Killing Bush is now a moral imperitive for all Democrats.

6 views
Skip to first unread message

Vendicar Decarian

unread,
Feb 1, 2004, 1:18:25 AM2/1/04
to
January 28, 2004 | Daily Mislead Archive
Bush Claims to Never Say Iraq Was "Imminent Threat"


Facing mounting pressure over charges that the White House deliberately
misled the American people about Iraq's WMD, President Bush is now claiming
that U.N. weapons inspectors were not allowed into Iraq before the war.
Yesterday, the president said, Iraq "chose defiance. It was [Saddam's]
choice to make, and he did not let us in."1

But U.N. weapons inspections led by Hans Blix began on November 27th, 2003,
as noted by the State Department at the time.2 Over the course of the next
five months, those inspections found "little more than 'debris'" from a WMD
program that had long since been destroyed.3 The weapons inspectors were
forced to leave when Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq.4 President Bush then
"refused to permit the U.N. inspectors to return to Iraq."5

When asked about the issue yesterday, White House spokesman Scott McClellan
claimed the entire WMD issue was unimportant because the Bush Administration
had never said Iraq was a threat. He said, "the media have chosen to use the
word 'imminent'" to describe the Iraqi "threat" - not the Bush
Administration.6

But the record shows the Administration repeatedly said Iraq was an
"imminent threat." On May 7th, less than a week after the president
announced the end of major combat operations, White House spokesman Ari
Fleischer was asked, "Didn't we go to war because we said WMD were a direct
and imminent threat to the U.S.?" He replied, "Absolutely."7 Similarly, in
November 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, "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?" Most notably, Vice President Cheney said two days after
President Bush's 2003 State of the Union that Saddam Hussein "threatens the
United States of America."8

Sources:
1.. President Bush Welcomes President Kwasniewski to White House ,
01/27/2004.
2.. "Weapons Inspections to Begin in Iraq November 27", US State
Department, 11/25/2002.
3.. "Blix Downgrades Prewar Assessment of Iraqi Weapons", Washington Post,
11/22/2003.
4.. "Weapons Inspectors Leave Iraq", CBS News, 03/18/2003.
5.. "Bush bars UN weapons teams from Iraq", SMH, 04/24/2003.
6.. Press Briefing, 01/27/2004.
7.. Press Briefing, 05/07/2003.
8.. "Confronting Iraq Crucial To War Against Terror", Truth News,
01/30/2003.

--
"We must create a <economic> crisis in order to ensure that there is no
alternative to a smaller government." - Bush - Imprimus Magazine 1995.

"We seek to remove resources from the control of the state, thereby starving
it." - International Society for Individual Liberty - NeoCon Libertarian.

"Throughout his term, Bush has implied tax cuts would starve the government,
paying for themselves by causing budget deficits that, in turn, would place
heavy pressure on Congress to lower spending." - Jeff Lemieux - Senior
Economist - Progressive Policy Institute.

"They have an agenda which is to starve the government of revenue. But in
order to get it through, they keep on having to pretend that the tax cuts
are affordable, and so they've been suppressing the likely cost of
everything, including the war on terror." - Paul Krugman - Economist.

Killing the current occupant of the white house at the polls in the coming
election is a moral imperitive.

--
"We must create a <economic> crisis in order to ensure that there is no
alternative to a smaller government." - Bush - Imprimus Magazine 1995.

"We seek to remove resources from the control of the state, thereby starving
it." - International Society for Individual Liberty - NeoCon Libertarian.

"Throughout his term, Bush has implied tax cuts would starve the government,
paying for themselves by causing budget deficits that, in turn, would place
heavy pressure on Congress to lower spending." - Jeff Lemieux - Senior
Economist - Progressive Policy Institute.

"They have an agenda which is to starve the government of revenue. But in
order to get it through, they keep on having to pretend that the tax cuts
are affordable, and so they've been suppressing the likely cost of
everything, including the war on terror." - Paul Krugman - Economist.

Roedy Green

unread,
Feb 1, 2004, 4:33:03 AM2/1/04
to
Getting Bush out of office is a moral imperative. If someone, anyone
killed him, it would make matters much worse.

Why is that?

He would turn into a martyr. The public would treat his policies as
holy writ. The public would be paranoid, willing to further shred the
constitution, and hand over power to the Ashcroft TIA.

If whomever did it was a foreigner, or managed to frame some
foreigner, rage would be directed at that country which might go as
far as nuclear war.

Part of the reason for the original 9-11 coverup was to deflect
pressure on Bush to nuke Saudi Arabia, invade or permit murder all
Saudis in America in the hours following 9-11. It also explains why
Bush helped the bin Ladens and Saudi Royals to escape when everyone
else was locked down. If the American public had put 2+2 together
they could have torn them to pieces. I personally received a most
credible death threat from an angry American in the heat of 9-11. I
have received thousands of them in my life, and that was the most
credible. (Why did I receive so many? I was one of the early public
gay lib pioneers. It upset people back then.)

Ironically, the people with most motive to KILL Bush are the
Republicans themselves because of Bush's falling numbers and gross
incompetence at selling lies. Never forget that Bush is just an
animatronic figure head. He is the dummy, not the ventriloquist. If
he were assassinated, the Republicans could neatly parachute in a new
"clean" candidate, and pull the curtain closed on the "saint's"
(actually the neocon's) past misdeeds.

Please do not kill Bush or advocate that. There are people stupid or
angry enough to take you seriously. Further, you can likely count on
a visit from the authorities for issuing that threat. A kid was
arrested for wearing a tee shirt with Bush's picture in a target.
Your threat is much more serious.

--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.

Steven Litvintchouk

unread,
Feb 1, 2004, 10:32:45 AM2/1/04
to

Vendicar Decarian wrote:
> [doesn't matter what he wrote]

I've taken the liberty of forwarding your post (with its seditious
subject header) on to the proper Government authorities.

-- Steven L.

Harry Krause

unread,
Feb 1, 2004, 11:13:11 AM2/1/04
to
Steven Litvintchouk wrote:

Indeed, I don't support Bush and I will work to defeat him this fall.
But this is the United States and we are still rational here, and we
don't kill our politicians. We simply don't elect them or don't re-elect
them. Personally, I wish George W. Bush a long and healthy retirement,
beginning next January, in Crawford, Texas.


Email sent to piedty...@yahoo.com is never read.

ImpBush

unread,
Feb 1, 2004, 1:29:59 PM2/1/04
to
"Roedy Green" <look-at-t...@mindprod.com> wrote in message
news:63hp105si6sqvum85...@4ax.com...

> Getting Bush out of office is a moral imperative. If someone, anyone
> killed him, it would make matters much worse.
>
> Why is that?
>
> He would turn into a martyr. The public would treat his policies as
> holy writ. The public would be paranoid, willing to further shred the
> constitution, and hand over power to the Ashcroft TIA.
>

Worse yet, Cheney and his anti-american Haliburton Taliban would take over
and funnel even more money to terrorist groups.

The whole BushCo regime needs to be replaced.

Roedy Green

unread,
Feb 1, 2004, 4:58:44 PM2/1/04
to
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 11:13:11 -0500, Harry Krause
<piedty...@yahoo.com> wrote or quoted :

>Indeed, I don't support Bush and I will work to defeat him this fall.
>But this is the United States and we are still rational here, and we
>don't kill our politicians. We simply don't elect them or don't re-elect
>them. Personally, I wish George W. Bush a long and healthy retirement,
>beginning next January, in Crawford, Texas.

Amen. Once he is out of office, I don't even have that much interest
it seeing him prosecuted for his crimes.

Figaro

unread,
Feb 1, 2004, 9:06:55 PM2/1/04
to

O thank you, Dudley Doright...we all feel safer now.

Figaro

Vendicar Decarian

unread,
Feb 2, 2004, 12:42:19 AM2/2/04
to

"Steven Litvintchouk" <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:x_8Tb.5383$jH6....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...

> I've taken the liberty of forwarding your post (with its seditious
> subject header) on to the proper Government authorities.

Like a good little NeoCon, Steven hates freedom of speech.


Steveo

unread,
Feb 2, 2004, 11:24:59 AM2/2/04
to


Apparently, neither of you actually read what was posted:

"Killing the current occupant of the white house at the polls in the coming
election is a moral imperitive."

Seig heil.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> Email sent to piedty...@yahoo.com is never read.


--
As people do better, they start voting like Republicans -- unless
they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there
can be too much of a good thing.

-- Karl Rove, The New Yorker, 02/16/2001

Vendicar Decarian

unread,
Feb 5, 2004, 2:27:27 PM2/5/04
to

"Roedy Green" <look-at-t...@mindprod.com> wrote in message
news:63hp105si6sqvum85...@4ax.com...
> Please do not kill Bush or advocate that. There are people stupid or
> angry enough to take you seriously. Further, you can likely count on
> a visit from the authorities for issuing that threat. A kid was
> arrested for wearing a tee shirt with Bush's picture in a target.
> Your threat is much more serious.

What threat?

Roedy Green

unread,
Feb 7, 2004, 4:19:23 AM2/7/04
to
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 08:24:59 -0800, Steveo <ste...@end-war.com> wrote
or quoted :

>Apparently, neither of you actually read what was posted:
>
>"Killing the current occupant of the white house at the polls in the coming
>election is a moral imperitive."

That could be parsed another way -- calling for Bush to be murdered as
he was voting for himself.

Vendicar Decarian

unread,
Feb 7, 2004, 9:17:27 PM2/7/04
to

"Roedy Green" <look-at-t...@mindprod.com> wrote in message
news:hbb920p0q2b4g4aa1...@4ax.com...

> That could be parsed another way -- calling for Bush to be murdered as
> he was voting for himself.

Whatever turns your crank.


traveler

unread,
Feb 7, 2004, 11:10:48 PM2/7/04
to
"Vendicar Decarian" <V...@Pyro.net> wrote in message news:<1ulTb.1108$_62....@read1.cgocable.net>...

Yeah, see what you mean. Let's find you and feed you feet first into
a chipper. Let's film it and everybody who is watching can clap and
cheer as you scream in agony. Then we can show your horrible demise
on movie screens and television sets all over the world. Look, folks,
there goes dipshit defairyland for the last time. Not such a smartass
today, is he? Don't object, now. It's only free speech.

Vendicar Decarian

unread,
Feb 8, 2004, 11:25:49 PM2/8/04
to

"traveler" <Vall...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:aa96aeec.04020...@posting.google.com...

> Yeah, see what you mean. Let's find you and feed you feet first into
> a chipper. Let's film it and everybody who is watching can clap and
> cheer as you scream in agony. Then we can show your horrible demise
> on movie screens and television sets all over the world. Look, folks,
> there goes dipshit defairyland for the last time. Not such a smartass
> today, is he? Don't object, now. It's only free speech.

You mean like publicly displaying the bodies of Saddam's murdered sons?


traveler

unread,
Feb 24, 2004, 7:03:45 AM2/24/04
to
Roedy Green <look-at-t...@mindprod.com> wrote in message news:<hbb920p0q2b4g4aa1...@4ax.com>...
> On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 08:24:59 -0800, Steveo <ste...@end-war.com> wrote
> or quoted :
>
> >Apparently, neither of you actually read what was posted:
> >
> >"Killing the current occupant of the white house at the polls in the coming
> >election is a moral imperitive."
>
> That could be parsed another way -- calling for Bush to be murdered as
> he was voting for himself.

What he said and what he meant to imply is only confusing to someone
who pays no attention to anything else he says every single day.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages