You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #16: Right...if they WEREN'T an imminent threat, [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-20-03 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #2
16. Right...if they WEREN'T an imminent threat,
there was no rationale to invade.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -Did * say Iraq was an imminent threat, or not???? CatWoman  Oct-20-03 08:39 AM   #0 
  - That's interesting  La_Serpiente   Oct-20-03 08:41 AM   #1 
  - you know...  imax2268   Oct-20-03 08:45 AM   #4 
  - If he didn't say it, does that mean he didn't think it?  Brucey   Oct-20-03 08:43 AM   #2 
  - Right...if they WEREN'T an imminent threat,  BullGooseLoony   Oct-20-03 09:59 AM   #16 
  - Bush Letter to Congress, March 18, 2003  WilliamPitt   Oct-20-03 08:44 AM   #3 
  - Oh man...that's damaging...  BullGooseLoony   Oct-20-03 09:55 AM   #15 
  - Radio Free Europe thought so...  JHB   Oct-20-03 08:49 AM   #5 
  - It depends on what your definition of "is" is.  zanana   Oct-20-03 08:50 AM   #6 
  - Funny you should mention that...  JHB   Oct-20-03 08:52 AM   #8 
  - Exactly! See what I just posted below. n/t  DemBones DemBones   Oct-20-03 09:08 AM   #11 
  - I don't think he said the word, BUT  NicoleM   Oct-20-03 08:52 AM   #7 
  - Mushroom cloud  BikeDeck   Oct-20-03 11:04 AM   #24 
  - The lies are apparent  JNelson6563   Oct-20-03 08:53 AM   #9 
  - Excellent article  Hardhead   Oct-20-03 09:11 AM   #12 
     - dude, that's a scary picture  maggrwaggr   Oct-20-03 12:18 PM   #41 
  - It's so obvious that this is THE new right wing talking point! There  DemBones DemBones   Oct-20-03 09:07 AM   #10 
  - Altercation touched on this Friday  Hardhead   Oct-20-03 09:34 AM   #13 
  - ah, great  CatWoman   Oct-20-03 09:51 AM   #14 
  - To use the War powers act it has to be so.  NoKingGeorge   Oct-20-03 10:16 AM   #18 
     - Exactly  htuttle   Oct-20-03 10:31 AM   #22 
     - War powers  BikeDeck   Oct-20-03 11:06 AM   #25 
        - Kosovo was a treaty obligation to NATO...  htuttle   Oct-20-03 11:12 AM   #28 
  - the difference there is...  HootieMcBoob   Oct-20-03 10:28 AM   #20 
  - Alright, just to put this to rest:  BullGooseLoony   Oct-20-03 10:12 AM   #17 
  - There were 2 paragraphs from the State of the Union 2003 that..  Spazito   Oct-20-03 10:26 AM   #19 
  - Mike Malloy also captured the essence  Oaf Of Office   Oct-20-03 10:29 AM   #21 
  - neo cons are stupid  samsingh   Oct-20-03 10:39 AM   #23 
  - are you saying  BikeDeck   Oct-20-03 11:09 AM   #27 
     - Yes  htuttle   Oct-20-03 11:15 AM   #29 
        - Great  BikeDeck   Oct-20-03 12:32 PM   #43 
           - I don't have any 'writings'...  htuttle   Oct-20-03 12:43 PM   #47 
  - I mentioned earlier that I was looking through transcripts for what  DemBones DemBones   Oct-20-03 11:09 AM   #26 
  - Never attended a presidential speech while I was in uniform  CatWoman   Oct-20-03 11:48 AM   #34 
     - Esprit de corps is good but this smells like Bush* spirit.  DemBones DemBones   Oct-20-03 12:45 PM   #48 
  - What difference does it make?  NNN0LHI   Oct-20-03 11:24 AM   #30 
  - There is no difference  htuttle   Oct-20-03 11:26 AM   #32 
  - He didn't say it....BUT ....  truebrit71   Oct-20-03 11:25 AM   #31 
  - Word games  rocknation   Oct-20-03 11:36 AM   #33 
  - Distraction moves  librechik   Oct-20-03 11:52 AM   #36 
  - It doesn't matter if Bush* said it  Curtis   Oct-20-03 02:29 PM   #52 
  - Bush said in The State of the Union speech that  E Pluribus Unum   Oct-20-03 11:49 AM   #35 
  - But legally he couldn't act without an imminent threat  htuttle   Oct-20-03 11:54 AM   #37 
     - Sorry, htuttle, the president can act without an imminent threat.  E Pluribus Unum   Oct-20-03 12:05 PM   #40 
        - That's not what the law says  htuttle   Oct-20-03 12:20 PM   #42 
           - We will just have to disagree in this one.  E Pluribus Unum   Oct-20-03 12:32 PM   #44 
           - We will just have to disagree on this one.  E Pluribus Unum   Oct-20-03 12:37 PM   #45 
  - NO HE DIDN'T - and it was INTENTIONAL  rucky   Oct-20-03 11:56 AM   #38 
  - OK, this makes sense. You're saying that if he had said that Iraq  DemBones DemBones   Oct-20-03 01:28 PM   #50 
  - Bush Says it Himself...right here  rucky   Oct-20-03 01:52 PM   #51 
  - Most of the world just interpreted it that way  spindoctor   Oct-20-03 02:57 PM   #53 
  - Bush said "immediate and direct threat" according to Corn.  blm   Oct-20-03 11:57 AM   #39 
  - HERE IS YOUR ANSWER!  jayfish   Oct-20-03 12:39 PM   #46 
  - What you say?  spindoctor   Oct-20-03 03:00 PM   #54 
     - Of Course We Know The Answer.  jayfish   Oct-20-03 04:11 PM   #56 
  - He called Iraq an "imminent danger" Is danger threatening? Duh.  caledesi   Oct-20-03 01:00 PM   #49 
  - if he didn't, then WHAT was his argument?  maggrwaggr   Oct-20-03 03:10 PM   #55 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC