Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Courts: Wives of terrorist suspects CAN claim benefits
Author Message
WoodlandsOwl Offline
Up in the Woods
*

Posts: 11,813
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 115
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #21
RE: Courts: Wives of terrorist suspects CAN claim benefits
(04-29-2010 07:39 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 06:11 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 05:26 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 05:23 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 11:09 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 11:02 AM)RobertN Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 10:58 AM)I45owl Wrote:  This is one of the reasons that we took out Sadaam. Just sayin'
No. We took out Saddam becasue he tried to take out daddy Bush and for oil.

History Lesson -- Listen Up. Iraq was invaded because Sadam refused to live up to the cease fire agreement of the 1st gulf war. Now he is DEAD. May that murderer burn inHELL.

I thought it was because he had WMD? Oh wait, it was because he was harboring terrorists! No, actually it was because he was really just a bad guy overall. Or maybe Oddball was harboring yellowcake in aluminum missile tubes from Prague. Not sure.

Let me restate with more clarity -- Iraq was invaded because Sadam refused to live up to the cease fire agreement of the 1st gulf war. He dared us to invade, Remember the "Mother of all Wars" ?

Hell-Me thinks Roberta is Bagdad Bob.

No, I distinctly heard the Bush administration saying that Saddam was an immediate threat to the U.S. and that we didn't want to have mushroom clouds in the U.S. Hence the urgency of distracting the military from their main purpose in Afghanistan. But then when their meager evidence on WMD got even weaker, they shifted to the terrorist argument. The reason seemed to shift by the week. I don't remember what reason it was the actual week they invaded.

But this is getting off topic.

Please point me to where anyone in the Bush Admin. Said "that (1)Saddam was an immediate threat to the U.S. and (2)that we didn't want to have mushroom clouds in the U.S.". waiting......


Hmm ever watch on TV back in 2002 Colin Powell at the UN or watch about 60 US Senators speaking before their vote on the US "use of force" Joint Resolution?
04-29-2010 09:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,850
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3214
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #22
RE: Courts: Wives of terrorist suspects CAN claim benefits
(04-29-2010 09:42 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 07:39 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 06:11 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 05:26 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 05:23 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 11:09 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 11:02 AM)RobertN Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 10:58 AM)I45owl Wrote:  This is one of the reasons that we took out Sadaam. Just sayin'
No. We took out Saddam becasue he tried to take out daddy Bush and for oil.
History Lesson -- Listen Up. Iraq was invaded because Sadam refused to live up to the cease fire agreement of the 1st gulf war. Now he is DEAD. May that murderer burn inHELL.
I thought it was because he had WMD? Oh wait, it was because he was harboring terrorists! No, actually it was because he was really just a bad guy overall. Or maybe Oddball was harboring yellowcake in aluminum missile tubes from Prague. Not sure.
Let me restate with more clarity -- Iraq was invaded because Sadam refused to live up to the cease fire agreement of the 1st gulf war. He dared us to invade, Remember the "Mother of all Wars" ?

Hell-Me thinks Roberta is Bagdad Bob.
No, I distinctly heard the Bush administration saying that Saddam was an immediate threat to the U.S. and that we didn't want to have mushroom clouds in the U.S. Hence the urgency of distracting the military from their main purpose in Afghanistan. But then when their meager evidence on WMD got even weaker, they shifted to the terrorist argument. The reason seemed to shift by the week. I don't remember what reason it was the actual week they invaded.
But this is getting off topic.
Please point me to where anyone in the Bush Admin. Said "that (1)Saddam was an immediate threat to the U.S. and (2)that we didn't want to have mushroom clouds in the U.S.". waiting......
Hmm ever watch on TV back in 2002 Colin Powell at the UN or watch about 60 US Senators speaking before their vote on the US "use of force" Joint Resolution?

I don't think Colin Powell said anything about mushroom clouds in the US and I don't think 60 senators were the Bush administration.
04-29-2010 09:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
smn1256 Offline
I miss Tripster
*

Posts: 28,878
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation: 337
I Root For: Lower taxes
Location: North Mexico
Post: #23
RE: Courts: Wives of terrorist suspects CAN claim benefits
(04-29-2010 07:39 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Please point me to where anyone in the Bush Admin. Said "that (1)Saddam was an immediate threat to the U.S. and (2)that we didn't want to have mushroom clouds in the U.S.". waiting......

Quote:"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If 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 Bill 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:
-- Democratic Senators 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 reinvigorated 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, Dec 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 mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e 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 weapons 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
04-29-2010 09:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dwr0109 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,220
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 52
I Root For: Winning
Location: Under a Bodhi Tree
Post: #24
RE: Courts: Wives of terrorist suspects CAN claim benefits
(04-29-2010 09:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 09:42 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 07:39 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 06:11 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 05:26 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 05:23 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 11:09 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 11:02 AM)RobertN Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 10:58 AM)I45owl Wrote:  This is one of the reasons that we took out Sadaam. Just sayin'
No. We took out Saddam becasue he tried to take out daddy Bush and for oil.
History Lesson -- Listen Up. Iraq was invaded because Sadam refused to live up to the cease fire agreement of the 1st gulf war. Now he is DEAD. May that murderer burn inHELL.
I thought it was because he had WMD? Oh wait, it was because he was harboring terrorists! No, actually it was because he was really just a bad guy overall. Or maybe Oddball was harboring yellowcake in aluminum missile tubes from Prague. Not sure.
Let me restate with more clarity -- Iraq was invaded because Sadam refused to live up to the cease fire agreement of the 1st gulf war. He dared us to invade, Remember the "Mother of all Wars" ?

Hell-Me thinks Roberta is Bagdad Bob.
No, I distinctly heard the Bush administration saying that Saddam was an immediate threat to the U.S. and that we didn't want to have mushroom clouds in the U.S. Hence the urgency of distracting the military from their main purpose in Afghanistan. But then when their meager evidence on WMD got even weaker, they shifted to the terrorist argument. The reason seemed to shift by the week. I don't remember what reason it was the actual week they invaded.
But this is getting off topic.
Please point me to where anyone in the Bush Admin. Said "that (1)Saddam was an immediate threat to the U.S. and (2)that we didn't want to have mushroom clouds in the U.S.". waiting......
Hmm ever watch on TV back in 2002 Colin Powell at the UN or watch about 60 US Senators speaking before their vote on the US "use of force" Joint Resolution?

I don't think Colin Powell said anything about mushroom clouds in the US and I don't think 60 senators were the Bush administration.

He didn't. It was Condi Rice.

Rice acknowledged that "there will always be some uncertainty" in determining how close Iraq may be to obtaining a nuclear weapon but said, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/o.htm...aq.debate/


"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

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"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

"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

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

"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

etc. etc. etc.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/k...24970.html
(This post was last modified: 04-30-2010 02:33 AM by dwr0109.)
04-30-2010 02:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SumOfAllFears Offline
Grim Reaper of Misguided Liberal Souls
*

Posts: 18,213
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation: 58
I Root For: America
Location:
Post: #25
RE: Courts: Wives of terrorist suspects CAN claim benefits
(04-30-2010 02:32 AM)dwr0109 Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 09:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 09:42 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 07:39 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 06:11 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 05:26 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 05:23 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 11:09 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 11:02 AM)RobertN Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 10:58 AM)I45owl Wrote:  This is one of the reasons that we took out Sadaam. Just sayin'
No. We took out Saddam becasue he tried to take out daddy Bush and for oil.
History Lesson -- Listen Up. Iraq was invaded because Sadam refused to live up to the cease fire agreement of the 1st gulf war. Now he is DEAD. May that murderer burn inHELL.
I thought it was because he had WMD? Oh wait, it was because he was harboring terrorists! No, actually it was because he was really just a bad guy overall. Or maybe Oddball was harboring yellowcake in aluminum missile tubes from Prague. Not sure.
Let me restate with more clarity -- Iraq was invaded because Sadam refused to live up to the cease fire agreement of the 1st gulf war. He dared us to invade, Remember the "Mother of all Wars" ?

Hell-Me thinks Roberta is Bagdad Bob.
No, I distinctly heard the Bush administration saying that Saddam was an immediate threat to the U.S. and that we didn't want to have mushroom clouds in the U.S. Hence the urgency of distracting the military from their main purpose in Afghanistan. But then when their meager evidence on WMD got even weaker, they shifted to the terrorist argument. The reason seemed to shift by the week. I don't remember what reason it was the actual week they invaded.
But this is getting off topic.
Please point me to where anyone in the Bush Admin. Said "that (1)Saddam was an immediate threat to the U.S. and (2)that we didn't want to have mushroom clouds in the U.S.". waiting......
Hmm ever watch on TV back in 2002 Colin Powell at the UN or watch about 60 US Senators speaking before their vote on the US "use of force" Joint Resolution?

I don't think Colin Powell said anything about mushroom clouds in the US and I don't think 60 senators were the Bush administration.

He didn't. It was Condi Rice.

Rice acknowledged that "there will always be some uncertainty" in determining how close Iraq may be to obtaining a nuclear weapon but said, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/o.htm...aq.debate/


"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

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"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

"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

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

"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

etc. etc. etc.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/k...24970.html

Is there a difference between an immediate threat and an imminent threat?
04-30-2010 05:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
I45owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,374
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #26
RE: Courts: Wives of terrorist suspects CAN claim benefits
If you want a clear and simple statement about why we went to war with Iraq it is because the Administration judged it to be in our best interest to get out of the indefinite deployment of troops in Saudi Arabia without looking like pu$$ies in the process. It's a lot better to have everyone in the region pissed off at the US than to have them pissed off at the US while thousands of troops were on Saudi soil (violation of Quranic law, recruiting tool, and what not). The rest were aggravating factors and justifications which on their own merits provided impetus for war. But, the US would not have gone to war if the Administration did not view it to be in our best interest.

Thomas Friedman had a thought provoking soundbyte I heard recently - in the Middle East, it's not what happens on the morning after that is interesting, it's what happens on the morning after the morning after. What happens the morning after is always predictable - faux outrage, riots in the streets, etc. The morning after the morning after is when you know whether people fear you, respect you, ...
04-30-2010 09:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
I45owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,374
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #27
RE: Courts: Wives of terrorist suspects CAN claim benefits
(04-30-2010 05:12 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Is there a difference between an immediate threat and an imminent threat?

Possibly that immediate means that someone can strike at a moments notice, imminent is that they intend to strike in a moment?
04-30-2010 09:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SumOfAllFears Offline
Grim Reaper of Misguided Liberal Souls
*

Posts: 18,213
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation: 58
I Root For: America
Location:
Post: #28
RE: Courts: Wives of terrorist suspects CAN claim benefits
(04-30-2010 09:08 AM)I45owl Wrote:  
(04-30-2010 05:12 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Is there a difference between an immediate threat and an imminent threat?

Possibly that immediate means that someone can strike at a moments notice, imminent is that they intend to strike in a moment?

Ahhh, no. Try again
04-30-2010 10:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dwr0109 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,220
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 52
I Root For: Winning
Location: Under a Bodhi Tree
Post: #29
RE: Courts: Wives of terrorist suspects CAN claim benefits
(04-30-2010 05:12 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  
(04-30-2010 02:32 AM)dwr0109 Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 09:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 09:42 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 07:39 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 06:11 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 05:26 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 05:23 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 11:09 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 11:02 AM)RobertN Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 10:58 AM)I45owl Wrote:  This is one of the reasons that we took out Sadaam. Just sayin'
No. We took out Saddam becasue he tried to take out daddy Bush and for oil.
History Lesson -- Listen Up. Iraq was invaded because Sadam refused to live up to the cease fire agreement of the 1st gulf war. Now he is DEAD. May that murderer burn inHELL.
I thought it was because he had WMD? Oh wait, it was because he was harboring terrorists! No, actually it was because he was really just a bad guy overall. Or maybe Oddball was harboring yellowcake in aluminum missile tubes from Prague. Not sure.
Let me restate with more clarity -- Iraq was invaded because Sadam refused to live up to the cease fire agreement of the 1st gulf war. He dared us to invade, Remember the "Mother of all Wars" ?

Hell-Me thinks Roberta is Bagdad Bob.
No, I distinctly heard the Bush administration saying that Saddam was an immediate threat to the U.S. and that we didn't want to have mushroom clouds in the U.S. Hence the urgency of distracting the military from their main purpose in Afghanistan. But then when their meager evidence on WMD got even weaker, they shifted to the terrorist argument. The reason seemed to shift by the week. I don't remember what reason it was the actual week they invaded.
But this is getting off topic.
Please point me to where anyone in the Bush Admin. Said "that (1)Saddam was an immediate threat to the U.S. and (2)that we didn't want to have mushroom clouds in the U.S.". waiting......
Hmm ever watch on TV back in 2002 Colin Powell at the UN or watch about 60 US Senators speaking before their vote on the US "use of force" Joint Resolution?

I don't think Colin Powell said anything about mushroom clouds in the US and I don't think 60 senators were the Bush administration.

He didn't. It was Condi Rice.

Rice acknowledged that "there will always be some uncertainty" in determining how close Iraq may be to obtaining a nuclear weapon but said, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/o.htm...aq.debate/


"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

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"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

"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

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

"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

etc. etc. etc.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/k...24970.html

Is there a difference between an immediate threat and an imminent threat?

I'm sure that would be open to debate.

But both terms were used by Rumsfeld in the quotes above.

If there was indeed a legitimate "imminent threat" to the United States. I would expect our government to do its job and protect us.

I don't understand why we're splitting hairs here, since our government acted quickly to preempt the threat. Apparently they weren't too concerned about semantics.
04-30-2010 01:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NIU007 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,301
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 320
I Root For: NIU, MAC
Location: Naperville, IL
Post: #30
RE: Courts: Wives of terrorist suspects CAN claim benefits
(04-30-2010 01:58 PM)dwr0109 Wrote:  
(04-30-2010 05:12 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  
(04-30-2010 02:32 AM)dwr0109 Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 09:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 09:42 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 07:39 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 06:11 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 05:26 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 05:23 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 11:09 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 11:02 AM)RobertN Wrote:  
(04-29-2010 10:58 AM)I45owl Wrote:  This is one of the reasons that we took out Sadaam. Just sayin'
No. We took out Saddam becasue he tried to take out daddy Bush and for oil.
History Lesson -- Listen Up. Iraq was invaded because Sadam refused to live up to the cease fire agreement of the 1st gulf war. Now he is DEAD. May that murderer burn inHELL.
I thought it was because he had WMD? Oh wait, it was because he was harboring terrorists! No, actually it was because he was really just a bad guy overall. Or maybe Oddball was harboring yellowcake in aluminum missile tubes from Prague. Not sure.
Let me restate with more clarity -- Iraq was invaded because Sadam refused to live up to the cease fire agreement of the 1st gulf war. He dared us to invade, Remember the "Mother of all Wars" ?

Hell-Me thinks Roberta is Bagdad Bob.
No, I distinctly heard the Bush administration saying that Saddam was an immediate threat to the U.S. and that we didn't want to have mushroom clouds in the U.S. Hence the urgency of distracting the military from their main purpose in Afghanistan. But then when their meager evidence on WMD got even weaker, they shifted to the terrorist argument. The reason seemed to shift by the week. I don't remember what reason it was the actual week they invaded.
But this is getting off topic.
Please point me to where anyone in the Bush Admin. Said "that (1)Saddam was an immediate threat to the U.S. and (2)that we didn't want to have mushroom clouds in the U.S.". waiting......
Hmm ever watch on TV back in 2002 Colin Powell at the UN or watch about 60 US Senators speaking before their vote on the US "use of force" Joint Resolution?

I don't think Colin Powell said anything about mushroom clouds in the US and I don't think 60 senators were the Bush administration.

He didn't. It was Condi Rice.

Rice acknowledged that "there will always be some uncertainty" in determining how close Iraq may be to obtaining a nuclear weapon but said, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/o.htm...aq.debate/


"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

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"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

"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

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

"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

etc. etc. etc.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/k...24970.html

Is there a difference between an immediate threat and an imminent threat?

I'm sure that would be open to debate.

But both terms were used by Rumsfeld in the quotes above.

If there was indeed a legitimate "imminent threat" to the United States. I would expect our government to do its job and protect us.

I don't understand why we're splitting hairs here, since our government acted quickly to preempt the threat. Apparently they weren't too concerned about semantics.

The point was more about whether Iraq actually was a threat to the U.S. and that the so-called urgency diverted vast resources from the fighting in Afghanistan. That isn't semantics.
04-30-2010 02:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dwr0109 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,220
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 52
I Root For: Winning
Location: Under a Bodhi Tree
Post: #31
RE: Courts: Wives of terrorist suspects CAN claim benefits
I realize that.

And yet, here we are debating the difference between "immediate" and "imminent."
04-30-2010 02:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NIU007 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,301
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 320
I Root For: NIU, MAC
Location: Naperville, IL
Post: #32
RE: Courts: Wives of terrorist suspects CAN claim benefits
(04-30-2010 02:28 PM)dwr0109 Wrote:  I realize that.

And yet, here we are debating the difference between "immediate" and "imminent."

Yea, on that part I agree with you.
04-30-2010 02:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
I45owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,374
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #33
RE: Courts: Wives of terrorist suspects CAN claim benefits
(04-30-2010 02:17 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  
(04-30-2010 01:58 PM)dwr0109 Wrote:  I'm sure that would be open to debate.

But both terms were used by Rumsfeld in the quotes above.

If there was indeed a legitimate "imminent threat" to the United States. I would expect our government to do its job and protect us.

I don't understand why we're splitting hairs here, since our government acted quickly to preempt the threat. Apparently they weren't too concerned about semantics.

The point was more about whether Iraq actually was a threat to the U.S. and that the so-called urgency diverted vast resources from the fighting in Afghanistan. That isn't semantics.

For my part, I don't believe that any of the principles really believed that Iraq itself was a direct threat to the United States. They exposed the US to many indirect threats and uncertainty and put it in a very dangerous position, but to the extent that they suggested it was an immediate threat, I think it was demagoguery.
04-30-2010 02:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.