Replies to post #30221 on Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)

[hap0206]

Yes seabass -- it is the same -- in BushBashSpeak, while GWB never used the word "imminent" and in fact argued that the USA could not wait for an "imminent" threat before acting -- the libs/dems/media charge him with "waging war on Iraq without an imminent threat" being present.
=======
now the same thing on "patriotism" -- the Repubs describe the behavior of the Dems in opposing the war in Iraq, point out how their voting (only a few) against funds for the war helps out enemy -- pointed out (in political ads) that Max Cleland voted 10 times (with Daschle) supporting labor union bosses over certain HomeLand security employees -- and, just in the overall, question their judgement on fighting the WoT -- and the dems react with charges that they are being called "unamerican" and "unpatriotic"
====
so, in BushBashSpeak, rather than answer or defend their positions they just charge "the repubs are questioning our patriotism".
======
From the link ergo provided:
=======
Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) said he would not question a lawmaker’s patriotism because of a no vote on the supplemental bill, adding it is “unworthy of politics to stoop to that level.” “None of us are unpatriotic,” Chafee said.

Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) agreed. “Everybody here is a patriot,” Smith said, adding he would not call “people’s patriotism in question” because of how they vote on the bill.

On the House side, Democrats said that Republicans had also charged them with being unpatriotic. Rep. Martin Frost (D-Texas) said last Friday, “Yesterday I heard far too many members on the other side of the aisle come to the floor and impugn the motives and perhaps the patriotism of members who sought to reprioritize the funds in this bill,” adding such remarks would be a “shameful blemish on this institution.” However, a review of congressional records did not show any Republicans calling Democrats unpatriotic on the House floor.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) said last Thursday: “To those who have feigned offense about their patriotism being questioned, this is not about your patriotism. It is about your judgment.” DeLay added the “old debating tactic of ‘I support the troops, but’ is just not going to cut it this time. If you support the war and you support the troops, you must vote for this bill.”

[hap0206]

seabass -- things you don't see in the mainstream media -- but no matter, 35% of the voters are going for the dem candidate regardless of facts -- The David Kay report and senate committee hearings will be devastating IMO of course
==================
Saddam Hussein (search) had weapons of mass destruction and his army was capable of firing them off in less than 45 minutes, according to an Iraqi colonel's statements in the London Telegraph.

According to Lt. Col. al-Dabbagh, cases of WMD warheads were shipped under cover of darkness to front-line units, including his own, near the end 2002, the Telegraph reported Sunday.

In September of 2002 the British government published a controversial intelligence report on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, claiming WMD could be launched within 45 minutes. Al-Dabbagh said he believed he was the source of the claim, which was widely criticized as being a ploy by British Prime Minister Tony Blair (search) to gain support for military action in Iraq (search).

"I am the one responsible for providing this information," al-Dabbagh, 40, told the Telegraph when shown the dossier. "It is 100 percent accurate."

"Forget 45 minutes, we could have fired these within half-an-hour," he was quoted as saying.

Al-Dabbagh told the paper that the weapons were Iraqi-manufactured and were designed to be launched from hand-held rocket-propelled grenades. Whether the weapons contained biological or chemical agents was not made clear by al-Dabbagh, the report said.

Iraqi military commanders could use the weapons only on the personal orders of Saddam, al-Dabbagh told the paper, adding: "We were told that when the war came we would only have a short time to use everything we had to defend ourselves, including the secret weapon."

So why weren't the weapons launched against the allied forces encroaching on Iraq? Al-Dabbagh said the majority of the Iraqi army did not want to fight for Saddam.

"The West should thank God that the Iraqi army decided not to fight," he told the paper. "If the army had fought for Saddam Hussein and used these weapons there would have been terrible consequences."