[Changleen]

May 2nd 2003:

August 12th 2004:

Bush: I know how to win Iraq war

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- President Bush on Wednesday declared, "I know what I'm doing when it comes to winning this war," in rebutting John Kerry's criticism of administration policy on Iraq.

Bush used a re-election rally to reject the Democratic challenger's proposal to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within six months of taking office.

"We all want the mission to be completed as quickly as possible. But we want the mission completed," Bush said. "The mission is not going to be completed as quickly as possible if the enemy thinks we will be removing a substantial number of troops in six months."

You mean the mission is not accomplished?

Military commanders should be deciding troop levels, he said.

"I know what I'm doing when it comes to winning this war, and I'm not going to be sending mixed signals," Bush said.

Kerry spokesman Phil Singer said Bush would "say or do anything to avoid a discussion about his failed policy in Iraq."

"One thing we know for sure is that the troops are going to be in Iraq for a lot longer under George Bush than they will be with John Kerry as president," Singer said.

Classic. Bush knows what he's doing guys, you can all relax. Isn't this exactly what you Republican guys wanted? A president who is firm - makes a statement and sticks to it. A decisive leader, as I think someone said. Well done George, you wanker.

 

[Changleen]

N8, see if you can get through this thread without mentioning Swift boats or Vietnam. A little challenge from me to you.

 

[fluff]

N8, see if you can get through this thread without mentioning Swift boats or Vietnam. A little challenge from me to you.

You left him Clinton (Bill & Hillary), Reagan, the Democratic Press... the list of N8 irrelevancies is endless.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Mission Accomplished is a reference to the removal of Saddam from power in Iraq.

Current operations call for the US to assist the new Iraqi government to bring stability to ALL reqions of the country.

The Al_Q's are obliged to battle allied forces in theater thereby draining much of their money and manpower that would otherwise be taking their deadly terrorist message to Europe and the US...

Yeah, it's taking longer to get the Iraqi government up and running but, hey, we still have troops in Kosovo and S. Korea.

Edit: On the other hand Kerry has no Iraq plan. A lot of people ask him but he's got no answers. No plan, no definitive course of action, nada... he's the perfect Arnold Rimmer* candidate...


Kerry is a smeghead



*BBC's Red Dwarf reference

 

[fluff]

Mission Accomplished is a reference to the removal of Saddam from power in Iraq.

If that really was the case it would be a pretty dumb-ass mission strategy to remove someone from power without thinking about filling the resultant power vacuum. Ever hear the one about the devil you know?

Moqtada Al-Sadr is nothing to do with Al-Qaeda.

Bush is a closer analogy to Rimmer than Kerry...

 

[RhinofromWA]

Yeah I have to agree with N8....(damn you all for helping me pick sides)

"mission accomplished" was in regard to the removal of Saddam from power. I knew that when he said it.

Apperantly people who hate him took it literally and thought we would just pack up and go home....no more work to be done. WHO ARE THE FREAKING INDEPENDENT THINKERS SUPPOSED TO BE? neaky: Typical fodder for anti-Bush people...nothing new. *crying out* Bush said we accomplished our mission!*sobbing into there hemp wearing neighbors* He Lied to us! *peeing themselves* He is the Devil!

I would think people who pride themselves with being rational thinkers and independent from following the party line could think past a momment on a carrier anda shiny banner (they must get distracted by shiny things....) and see that there was more work to do.

I guess that is to much to ask from Anti-Bush crowd.

Really this is kinda dumb if you ask me. Looks like a strike against the Anti-B's to me. But to their own group it is a ralley cry (and I mean cry)

There are other subjects you can bring up but to make one because you have a nice photo of the moment is pretty petty.

Shame on you Dem/Lib/Anti-B's

 

[LordOpie]

There are other subjects you can bring up but to make one because you have a nice photo of the moment is pretty petty.

Shame on you Dem/Lib/Anti-B's

You isolate dem/lib like repugnicans don't do it too

 

[Slugman]

Mission Accomplished is a reference to the removal of Saddam from power in Iraq.

Without actually capturing the man (at that time Saddam was still out there living in holes...)...

 

[LordOpie]

Without actually capturing the man (at that time Saddam was still out there living in holes...)...

STFU! Don't use facts like they're some kind of side dish. Tow the party line and all that. Stop confusing the issue with, umm, facts and uhh stuff.

 

[RhinofromWA]

You isolate dem/lib like repugnicans don't do it too

NO doubt... but remember the Stuff is always sleazier (grass is always greener)

But in this case it isn't the Repug's, is it? Alteast not that I can see....I said there is other crap they could hash over.

There are other subjects you can bring up but to make one because you have a nice photo of the moment is pretty petty.

 

[Slugman]

Yeah I have to agree with N8....(damn you all for helping me pick sides)

Your typically on his side, you just use intelligence where he uses rhetoric...

"mission accomplished" was in regard to the removal of Saddam from power. I knew that when he said it.

Actually I thoght he said that major combat was over...

So aparently the only mission he had in mind getting rid of Saddam, now how is that not short sighted? Clear out the leader and claim victory while people are still fighting... oh yeah, there is a leader with vision.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Without actually capturing the man (at that time Saddam was still out there living in holes...)...

Living in holes....not operating as ruler of Iraq.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Your typically on his side, you just use intelligence where he uses rhetoric...

So does that make me a good guy and N8 confused?

Actually I thought he said that major combat was over...

So aparently the only mission he had in mind getting rid of Saddam, now how is that not short sighted? Clear out the leader and claim victory while people are still fighting... oh yeah, there is a leader with vision.

I stand corrected, and Bush stands on a correct statement. ( That is kind of like me saying a decade and somone else sayign it was 12 years. That is really your point to argue? )

Now which one are you confused over the most? The change in military stance? The focus on major combat to cleanup and searching out Saddams hole int eh ground?

The fact that wishfully ignorant people (not always a bad thing) thought that it would be candy canes and gum drops from then on out?

Still hung up on a something that simply was taken incorrectly by people who couldn't see past the picture.....sad really.

 

[Slugman]

So does that make me a good guy and N8 confused?

No... you're both still evil and misguided, but at least you seem to have indepencant thoughts.

 

[Slugman]

But back on topic... sounds like Bush is FLIP FLOPPING on his original statement... :nuts:

 

[RhinofromWA]

No... you're both still evil and misguided, but at least you seem to have indepencant thoughts.

Yeah me and my damn indepen"cant" thoughts......

was that a missspelling or are you making fun of me?

I am not seeing the flip-flop in the two quotes.....if you mean the picture/carrier time and the quotes then you need to ask yourself what...

"Mission" meant in each occasion.

If they are the same "mission" rolleyes: ) then you have to ask your self if it was a flip-flop or a reassessment?

If they are different missions. 1 to remove Saddam from power and the other as the rebuild and turn over of Iraq than I would say it isn't really a flip-flop, but more like a "flop".

 

[Slugman]

Yeah me and my damn indepen"cant" thoughts......

was that a missspelling or are you making fun of me?

Actually it was unintentional... but it works!

I am not seeing the flip-flop in the two quotes.....if you mean the picture/carrier time and the quotes then you need to ask yourself what...

"Mission" meant in each occasion.

If they are the same "mission" rolleyes: ) then you have to ask your self if it was a flip-flop or a reassessment?

If they are different missions. 1 to remove Saddam from power and the other as the rebuild and turn over of Iraq than I would say it isn't really a flip-flop, but more like a "flop".

Excellent point... and just what I was looking for. So how is this different than John Kerry Changing his mind after "reassessment". If the repubs are going to Judge someone with a certain criteria, they better be ready to be judged by that same criteria....

 

[N8 v2.0]

Bush has never deviated from his vision of defending America against all threats. He states what he is going to do and the does it. No flip-flopping depending how the fickle wind of public opinion blows. Our enemies clearly know where they stand with the leadership of Pres Bush.

Leadership... its a concept most liberals can't comprehend. They often confuse Management for Leadership. The two are not the same.

 

[fluff]

Bush has never deviated from his vision of defending America against all threats. He states what he is going to do and the does it. No flip-flopping depending how the fickle wind of public opinion blows. Our enemies clearly know where they stand with the leadership of Pres Bush.

Leadership... its a concept most liberals can't comprehend. They often confuse Management for Leadership. The two are not the same.

Define threat for me N8.

 

[fluff]

It's odd how more US troops have died since the mission was accomplished than died accomplishing the mission.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Actually it was unintentional... but it works!

Excellent point... and just what I was looking for. So how is this different than John Kerry Changing his mind after "reassessment". If the repubs are going to Judge someone with a certain criteria, they better be ready to be judged by that same criteria....

That is with the assumption that the "missions" were one and the same, and that is a false assumption. A very shakey leg to stand on to relate it to Kerry. Not that there isn't stuff out there....just a failed attempt this time.

I knew where you could go with that before I typed it.... If you see I added a and a to make the statement that it was absurd.

Depends on which Flip or Flop of Kerry's you are talking about I guess. His "send me" to vietnam --> Screw 'Nam, I am ashamed --> I am a proud Vietnam Vet look at me reassessment you mean?

His Go to war with Iraq --> Don't pay for it, we(Bush) are wrong --> knowing what we do today I would still have voted to go after Saddam, thing?

I guess you hae to be more specific.

 

[LordOpie]

Define threat for me N8.

you and your fvcking questions and challenges! :devil:

 

[RhinofromWA]

It's odd how more US troops have died since the mission was accomplished than died accomplishing the mission.

Again you are assuming that there is only one event possible to be defined under "mission"

2 seperate missions being discussed....unless I am missing the direct correlation with the mission/end of "major combat" and the mission/turnover and rebuild of Iraq.

Sounds like bitter grapes and a key word to gripe about.....not a topic for its mass debate. But I lean towards them damn Conservatives.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Define threat for me N8.

Hmmm problem with word today....define everything to a T.

you can't just say threat you have to break it down to the brand of underwear the "threats" could be wearing. It has effected our legal system and everyone argues over a word not the contect of that word.

Pretty backhanded.

If you define a term to strictly it gives the loopholes people crave. Oh it wasn't on your defined list of threats.....so you can't do anything.

Ask the right quesitons....or say what you want to Fluff-ernator (is there a terminator smilie?) and stop trying to be sly and pull teeth from N8

 

[syadasti]

I don't see how N8 and RhinofromWA can be so blindly partisan. Both candidates flip-flop all the time. The only reason I could see them mention it more is they watch Fox News and its drilled into their heads. N8 didn't respond to it in the other thread, but Bush flip flops just as often, if not more on critical issues. We only have two choices, but the Bush administration is clearly one of the worst in modern times...

Presenting, Bush the flip-flopper* :

We need a decisive, President who doesn't read children's books when
America is under attack, this flip-flopping George Bush is an
astounding flop.

Bush was against campaign finance reform; now he's for it.

Bush was against a Homeland Security Department; now he's for it.

Bush was against a 9/11 commission; now he's for it.

Bush was against an Iraq WMD investigation; now he's for it.

Bush was against nation building; now he's for it.

Bush was against deficits; now he's for them.

Bush was for free trade; then he was for tariffs on steel, and now
he's against them again.

Bush was against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict; now he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.

Bush was for states' rights to decide on gay marriage; now he is for
changing the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage.

Bush said he would provide money for first responders (fire, police,
emergency); then he doesn't.

Bush said that "help is on the way" to the military; then he cuts
their benefits and health care.

Bush claimed to be in favor of environmental protection; then he
secretly approved oil drilling on Padre Island in Texas and other
places and took many more anti-environmental actions.

Bush said he is the "education president;" then he refused to fully
fund key education programs and rarely does his homework, such as read
position papers so he will be more knowledgeable on issues.

Bush said that him being governor of Texas for six years was enough
political experience to be president of the U.S.; then he criticized
Sen. John Edwards for not having enough experience after Edwards had
served six years in the U.S. Senate.

During the 2000 campaign, Bush said there were too many lawsuits being
filed; then during the Florida recount, he was the first to file a
lawsuit to stop the legal counting of votes after Gore took advantage
of Florida law to ask for a recount.

On Nov. 7, 2000, the Bush campaign supported Florida county officials
drawing up new copies of some 10,000 spoiled absentee votes in 26
Republican-leaning counties that the machines did not read and marking
them for the candidates when they showed "clear intent;" they opposed
doing the same thing after Nov. 7 when Gore asked for such recounts.
Bush dominated absentee balloting in Florida by a two-to-one margin.

Bush said during the 2000 campaign that he did not have a "litmus
test" for judges he appointed to be against abortion; then he mostly
appointed judges who were against abortion.

In the early 1990s, Bush led a campaign to raise taxes in Arlington,
Texas, to build a new baseball stadium for the team he partly owned;
he later criticized politicians for supporting tax increases ñ after
he got rich by selling the team with the new stadium to a wealthy
campaign contributor.

Bush opposed the U.S. negotiating with North Korea; now he supports
it.

Bush went to the racist and segregationist Bob Jones University in
South Carolina; then he said he shouldn't have.

Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to
sanction military action against Iraq; later Bush announced he would
not call for a vote.

Bush first said the "mission accomplished" Iraqi banner was put up by
the sailors; he later admitted it was done by his advance team.

Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the
U.S.; after meeting with Mexican President Fox, he decided against it.

Bush was opposed to Rice testifying in front of the 9/11 commission
citing "separation of powers;" then he was for it.

Bush was against Ba'ath party members holding office or government
jobs in Iraq; now he's for it.

Bush said we must not appease terrorists; then he lifted trade
sanctions on admitted terrorist Mohammar Quaddafi and Pakistan, which
pardoned its official who sold nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya, and
North Korea.

Bush said he would wait until after the Nov. election to ask for more
money for the war effort; then he decided he needed it before the
election, after all.

Bush said, "Leaving Iraq prematurely would only embolden the
terrorists and increase the danger to America." His administration now
says that U.S. troops will pull out of Iraq when the new provisional
authority asks. Then he said they'll stay "as long as needed" again.
Now he's saying that the Iraqis can ask the troops to leave, and they
will. Or is he?

The Bush administration officials said that the Geneva Conventions
don't apply to "enemy combatants." Now they claims they do.

Bush officials said before the Iraq invasion that Iraq posed an
"imminent threat" to U.S. security and that Iraq had weapons of mass
destruction and even nuclear weapons; after the invasion, they denied
saying the word "imminent" and saying that Iraq had WMDs and nuclear
weapons, even though they were caught on tape making such statements.

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama Bin Laden. It is our
number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." - George
W. Bush, Sept. 13, 2001

"I don't know where he is. I have no idea, and I really don't care.
It's not that important. It's not our priority." - George W. Bush,
March 13, 2002

Are you getting tired of this? Well, some in the American military are
getting tired of this, too: "The (Bush) administration has an overly
simplistic view of how and when to use our military. By not bringing
in our friends and allies, they have created a mess in Iraq and are
crippling our forces around the world." -Retired Admiral William
Crowe, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs under Ronald Reagan

http://www.geocities.com/jacknichols123/johnjohn.htm

*™ Fox News

 

[fluff]

Hmmm problem with word today....define everything to a T.

you can't just say threat you have to break it down to the brand of underwear the "threats" could be wearing. It has effected our legal system and everyone argues over a word not the contect of that word.

Pretty backhanded.

If you define a term to strictly it gives the loopholes people crave. Oh it wasn't on your defined list of threats.....so you can't do anything.

Ask the right quesitons....or say what you want to Fluff-ernator (is there a terminator smilie?) and stop trying to be sly and pull teeth from N8

Do you see N8 as that much of a liability to pro-Bush viewpoints that you have to step in front of him now?

To be a threat there must be the means and the intention to harm. For example, the UK has the means but not the intent. North Korea may have the intent but it does not have the means. Therefore neither is a threat. Should Moqtada Al-Sadr be elected Supreme Ruler of the UK, then we're fair game.

How was Iraq a threat?

 

[RhinofromWA]

I don't see how N8 and RhinofromWA can be so blindly partisan. Both candidates flip-flop all the time. The only reason I could see them mention it more is they watch Fox News and its drilled into their heads. N8 didn't respond to it in the other thread, but Bush flip flops just as often, if not more on critical issues. We only have two choices, but the Bush administration is clearly one of the worst in modern times...

Presenting, Bush the flip-flopper* :

*™ Fox News

I said there are going to be better examples out there but this one is not even remotely a flip-flop.

Only if you erroneously assume that both the mission to remove Saddam from power/end of major combat and the mission of a new rebuilt and turned over iraq are the same.

Now how partisian are you? AM I the loose nut here? How is the two missions statements as defined my Changleen a flip flop? They can't be a flip flop as they are two seperate missions.

Unless that is not the flip flops I am supposed to be blind from...in the context of this thread.

 

[LordOpie]

Do you see N8 as that much of a liability to pro-Bush viewpoints that you have to step in front of him now?

hahahah

To be a threat there must be the means and the intention to harm. For example, the UK has the means but not the intent. North Korea may have the intent but it does not have the means. Therefore neither is a threat. Should Moqtada Al-Sadr be elected Supreme Ruler of the UK, then we're fair game.

How was Iraq a threat?

Reading this forum is like playing chess. I certainly post traps and have a couple posts planned out ahead on rare occassion. I get the feeling you knew you'd get a weak answer dancing around the issue and had this post planned when you made your first one asking N8 to define threat.

Well played

 

[fluff]

I said there are going to be better examples out there but this one is not even remotely a flip-flop.

Only if you erroneously assume that both the mission to remove Saddam from power/end of major combat and the mission of a new rebuilt and turned over iraq are the same.

Now how partisian are you? AM I the loose nut here? How is the two missions statements as defined my Changleen a flip flop? They can't be a flip flop as they are two seperate missions.

Unless that is not the flip flops I am supposed to be blind from...in the context of this thread.

C'mon Rhino, it was a definite fvck-up having that banner on the ship. At best it was dumb.

It was a PR stunt that has badly backfired now.

Oh and BTW, just how many missions are still to come? Just so we know for future reference.

(And did Bush define them.)

 

[fluff]

hahahah


Reading this forum is like playing chess. I certainly post traps and have a couple posts planned out ahead on rare occassion. I get the feeling you knew you'd get a weak answer dancing around the issue and had this post planned when you made your first one asking N8 to define threat.

Well played

Dude, I'm cooking a roast dinner with my other hand...

 

[RhinofromWA]

Do you see N8 as that much of a liability to pro-Bush viewpoints that you have to step in front of him now?

To be a threat there must be the means and the intention to harm. For example, the UK has the means but not the intent. North Korea may have the intent but it does not have the means. Therefore neither is a threat. Should Moqtada Al-Sadr be elected Supreme Ruler of the UK, then we're fair game.

How was Iraq a threat?

Following your lead:
They "had" the means before
They did not show to the world they no longer had them
They hid and protected apperantly "nothing" from inspectors
He palyed a really big game of poker and lost

Al Q was a threat.
They attacked the USA.
They were sought out.

Iraq was in many violations of Resolution 1441 and in so opend up Saddam to be removed from power. As Resolution 1441 gave Saddam terms to to folow in order to stay in power. Saddam was then removed, much to the dismay of a UN sitting on their hands.

Iraq was not "invaded" becuase it was a threat. Saddam was removed from power because he violated a contract with the UN that the UN could not enforce.

You assume Iraq and the War on terror(ism) are one and the same. You would be wrong. They are being waged at the same time. That is about it.

I will stand in front of loaded sly questions and call them out.

 

[LordOpie]

Al Q was a threat.
...
You assume Iraq and the War on terror(ism) are one and the same.

If people believe they're the same, it's because this admin and it's followers lead people to believe it

 

[RhinofromWA]

C'mon Rhino, it was a definite fvck-up having that banner on the ship. At best it was dumb.

says an anti-bush-ite. At the time it was PR. Is that really in contention? Every banner anywere is for advertisement and PR.

It was a PR stunt that has badly backfired now.

Oh and BTW, just how many missions are still to come? Just so we know for future reference.

(And did Bush define them.)

I can't beleive you remotely beleive that the word mission over a year apart mean the same thing. Truely "independent" thinking there.... too funny.

Tell me what did "Mission accomplished" on that carrier mean? What mission was that considering Saddam was out of power and in hiding?

Now tell me what mission Bush meant as he was quoted above in the forst post. When teh US is deep in rebuilding Iraq working to turn it over fully and adding security to Iraq.

You can't stand there as a respected Poli-Forum liberal and say they are one and the same.

Now if you will excuse me I have a "mission" to go get some lunch. Then I will have a "mission" to finish out the days work. Oh wiate I used "Mission" twice....I can't possibly...I must be flip floping. ...they have to mean the same thing or then Fluff would be making a stink on false pretenses....that could never happen.

who loves you fluff? I do I do.

 

[RhinofromWA]

If people believe they're the same, it's because this admin and it's followers lead people to believe it

So all the independant thinking liberals that can think for themselves have been decieved so easily....

That is a shame. I guess we need one of them running our country? double

If people beleive they are the same, maybe it is because the people opposed to the current admin want them to be and bay 24/7 that it is...when if you looked at it for more than the attention span of a gnat........

You still with me, hello? Good as I was saying.....damn it....hello? Focus.
.... if you really looked at it you would see Saddam was rightly removed and that the action of removing him is not directly a result of 9/11 terrorist attacks. Though that would make it nice and neat for everyone.

 

[syadasti]

Rhino are you really so gullible as to think UN violations had anything at all to due with the real motives for going into Iraq or are you just making weak arguements for a miserable failure of an administration?

There are dozens of countries with numerous UN violations, some even our allies. So when should we invade them all and how fast will we go bankrupt

 

[N8 v2.0]

The only 'flipping' I'll be doing is on election day...

Since the Fluffster and Changeileen can't vote in our US resident only election, I'll be dedicating my vote to GW in their hono(u)r...

Yep... I be thinking of you two as I step into the booth and 'flip' the lever for 4 more years of GW!

 

[RhinofromWA]

Rhino are you really so gullible as to think UN violations had anything at all to due with the real motives for going into Iraq or are you just making weak arguements for a miserable failure of an administration?

There are dozens of countries with numerous UN violations, some even our allies. So when should we invade them all and how fast will we go bankrupt

Do you really think they had no cause....not from a monday night quarter back position either.

Nothing gullible about it...Saddam was actively defying the UN and the conditions that were to keep him in power. a decade of diplomacy didn't keep him in line....so he was removed when the US, after just being smacked by terrorists, saw a dictator who invaded a country and was left in power refuding to play the game and the UN doing nothing. Iraq(mainly Saddam) had WMD before, could not/would not show they had nothing at the time, were tossing out inspectors (the ones that could find everything was OK and allow Saddam to stay in power), saddam basically said "you won't do anything"...."I don't have to follow the rules you guys laid out to keep me in power"....basically the UN collectively could go to hell.

There was no more diplomacy...Saddam shut the doors...it then became when not if. The UN couldn't do anything...their bargaining chips were not there....there was no military knocking on Saddams door (like in the Gulf war) and the sanctions weren't swaying Saddam, he was fed well.

9/11 didn't help matters.

US did not go in for oil....one rumor squelched.

US is not keeping the country for themselves....all indication say no to that one. So we did not invade.

What are your "real" motives?

 

[RhinofromWA]

The only 'flipping' I'll be doing is on election day...

Since the Fluffster and Changeileen can't vote in our US resident only election, I'll be dedicating my vote to GW in their hono(u)r...

Yep... I be thinking of you two as I step into the booth and 'flip' the lever for 4 more years of GW!

That was kind of childish.....

 

[N8 v2.0]

Define threat for me N8.

In the context of Iraq, I'll let Pres. Bush define 'threat' for you as viewed from Oct 2002. It's laid out right here:

"The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America....

...some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While 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's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?"

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

 

[fluff]

In the context of Iraq, I'll let Pres. Bush define 'threat' for you as viewed from Oct 2002.
[/I]

You really don't have a mind of your own do you?