OK, John, you win. It seems Fox’s search function doesn’t work worth a damn for me.
In his december interview with Diane Sawyer, the president had this to say:
here
So weapons and weapons programs are officially indistinguishable. I expect that soon a highly placed administration official will inform us all that weapons programs, and doodles on scratchpads are also officially indistinguishable.
Actually, I was in church today. I went to a memorial for a fella who has/had one of those names that’s like Mike Hunt. It sounds funnny when you say it.
Have you checked anywhere for an instances of the Bush Admin doing any of these things?
Not to beat a dead horse, but I hope that now you will at least question the received wisdom in some quarters that FOX News is hopelessly biased in favor or Bush, even if you don’t fully divest yourself of that idea.
So if Bush didn’t present Iraq as an imminent threat, the war was somehow justified? Huh-wa?
Me? I was poking fun. Not the insect-sized font face I posted in – it always denotes humor.
But, honestly – I was curious how the Fox spin might differ from others’, and I was darned if I could find hide-nor-hair of the story on FoxNews.com. As I said, thier search function sucks.
Previous post was directed at John Mace.
Ahem - “note the insect-sized font etcetc.”
Sorry I missed the humor aspect.
BTW, I never used the search function. I just went right to their home page and followed the links. It took me 3 seconds.
Your computer must be one them thar liberal biased ones, that screws up right-thinking web sites.
Adaher
That is probably the scariest thing I have read on this site
Damn should have previewed that should have read
Can you also then explain the legal authority the decision to go to war had, in international law, if the threat was indeed classed and recognised as “not imminent”?
There wasn’t any. And I could care less.
Clinton was the president when we launched this invasion? Well, blow me down. All this time, I thought that GWB was the prez in 2003. Derned, sneaky Clinton. :rolleyes:
I thought that Hussein had banned weapons too. Still doesn’t mean taht we should’ve mounted a huge invasion the way that we did.
Paraphrased from another board:
And the assessment of the CIA that Hussein was very unlikely to give any NBC weapons to terrorists UNLESS we invaded. Invading Iraq increased the likelihood of Hussein giving whatever banned weapons he may’ve had to terrorists.
With gratitude from Tom Tomorrow, by way of Kos:
NOW
“I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection” between Iraq and al Qaida.
- Secretary of State Colin Powell, 1/9/04
THEN
“I want to bring to your attention today [to] the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network…al-Qaida affiliates based in Baghdad now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for Saddam’s network, and they have now been operating freely in [Baghdad].”
- Secretary of State Colin Powell, 2/5/03
If he hasn’t seen any by now, necessarily, that means he hadn’t seen any at the time he made these remarks. There is most likely a more diplomatic term, but I’m too lazy for a theasaurus right now, I’ll just stick with “lying”.
Mr. Secretary, it is with considerable regret and disappointment that I come to this conclusion: you are a whore, sir. I am not sure by which coin you were corrupted, if I had to guess, I’d guess “ambition”. You have disgraced yourself and the nation you were sworn to serve. And in so doing, cooperated in the death and injury of unknown thousands of innocents.
Resign. Today. Pass the document across the appropriate desk, and then pick up the phone. 60 Minutes, perhaps. (They will open up thier schedule, I have no doubt…) Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but. “Hero” is forever beyond your reach. But by this time next week, you could once again claim “honorable”.
Fair enough, and a reasonable position.
What I find unreasonable are the assertions made by many that this administration knew Saddam did not have active weapons systems and knowingly lied.
In order to believe that, one must also conclude that Clinton and all his top people were in on the lie, as well as most Democratic members of Congress and most leaders of other countries. That everyone seems to have been wrong is an indictment of how weak our “human intelligence” gathering has gotten over the last 20+ years. But of course phrasing it that way makes it the fault of both parties and several presidents, and we can’t have that.
’Luci, stop playing dumb. You are NOT so bereft of cognitive skills that you actually think that those two statements logically contradict.
lowers the Powell honor flag to half-staff
Wha? I guess I am that dumb… could you explain please how the second statement does not discredit the earlier statement?
And btw, the common assertion I’ve seen (and made) is that the Bush administration knowingly lied when they said the had positive proof of active weapons and terrorist connections.
furt, I think the point is that Clinton recognized just how fuzzy the intelligence on Saddam’s weapons systems was and because of that declined to take it to war, whereas the Bush administration was apparently so champing at the bit to get Saddam that they were perfectly willing to ignore the fuzz factor.
The lie was not in stating something they knew to be false, the lie was in stating a certainty they did not have. They said they “knew”, in no uncertain terms. They did not. They lied.
** I certainly can. I haven’t the least qualm about it. If Clinton deserves a share of the blame, so be it. But the Commander in Chief’s signature on the order is not his.
At the risk of losing your generous regard, I must insist that I do think so. The first statement denies solid, concrete evidence. The second statement asserts certainty. There are no qualifiers, no “trap-door” prevarications, he stated the connection between Iraq and al-Queda baldly and flatly.
If you think you can demonstrate otherwise, you are entirely a liberty to do so. Beyond suggesting that your humble e. displays willful ignorance, you have made no such effort.
For a refresher as to what Secty Powell presented to the UN:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/17300.htm
He certainly seems convinced of the al-Queda/Iraq connection in the body of the presentation.