan proved that. "RIGHT!"

"Imminent death to all gorples in the mother of all battles using Star Wars technology inspired by exposed mammary glands in the mother of all football games! And no going AWOL in the middle!

Gibberingly Yours,
Wince"

ha! ha! ha! ha! Excellent! Best comment by far in this whole thread, and maybe any other here in Dean's World!

Tim the Soldier:
Threads have no choice, they turn Gay (or Lesbian) whenever Steven Malcolm Anderson enters. As of late, threads turn into pitched gun-battles between the gun-owners and the gunless when Arnold Harris of Mt. Horeb, WI, enters.

Six Degrees of a Dean's World Thread:

Example number 1:

1. Bush was AWOL
2. Kerry was in Vietnam
3. Kerry is from MA
4. MA - gay marriage

Made it in 4!

Example number 2:

1. New web browser
2. Kerry was in Vietnam
3. Clinton sucks
4. No, Monica really sucks
5. Sucking?? Sodomy laws
6. Consenting gay adults

Example number 3:

1. Imminent threat
2. No imminent threat
3. Kerry confused (and in Vietnam)
4. Bush not in Vietnam (in Alabama)
5. Alabama: pro: 10 commandments
con: anything gay

A threat against any of America's embassies, ships, civilians abroad, etc... are considered an attack on America. It doesn't only mean flying a plane into an American building or dropping a bomb on a city.

The argument that no action was done by America pre 9/11 in response to acts of cruelty and terrorism also doesn't hold water. The perspective of America changed after 9/11. The reality that terrorists were willing to be so bold on our soil made all the difference. The threat of WMDs being used against us was much more serious. The fight was taken where the fight could be taken... Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghanistan for obvious reasons. Iraq for different reasons. Yes, Iraq was weak and Saddam was a bad dude, but the benefits of getting a democratic government that could eventually be friendly to the US established was too good to pass up. It served the purpose of regime change and was also a "message war". The message to Iran, Syria, N Korea, Lybia, etc... was Don't FUCK With Us, and We're Taking The Fight To YOU. Right or wrong... whatever... that's what's happening.

Obviously I should have said "A threat against any of America's embassies, ships, civilians abroad, etc... are considered a THREAT to America." instead of "A threat against any of America's embassies, ships, civilians abroad, etc... are considered AN ATTACK on America."

sorry