Here's something to chew on. Any arguments -- not insults?

Submitted by Cecil Baird ( ) on 01/27/2004. ( )

January 28, 2004

THE White House today denied it ever warned that Saddam Hussein posed an "imminent" threat to the United States.

It is already smarting from the failure so far to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

"I think some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent'. Those were not words we used. We used 'grave and gathering' threat," spokesman Scott McClellan said.

But if US President George W. Bush never called Saddam's Iraq an "imminent threat" in so many words, he said it was "urgent".

Vice President Dick Cheney called it "mortal" and it was "immediate" to Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

In an October 7, 2002 televised speech to the nation, Bush likened the standoff with Iraq to the October 1962 Cuban missile crisis, when Soviet missiles were revealed to be based just 145km off US shores.

In that same speech, he warned that Saddam "could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists" like the al-Qaeda network behind the September 11, 2001, attacks.

"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," Rumsfeld testified to lawmakers in September 2002.

Other senior Bush aides shied away from using the word "imminent" but agreed with that characterisation in exchanges with reporters.

On January 26, 2003, CNN television asked White House communications director Dan Bartlett "is he (Saddam) an imminent threat to US interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?"

"Well, of course he is," Bartlett replied.

On May 7, 2003, a reporter asked then White House spokesman Ari Fleischer: "We went to war, didn't we, to find these -- because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn't that true?"

"Absolutely. One of the reasons that we went to war was because of their possession of weapons of mass destruction. And nothing has changed on that front at all," the spokesman replied.

"Another way to look at this is if Saddam Hussein holds a gun to your head even while he denies that he actually owns a gun, how safe should you feel?" Fleischer told reporters on October 9, 2002.

Return to The Taxidermy Industry Category Menu

re elect bush

This response submitted by jason on 01/27/2004. ( )

there no other good choice go bush go


This response submitted by DaveT on 01/27/2004. ( )

Yes, this is one of those FWD'd emails... I don't doubt any of it though!

"Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ..
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will
continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Who can you trust?

This response submitted by Jim S on 01/27/2004. ( )


up until about five years ago, I used to be proud to be a Republican. Used to donate up to several thousand dollars per year, go to fund raisers, help out, campaign for the party etc.

And then I, as well as many other people, in our association were made aware of the real truth and facts surrounding all of the political hype and diatribe. Who CAN you trust? We have the best government that special interest money can buy! We became aware of the sham and criminal goings on behind closed doors. Hard to believe but true. Regardless of party or affiliation. All are the same!

The facts are that regardless of what or who you vote for, "they are not running the country" according to OUR desire. There is a game plan. It is not the voting public's plan, but something dubious in nature and counter productive to our freedom and American way of life.

We do the best we can each year on the local level. That is your best hope. Much beyond that stage and everything the average person thinks he or she knows, does not apply to the elite. --They work for someone else. And it is NOT the general public.

Dave good for you!

This response submitted by Cecil Baird ( ) on 01/28/2004. ( )

You actually posted some good information instead of just calling me an idiot. I'm sure you won't believe it but I was not the biggest Clinton fan either. But a wrong doesn't justify another wrong.

Jim, sorry to hear you are so cynical. I don't know what to tell you, but keep voting until we get it right. Just like this imperfect world our government is not perfect, but it sure beats a lot of other countries around the world where folks go hungry, the wealth is hoarded by a few, and war is a fact of life. We must be doing something right if immigrants are coming in droves.

Don't give up!

Thanks DaveT For Reposting The Quotes...

This response submitted by Republican on 01/28/2004. ( )

After reading Cecil's Jargon, I was just fixing to go hunt up the quotes, etc. that I had put in the earlier thread. I didn't have to thanks to you... I think they're more appropriate in this thread than in the other as well... GO BUSH GO...

Cecil there you go again

This response submitted by DaveT on 01/28/2004. ( )

You keep whinning about how I have called you an idiot...I didn't say that this time now did I. I told you I am trying to keep this polite... you are not making it easy.

As for the post.. better read it again it's got your front runner Kerry speaking up.

Cecil, just how sure are you that Iraq did not have WMD? Would you bet your kids life on it? There ain't no way i would bet mine. I sure don't want you and the rest of the liberals betting my children's life on your assumptions either, no offense but I trust President Bush a heck of a lot more then Kennedy, Kerry, Dean or you.


I agree, they all are crooks liars and cheats.

This response submitted by Ron on 01/28/2004. ( )

But one of the crooked parties wants to tax me on everything I do and then tax me again when I die. The other crooked party wants to give at least some of my money back.
One of the crooked parties is always trying to take my guns.
One of the crooked parties says for years that Saddam Hussien most be removed, The other crooked party removed him.
I guess it's just a matter of which crook affects your life the least.

what about

This response submitted by michael sestak on 01/28/2004. ( )

north korea, they actually have a missle that can reach california with nuclear capabilities.
but we arent jumping down their throats.
there are better alternatives than war...sometimes.


This response submitted by Wil on 01/28/2004. ( )

if we did something about North Korea a decade ago, we wouldn't have that missle pointed at us. To late now. Any move on them now would surely spell the end of a west coast city or two. When you appease rogue nations, this is what you get. Diplomacy certainly is prefered, but it needs to be backed up with more than empty words.


This response submitted by PC on 01/28/2004. ( )

Don't vote! It only encourages them! Wouldn't it be funny if, at the next primary, NO ONE showed up to vote?
Just an amusing thought to lighten things up a bit!

Wil is absolutely correct...

This response submitted by marty on 01/28/2004. ( )

...about North Korea. It's too late (you can thank Billy Boy for that snafu)...

This whole WMD thing is SO silly. Do some of you folks honestly think that this whole thing is a big conspiracy? If it were, don't you think they would have "found" some WMD's by now? Don't you think THAT PART would have been fabricated too? I highly doubt it - too many people involved.

Who cares if we haven't found any WMD's? I believe at the very least that there was Iraqi intent to acquire them. And although our folks haven't found any, they have found nearly a dozen labs that were suppose to have been reported nearly a year ago when we told them to lay down their cards. If they were bluffing, then they paid the pot didn't they?

I know I feel safer. I still think it was the right thing to do. Now having our boys and girls over there still, I'm not so sure about...

Not really, Marty

This response submitted by George on 01/28/2004. ( )

Bill Clinton can bear a lot of responsibilities, but you can look back a little farther to another Democrat that initiated the North Korea debacle. It was that goofy looking peanut farmer from Georgia named "Jimmy" Cotter who provided the lynch pin for North Korea. Remember he fired the US General who told him his policies toward North Korea would lead to this? For all Clinton's foibles, and there were multitudes, it's difficult to find ANYTHING that Jimmy Carter did that helped this country. On his first day in office he wiped Bill Clinton's treason under the rug and gave away the Panama Canal and only when he was beaten did the Iranians release the American hostages. What a legacy he left. The Euro's tried to prop him up by giving him the Nobel Peace Prize, but even that pales by some of his idiocy and austerity.

Its back

This response submitted by Steve on 01/28/2004. ( )

I got a little sad not seeing some biased republican post for a day or so. lets see now....Cecil...nice post. Its kinda weird that so many people are OK with the white house saying that maybe there werent WMDs in Iraq. And even though that was the main reason for invading their country, they dont care if it wasnt true. SO least we got to invade a country that posed no real threat. If the police were to kick in your front door and arrest you and go through every possesion you have, then to later say..Oh sorry...I guess we didnt have a reason to do that...Im sure you would be calling for the suspension of those cops and probably sueing the police as well. Its the same thing people (for those who dont understand what a metaphore is, its an example of a situation, different fromthe example that you are talking about, but the result is simular to the original situation. I have to say that as I have had some people not realize that I was using a metaphore and have taken eveything I typed literally. You know who you are. I hope). If, as bush says that the intellegence was faulty, it was still under his watch and it was his decision to invade iraq. He should take responsibility for his actions, and not try to point the finger at someone else. He did this a while ago, when he said the CIA said iraq had WMDs, and then the head of the CIA said he would step down becasue of it. Bush wouldnt let him step down from his post,then a CIA memo was released that clearly stated that the CIA siad they DIDNT have WMDs. It turns out the white house knew this all along. How much more evidence do you need to realize whats going on? Vote Democrat! defeat bush..again.


This response submitted by Wil on 01/28/2004. ( )

it absolutely amazes me how out of touch with reality you dem's can be on this Iraq issue. Either you refuse to read the past quotes of all those from the Clinton Administration, or your in complete denial as to the threat this country faces. Gathering intelligence is never perfect. You anaylse bits and pieces and base your response on the benifits of taking action or inaction. Everyone b****ed after the first Iraq war that we didn't go all the way to Baghdad and topple Saddam, and the guy was a thorn in the world's rump for the last twelve years. Now he's out and your all doing it again! I've come to the conclusion that the Democrat's are envious that Bush was able to achieve what they wish they could. God help this nation if Kerry, Dean, Edwards or Clark wins. None are committed to continuing the war on terrorism and their election would send the message to all those who seek to do us harm that we are ripe for another ass kicking! Bush is not perfect, no president can be. But I will not vote for any candiate that is willing to sacrifice American civilians to make France, Germany and the rest of the U.N. happy. Lieberman is the only one of the bunch that understands this, but I doubt he has a chance.

Steve and Cecil I have alegit ? for both

This response submitted by DaveT on 01/28/2004. ( )

So was the mass murder of 100,000s innocent men, women and CHILDREN not a reason to do somehting? Do you guys condone actions like this? I did not hear either of you condome Clinton for going into Yugoslavia? I did not sondome it either as it was the RIGHT thing to do. At least I am consistent.



This response submitted by Steve on 01/28/2004. ( )

Mass murder of the masses is not a good thing. We canagree onthat point. However that is not the reason that bush the lier gave for invading. Its some monday morning quarterbacking. If that was the case, that bush was so upset over the poor oppressed iraqi people and their mean leader,then he should have said that. Instead he made it out like we were about to get attacked at any moment. He had cheney go before the world and say that Iraq was a greater threat than North Korea. Its all backpeddling and flip floping. And why is it our problem to solve? If it was to save those poor unfortunate people in iraq, then shouldnt we have gotten the cooperation of the rest of the world and formed a coolition to go in there and help them, like we did in Yugoslavia? We were able to say that they were doing ethnic cleansing and we got the help of other countries to go in there and settle things down. I hear so much about "we should go in there and wipe those people out" and "lets send em back to the stone age" and simular thoughts. Does that sound like someone who wants to go and help hese poor people to live a better life? Does it sound like someone who really cares about theose people? There are ways of solving big problems that doesnt involve increasing the largest budget deficit in the history of the U.S...... Defeat bush!..again!


This response submitted by ! on 01/28/2004. ( )

This man killed 1000's of his OWN people. He is a madman that should have been stopped no matter who is in office, he needed to be taken out.


This response submitted by Dave Toms on 01/28/2004. ( )

I resent you calling our President a liar. I would love to see you do that in the presence of any active military member. The term "liar" is much better suited to you as is the word coward for making insinuations without the courage to post your name. President Bush said we went to war because Iraq had not lived up to 12 years of UN resolution about WMDs. He told them to either cough up the WMD or prove that they had destroyed them. He gave Iraq and the UN an additional 6 months to resolve it and they couldn't.

You don't know what the hell you are talking about. By the way, since you run your mouth so much why not tell us who you are, i.e. your last name. Mine is posted above, as is my email address


Cecil & Steve

This response submitted by No Need For Tree Stand In My Woods on 01/28/2004. ( )

Cecil and Steve Sittin-In-A-Tree, M-I-S-S-I-N-G!
First comes Bullets, Then comes Danger, Then comes Da Dems begging (crawling) for a Ranger!

The Weapons of Mass Distraction in a nutshell

This response submitted by Cecil Baird ( ) on 01/28/2004. ( )

Here's a post from a colleague on a political forum I frequent. I think it covers the WMD lack of or precense in a nutshell.

"I think we all know in our hearts that Hussein needed to go. I think more people are pissed off about how they were manipulated to support this war than the war itself."

So many people have told me, "If he would have just been straight with us to begin with, I would have supported him and his war."

So..... who's next? There are NO shortages of brutal dictator regimes to pick from. And from recent reports, there are regimes such as these that are CURRENTLY practicing their brutal chaos. But the bigger question is twofold.

1: Do they have lot's of oil, pipelines, or natural gas?
2: Are they US friendly?

If #1 is "no".... then who cares how they treat their people?
If #1 is "yes"....proceed to question #2.

If #2 is yes, well then, we can turn a blind eye can't we? After all we can't police the world.
If #2 is no... You in a heap o' trouble boy."

Dave, since when did we have leave our last names?

This response submitted by Cecil Baird ( ) on 01/28/2004. ( )

Posted by Dave Toms: "You don't know what the hell you are talking about. By the way, since you run your mouth so much why not tell us who you are, i.e. your last name. Mine is posted above, as is my email address."

We have enough trouble with folks that leave no name at all. Is this why you need John C. to do you a favor? "JohnC please email me (01/28/2004)."

You're gonna try and see who it is? Well, I know who it is. But I'm not telling. Nanne Nanne booboo! LOL


This response submitted by ACE on 01/29/2004. ( )

You are a perfect example of why democraps are **cked in the head!


This response submitted by lee wolford on 01/29/2004. ( )

vote for kerry cecil, and let him take your guns! you think just like them idiots. ace above couldnt have said it better!
lee wolford

Return to The Taxidermy Industry Category Menu