Did the Bush Administration mislead America on the "Imminent Threat" of Hussein?

[DjTj]

And how do you know? It is easy to look back right now and say that it was not a threat but Saddam could have bombed a U.S. city and Bush would get all the blame for not going into Iraq.

The point is that he couldn't have bombed a U.S. city ... how would he have done it? With a fleet of gliders that would cross the Atlantic ocean? Would an Iraqi have swam across the ocean?

There are countries with actual ICBM's that posed a much more imminent threat. There are terrorist organizations that posed a much more imminent threat, including the one group that successfully attacked the U.S. on 9/11.

Do you know who you are talking about. Yes those other countries are, for the most part threats too, but we are talking about Saddam Hussein. The man who hates America about as much as someone can. The man who put his own people through human shredders because they protested. How can you tell me that he was not a threat and that everyone was wrong about going into Iraq.

I'm not going to argue with you about Saddam's credentials as a terrorist and a despot. In fact, I might even agree that it was getting to be high time we tried to oust him from power. However, I believe it could have been done over time, and it could have been done without misleading the American people into thinking that he was an imminent threat.

Saddam was not an imminent threat; he was a long-term threat - a dictator that hated America in an area of the world where Al Qaeda and Islamists have a lot of influence. We had to contain him, and we eventually would have to remove him from power, but we did not need to do it on the rapid timetable we chose ... we could have had a much easier transition in Iraq if we had taken more time.

The question is "Did the Bush Administration mislead America on the "Imminent Threat" of Hussein and the answer is clearly NO the Bush Administration did not mislead America. That was the intelligence. The same intelligence that your Kerry agreed on as well as Bill Clinton and many other libs. Anyone who looks at the facts can realize the truth and the fact that so many people in this country are determined to disagree with whatever Bush does and whatever the Republican party does even though it is right.

The whole liberal media and Democrat party would be charged with treason if it was up to me.

Hey, don't call him MY Kerry ... you might be infatuated with your candidate, but I don't claim any ownership of John Kerry. And good luck with the whole treason thing ...

I'm conceding to you that Saddam had WMD's. Kerry thought so. Clinton though so ... most other countries thought so. It's just that it turns out that a lot of the intelligence we relied on is shaky, and it is clear that even if Saddam did have WMD's, he was not a credible threat to the United States. I really don't think that can be disputed at this point.

I am also pretty willing to believe that Bush did not intentionally mislead us. He most likely actually did believe that Saddam was an imminent threat and the most dangerous person on the planet - Saddam tried to kill his father, after all. That still doesn't change the fact that in reality, Saddam was not an imminent threat. Just because everybody else jumped off the bridge doesn't make it okay, if just means that we're all wet now.

[luckydevil]

When Clinton lied, no one died.

That's not true.

(See 1993, 1996, 1998, air strikes)

If we ever want a real investigation, we better damn start with Clinton and Co. The Democratic Party is largely to blame for laying the groundwork for the Bush administration to justify intervention in Iraq.

[dreamingwolf]

That's not true.

(See 1993, 1996, 1998, air strikes)

If we ever want a real investigation, we better damn start with Clinton and Co. The Democratic Party is largely to blame for laying the groundwork for the Bush administration to justify intervention in Iraq.

your barking up the wrong tree with him, his political enemy is in power so only the other guy does wrong. He will justify that action to all ends. Of course you would hate me too, cause I didnt try to upset that action. Im a jingoist I guess, cause I always support our efforts till they are finished regardless of how I hold my nose while its going on.

[Thiebear]

Aren't we supposed to question the authority on stuff we believe in? Chom is stating what he believes and I respect that and lean his way anyway but regardless I respect the opposing views of ThieBear,Spiffer, and others but not when they equated him with people at Shady Pines and obsessed freaks who don't move on. If you have a passion for something and there are others that share your same point of view should you give it up to join others? Thats like telling a Skins fan here to become a boys fan when they were winning bowls in the 90s.....you can't change your believes because of adversity. I respect all opinions here, extreme or not and regardless if I agree unless its some troll mouthing off. Lets not order the white coat for Chom yet...at least he posts articles and documents released and doesn't give the stock "well politicians do that" or "well clinton did that" or my favorite after denials for 3 years: "this is old news". Big ups to all.

The difference being: We root for the skins and want them to win and the cowboys to lose.. Do you really want the President to lose what he is doing?

Because with this WE are members of the team we are rooting against?

Try a different analogy.

How about this: A poster says Bush lied because this piece of intelligence or that piece says different. At that point I can say the poster lied because I can show 7 reports that says that Bush didnt lie. And if the poster continues to say otherwise while ignoring the rebuttles, then it becomes an agenda and not a search for the truth.

Destroy my first links worth of sources and then we can talk... really talk... not just get happy everytime something bad "may" happen.

[Chief skin]

This democracy is only as strong as it is because the people, we the people question, debate the issues that face our nation, and we need reliable information to make our decisions. Now if an administration decides premeditates a scenario in which the leader of another country "has to go" and uses disinformation, and cherry picks bits and pieces of intelligence to bolster its case to topple a leader we are indeed a weaker Nation because of it.

[LegionOfDoom]

The real question is what will be done with the situation when that Moron of a President is out of office.....There is a lot of crap to clean up in that office...

[twa]

I have not voted yet, trying to decide if by misled you mean lied and still have not found where Bush said "imminent threat"

it is discussed here:

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031103.html

Wording in polls affect the outcome of course...not that ANYONE here is biased.

[JacktheMack]

The point is that he couldn't have bombed a U.S. city ... how would he have done it? With a fleet of gliders that would cross the Atlantic ocean? Would an Iraqi have swam across the ocean?

There are countries with actual ICBM's that posed a much more imminent threat. There are terrorist organizations that posed a much more imminent threat, including the one group that successfully attacked the U.S. on 9/11.

And where do you think these terrorists come from? Why do you think Iraq is full of terrorists trying to stop what we are doing? Because Iraq and Saddam Hussein were harboring terrorists. I'm guessing you didn't hear this on your liberal stations but on FOX News they showed a letter intercepted from a leading terrorist who wrote that the future for the terrorists was frightning and that they had to react and stop the Americans at all costs. Iraq was our biggest threat, you just have to look at the facts and open your mind to all sides. All I keep hearing from you is what I hear Bush-hating news stations say all the time. Don't believe everything you hear.

I'm not going to argue with you about Saddam's credentials as a terrorist and a despot. In fact, I might even agree that it was getting to be high time we tried to oust him from power. However, I believe it could have been done over time, and it could have been done without misleading the American people into thinking that he was an imminent threat.

So you wanted us to take a longer time in taking out Saddam Hussein? Last time I checked, we got him, and no matter when we got him, the result would be the same. War. I thought you just got through telling me that Bush did not mislead the American people and that everyone was wrong.

I'm conceding to you that Saddam had WMD's. Kerry thought so. Clinton though so ... most other countries thought so. It's just that it turns out that a lot of the intelligence we relied on is shaky, and it is clear that even if Saddam did have WMD's, he was not a credible threat to the United States. I really don't think that can be disputed at this point.

You just changed your opinions within a few sentences. You know that Bush did not mislead America, you, just like all of the other libs out there, just don't want to admit it.

[Kilmer17]

I am confident in one thing.

IF Saddam had the opportunity to give a chemical bomb to a terrorist to blow up a subway in the US, he would have done so.

This war was NEVER solely about imminent threats or WMDs. It was about those, plus potential future involvement, plus taking out a leader who openly and actively supported terrorist groups (remember that Al Queda is not ht eonly terror group in the world).

Bush was clear after 9/11 and in the SCOTUS that we were changing the way we fought this war. At the time, most Americans and most in Congress understood that. It's a shame people have such short memories.

[Art Monk Fan]

The truth of this matter is so apparent, that the continued debate borders on the absurd.

The Clinton administartion and the U.S. Congress at the time made it official U.S. policy to seek regime change in Iraq. When President Bush took office, he inherited this policy and did not change it.

Following the attacks of 9/11, the Bush administration did a world-wide threat assessment and identified three major threats at the nation-state level (the so-called axis of evil). Of the three, Iraq was the one in which an obvious line of action was available, i.e. enforcing the terms of the Gulf War cease-fire. If it appears that the Bush administration took office determined to force regime change in Iraq, that's because they did -- it was official U.S. policy even before the election.

As to the pre-war intelligence, the preponderance of evidence and the accepted threat assessments of every single world-wide intelligence agency aggreed that Hussein had WMD, was seeking more WMD and was a threat to his own people, his nieghbors and the world. The discovery, after the fact, of contrary assesments of isolated bit of intell does not alter this fact. Every single intelligence agancy got the overall assessment wrong; there is no doubt of that. The fact that they got it wrong, by definition, means that we will now find contrary evidence and/or evidence that was incorrectly assessed. This does not make a liar of anyone it simply means they were all wrong -- which we already know.

What is happening now is a disgrace. No one lied, no one misled -- everyone was wrong. If you dig you will find plenty of evidence that Hussein had no WMD, because that is the fact of the matter, and we missed it. If you dig, you will find assessments that contradict the overall threat assessment, because our intelligence folks are smart, hard-working people and were bound to get parts of it right, even if they messed up the overall assessment. Finding evidence of the truth in the raw intell and in the minority opinions in our intelligence agencies should be expected, it is the truth after all.

The truth regarding pre-war intell is right before us all. Everyone got the threat assessment wrong. The President acted in the best interest of the country based on this incorrect assessment and many of his opponenets agreed with him at the time. It is human nature to want a fall-guy for this massive intell failure. It would make us all feel better (and safer) to know that the intelligence community was right about Iraq and the administration fabricated a reason for war. But the real danger to the U.S. lies in the fact that the intelligence community wasnt right about Iraq and we need to fix what's wrong, and fast!

Did the President use what he felt were the strongest and most persuasive elements of the intell to make the case for war? Why, yes he did. But how else do you construct an argument? Is it "cherry-picking," or simply marshalling your strongest and most compelling evidence to make a persuasive argument? I think the latter. :2cents:

[LegionOfDoom]

The Clinton administartion and the U.S. Congress at the time made it official U.S. policy to seek regime change in Iraq. When President Bush took office, he inherited this policy and did not change it.

Where is this info located....indulge me please to backup that statement....

Following the attacks of 9/11, the Bush administration did a world-wide threat assessment and identified three major threats at the nation-state level (the so-called axis of evil). Of the three, Iraq was the one in which an obvious line of action was available, i.e. enforcing the terms of the Gulf War cease-fire. If it appears that the Bush administration took office determined to force regime change in Iraq, that's because they did -- it was official U.S. policy even before the election.

Someone should do a world-wide threat assesment on how our policy is tearing our planet up.

[chomerics]

The amount of misinformation in this thread is completely astounding, and the mad propaganda is flying like there is no tomorrow. Here are a few points I would like to make. . .

The only reason liberals bash FOX NEWS is because it is one of the only fair, balanced, non-liberal controlled news stations in America. Try watching it. I guarantee you will see things the way they really are.

This was the first thing you said when entering this thread. . not a good way to get people to believe your opinion. :doh: I recon that a fair number of conservative posters here would even say that Fox News is anything but "Fair and Balanced"

As for your other arguments, I will pick out some of the "strange" opinions you have stated. . .

In case you all did not know 80% of the media are liberals.

I have never been so ashamed or mad at the Democrats but they have become a corrupt party feeding off of controversy and lies just to put them in office again in '08.

The intelligence was clear.

There were weapons of mass destruction.

Notice how when Bill Clinton lied under oath, he was not impeached, he was mainly made fun of.

Why do you think Iraq is full of terrorists trying to stop what we are doing? Because Iraq and Saddam Hussein were harboring terrorists.

to mention a few. . .

TWA, spinsanity is a RW propaganda station that is wrong. . . from your link. . .

Furthermore, these Bush administration defenders accurately point out that neither President Bush nor any of his aides ever outright described Iraq as an "imminent threat."

Here are their OWN WORDS on the so-called "imminent threat"

"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 States in Iraq."

• President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."

• President Bush, 10/28/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."

• President Bush, 10/16/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."

• President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."

• President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."

• President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."

• President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."

• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."

• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."

• Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02

source

So to say that NOBODY EVER said the words Imminent threat, isn't exactly telling the truth now is it.

[wskin44]

I would pose the question a little differently: Has the Bush Administration been honest in it's assessments of Iraq, both pre-invasion and post-invasion? I do not believe that they have been honest.

I don't believe that typical Washington spin is honorable in a situation that threatens American lives. And yet the Bush Administration continues to use communications tactics that are less than honest in spite of the fact that more of our bravest people are dying each day. For example:

Spin Rule #1: When your critics start to get the attention of the American public, divert attention from their message by attacking them personally. The accuracy of the attacks doesn't matter. Here is a fact: The President and the President alone is the employer of the CIA, the DIA and the NSA. They are employed or fired at his pleasure, they answer to him, he is their Commander in Chief. A United States Senator cannot demand that any of these agencies provide any piece of information or raw data or assessment of a situation directly to the Senate. Everything that the Senate gets is channeled through the political filters of what the President wants them to hear.

And yet the mantra of the Administration's counterattack on it's critics this week says: "The Democratic critics of the war who voted in favor of the war had the same the intelligence information that the President had". This is not true. The Senate got conclusive summaries that were coupled with strong recommendations to invade and intense public pressure to assent to the President's wishes. The Senate was not allowed to see the raw information and was not allowed to hear the dissenting intelligence interpretations of what the data meant. They were told that the judgement of both the intelligence community and the Defense establishment was that our only course was to invade. Dissenting professional opinions never were allowed to be aired.

And yet the Administration mantra that the Senate had the same information goes on each day, even though it is not true. But truth isn't an issue to this Administration, even though more soldiers died today.

[twa]

Chom in your impressive list of quotes I see none from Bush stating "imminent threat" as the poll states.

My post:

I have not voted yet, trying to decide if by misled you mean lied and still have not found where Bush said "imminent threat"

Your reply:

So to say they NOBODY EVER said the words Imminent threat, isn't exactly telling the truth now is it.

Seems the misinformation and propaganda is catching :laugh:

[chomerics]

Chom in your impressive list of quotes I see none from Bush stating "imminent threat" as the poll states.

No, but it directly contridicts the website whish stated that Bush or his ADMINISTRATION said the words "immediate threat"

This debate is not about language either, the difference between "immediate threat", "grave threat" and such is just to muddy the water. You know and I know exactly what they meant, and I used their own words to show you. Bush himself may have not said those EXACT words, but that does not mean that his administration didn't, nor does it mean that wasn't the impression they were trying to give . . . it was.

My post:

I have not voted yet, trying to decide if by misled you mean lied and still have not found where Bush said "imminent threat"

Your reply:

So to say they NOBODY EVER said the words Imminent threat, isn't exactly telling the truth now is it.

Seems the misinformation and propaganda is catching :laugh:

If you want to hold your standard to this, then go right ahead. . . but both you and I know exactly what was said and what was implied. The words "imminent threat" were put in quotations for exactly that reason, because it is a defense used by many. . . quite a bad defense if you ask me. It's like saying that I'm wrong because I said the he murdered her with a Glock instead of a Colt. . . it doesn't change the facts surrounding the case at all.

[Kilmer17]

Of course the waters get muddied with the premise that the ONLY reason we went to war was because of said "imminent threat". When the reality is that WMDs were simply a part of the reason.

But I digress......

[twa]

My post was reguarding the wording of the poll and how wording affects outcome,which I am sure you will agree with.

One of the reasons I detest polls.

[Art Monk Fan]

This debate is not about language either, the difference between "immediate threat", "grave threat" and such is just to muddy the water. You know and I know exactly what they meant, and I used their own words to show you. Bush himself may have not said those EXACT words, but that does not mean that his administration didn't, nor does it mean that wasn't the impression they were trying to give . . . it was.

Chom,

The problem with your argument is the fact that Bush specifically argued that we couldn't afford to wait for the imminence of the threat, post 9-11. Inherent in that line of argument is the understanding that the threat is not at that time imminent, though it may still be a grave and serious future threat.

Pardon me for expecting words to convey their actual meanings, I'm not from the party that has situational definitions of "is."

[Underwater Ally]

When the whole story is laid out there.... both from the right and the left and coupled with coinciding evidence.... the answer is.... who knows? I know as far as I'm concerned.... I'd prefer my brave GIs putting bullets in their brains over there, every terrorist that cares to step into the bullring that is Iraq, than fight them over here. If Iraq is a attracting the young and disillusioned islamofacists than I'm all for killing them by the thousands with the good ole' US military.

Of course, the Dems don't want the whole story told.... they want only to cherry pick what they believe are the points of contention. Never mind that a bipartisan panel concluded that the Bush Administration did not steer intelligence agencies to manufacturer evidence. Never mind that the Dem leadership themselves are quoted as believing Hussein had reconstituted his weapons programs. You see... the Dems don't want THAT part of the story told.... and the National Media is doing a good job keeping THAT EVIDENCE under wraps and away from those people still dumb enough to get their news from the big three Nightly News circus acts.

You my friend, have it figured out. :applause:

[codeorama]

Colin Powell went on TV and said Iraq was an immediate threat an that we needed to strike ASAP for fear of ________.

Powell works for Bush.

Yes, we were mislead.

Peroid.

It's not that hard.

The ONLY real question is were we mislead on purpose or is the Bush admin just incompetant.

[smr2501]

What was the danger again...you are at war for what again... Chimical weapon.... you how they knew they had it... They sold it to them 20 yrs ago

[smr2501]

Dont get me wrong we are all happy that Saddam is out of power... but do you have to invaded a country and lost how many lives doing so...

[Underwater Ally]

Colin Powell went on TV and said Iraq was an immediate threat an that we needed to strike ASAP for fear of ________.

Powell works for Bush.

Yes, we were mislead.

Peroid.

It's not that hard.

The ONLY real question is were we mislead on purpose or is the Bush admin just incompetant.

Or was Bush himself convinced, after looking at the evidence available, that the threat was imminent and needed to be delt with immediately? I tend to think he was. Does that amount to a lie?

For purely political reasons, the Democrats are saying it does. Thats what pisses me off so much about all of this. We spend all this time launching partisan attacks filled with half-truths, and we spend little to no time talking about defeating the enemy. If the Democrats believe that they have a better plan for defeating the terrorists and winning the war on terror, by all means, let them make their case. But I fail to see how obsessing over a past that can't be changed helps anything, especially when I don't hear any Democrats talking about the necessity of defeating Bin Laden or Zarqawi, only the necessity of defeating Republicans.

:doh:

[Kilmer17]

Dont get me wrong we are all happy that Saddam is out of power... but do you have to invaded a country and lost how many lives doing so...

I tend to agree with this. We didnt HAVE to invade. In fact, Id have preffered simply bombing the everliving snot out of Iraq for a century or two.

But care to guess who would have complained then?

[chomerics]

Or was Bush himself convinced, after looking at the evidence available, that the threat was imminent and needed to be delt with immediately? I tend to think he was. Does that amount to a lie?

The problem is that any and all evidence which didn't corroberate what they wanted others to see was squelched. They eliminated any opposing opinion from all intel estimates. . . this is what they are being called on,

For purely political reasons, the Democrats are saying it does. Thats what pisses me off so much about all of this.

For purely political reasons??? Did you ever think their ideas are what they believe is BEST for our country??? Just because Bush puts his ideology in front of everything does not mean that others do.

We spend all this time launching partisan attacks filled with half-truths, and we spend little to no time talking about defeating the enemy.

Do you mean like the focus of Bush and Cheney for the past 5 years? I don't know about you, but if it was me, I would be firing the people who gave me bad intel, I would not start a fight with the people who want answers.

If the Democrats believe that they have a better plan for defeating the terrorists and winning the war on terror, by all means, let them make their case. But I fail to see how obsessing over a past that can't be changed helps anything, especially when I don't hear any Democrats talking about the necessity of defeating Bin Laden or Zarqawi, only the necessity of defeating Republicans.

:doh:

You really don't follow Washington much do you? the dems have had plans for everything, but the republicans have not let the plans approach the floor for a vote. It is politics, but to say they have no plan, and they are not making their case, well then that's completely misguided by what actually happens.