seattle.politics

Lobby Dosser < @ > wrote:

> usenet@ (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
>
> > Al < @ > wrote:
> >
> >> In article < %usenet@ >,
> >> usenet@ (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> >>
> >> > Al < @ > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > In article <3f76f31g2mi53qv6vi7ibt5dnngls45rps@ >, Don
> >> > > Homuth < > wrote:
> >> > > > On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 20:23:57 -0500, Al
> >> > > > < @ > wrote:
> >> > [..]
> >> > > > >Not to mention the rhetoric of the "Imminent threat", quite a
> >> > > > >bit of that too.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > It wasn't rhetoric. The decision to go to war had already been
> >> > > > made.
> >> > >
> >> > > I refer to the democrats.
> >> > >
> >> > > Bush did not use the term "imminent threat".
> >> >
> >> > < /issues/kfiles/ >
> >>
> >> Your list proves my point, not a single use of the term by Bush.
> >
> > However, as you'll note at the above-cited link, Bush used similar
> > terms quite frequently, to describe a threat from Iraq that was
> > imminent. Bush didn't say 'imminent threat,' but he said that the
> > threat was imminent.
>
> BEEPBEEPB

I'm not backing away from anything. I provided a cite, and like the cite
says, and like I said below, while it's true Bush never said those exact
words, it's clear that he was saying the threat was imminent.


> > It's similar to the way Bush & co managed to use 'Saddam' and '9/11' in
> > close proximity all the time without actually saying that Saddam was
> > responsible for 9/11. All while managing to imply exactly that.
>
> The audience hears what they want.

No, the audience heard what the Bush administration wanted them to hear.
That's why 69% of Americans believed Iraq was connected to 9/11.

> > The message discipline was quite an astonishing thing to behold. They
> > worked really, really hard to sell you the war, and it seems to have
> > worked.
>
> You fucking idiot, we are Already There.

Like I said: It seems to have worked. What the fuck is wrong with you?

> >> Hmmmm...
> >>
> >> But here are the "imminent threat" quotes in that long list:
> >>
> >> "Absolutely."
> >> * White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an
> >> "imminent threat," 5/7/03
> >>
> >> "This is about imminent threat."
> >> * White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
> >>
> >>
> >> If you compare the linked list of quotes, you'll note that they are
> >> right in line with the sentiments expressed by the previous
> >> administration, which commonly used the cited term.
> >
> > Yeah, because, see, during the Clinton years, Saddam *was* more of an
> > imminent threat, but *Clinton bombed the shit out of Iraq,* meaning it
> > *ceased to be a threat.*
>
> No, it did not.

Sure it did. Subsequent invasions and searches for WMD and non-existant
connections between Saddam and terrorism have proved that.

> And Clinton never said it ceased to be a threat.

I never claimed he did. I claimed Iraq was not a threat, imminent or
otherwise, which is true: Iraq was not a threat to the US.


> > Funny how that works, isn't it? Clinton removed the threat without
> > going to war. Iraq was no longer a threat when Bush subsequently came
> > to power.
>
> WRONG!

Nope. Not wrong at all. Iraq was not a threat to the US. Al's argument
here is preface on this fact: He says Bush never called Iraq an imminent
threat. Well? Was Iraq an imminent threat? Was Bush wrong? *Should* Bush
have called Iraq an imminent threat?


> >> Which makes the "Bush made it up" propaganda a little hard to support.
> >
> > I just did exactly that. You can quit calling it propaganda now. It's
> > actually true.
>
> No, you spun the same old shit you've been spinning for four fucking
> years. It does not make a damned bit of difference and will not change the
> fact that we are There NOW. Don't you Ever get tired of it?

If you don't want to have your ass handed to you any more, just stop
talking about it, Lobby.

--
/cartoons/2007/