Bush Never Said Saddam Imminent Threat

[Kimber Scott]

This seems to be the latest talking point coming out of the right. What I want to know is, as these people are now trying to say our president never said, if Saddam Hussein wasn't an imminent threat, then just what was his justification for sacrificing over 500 American men and women and untold number of Iraqis? Did I miss something, or is this another one of those, "Say it enough times, and they'll believe it" routines?

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. Whoever says that...

Is a lying sack of merde. He said it, as did his people.

[Kimber Scott]

8. I'm trying

to find the show on CSPAN where I first heard it. It was a panel discussion about the media between Al Franken, Tucker Carlson, the guy who wrote "What Liberal Media?" and a female "conservative pundit" whose name I can't remember right now. It was on about two weeks ago.

I heard it again tonight on my way home from school on KFYI from a caller who called in and used the exact words the "conservative pundit" had used on CSPAN. Do these guys get a memo, or something? "What to Say Now..."

[KissMyAsscroft]

2. They didn't say the WORD Imminent.

They said immediate, grave, gathering, can't wait, must act now, mushroom cloud over NYC, yadda, yadda...

Depends on what the definition of is is.

[Homer12]

3. Bushco went to war becuase to enforce the U.N. mandates...or...

....I mean becuase Hussein was a tyrant...How about I had a cold and got the intellegance for N.Korea mixed up with Iraq.

The dog ate my homework!

[Eric J in MN]

4. check out The Daily Howler

BUSH: Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun, that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh102203.shtml

[dweller]

5. He never won the whitehouse either

but he's an imminent threat to this country and the world.

the *moron now says 'doesn't matter if there were no WMDs, Saddam had to go'.

and i'll answer, it doesn't matter if there were WMDs, that *moron has to go.

:mad:
NOT my President...
dp

[BurtWorm]

6. Actually, a lot of people on the right are beginning to get sick

of having to pretend Bush was shooting straight the whole time. This morning on DU, there was a post about a column a Libertarian-style Republican wrote called "A Warhawk Flies the Coop" (http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n/morris/2004/morris012704.htm), in which the author essentially disowns the Bush regime as a lying cesspool of socialism. There's a post right now on this board about a freeper who expresses his frustration at having to apologize for Bush's flimsy WMD argument all the time. And in my personal experience, a winger on Usenet confessed to me today that he'd vote for a real conservative (he prefers Ann Coulter :puke: ) over Bush, even if she ran as a "Dim," as he so colorfully put it. It's just these flabby party patsies who are content to go on making excuses. Bush is in trouble. He may recover, but he's shaky at the moment.

[Sapphocrat]

7. Neither did Tony Blair or Jack Straw...

Nosirree, nobody ever said, "Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat."

I wrote a whole blog entry demonstrating what a hair-splitter Jack Straw is ("The Prime Minister never said 'imminent threat'!" Yeah, moron, but he did say Iraq could very well launch its imaginary weapons within "45 minutes" -- how "imminent" is that?) -- go search my blog (link below) for the entry "Jack Straw is a Big, Fat Liar".

Based on that, I have no doubt that the Boy King never, ever, evereverver! actually said, "Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat."

But -- as I also blogged -- Greg Brady learned that it's pretty hard to live by "exact words."

In the same vein, I could post a hysterical message to DU that reads: "OMG! I'm dying! And no one knows if I have three months or three days left to live!"

Which would be "technically correct" -- but wouldn't be any less a pile of bull flop.

If you need some exact quotes that could be used on the witness stand against the Emperor, give a holler and I'm sure I can come up with a few handy hair-splitters to use in your rebuttals against freepers.

[Kimber Scott]

13. I'd like to testify

agains the Emperor. Some good quotes might come in handy.

[Sapphocrat]

16. No problemo...

Give me a few to dig into Sapphocrat's Gigantic Word File of Incriminating Stuff They Said. :)

[Sapphocrat]

23. Bloody Nora!

Beat to the punch while I'm off researching, as usual.

Well, I'll give you the whole enchilada anyway -- I'm not gonna let this go to waste:


So, if Bush never said "Saddam (or Iraq) was an 'imminent threat,'" where did the phrase come from?

For starters, from Bush's own National Security Strategy, issued in September, 2002 -- the short but to-the-point document that lays out the Bush administration's defense policy:

For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.

We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. ...

The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction— and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.

The rest of the paper is worth reading -- which is more than your freepie adversaries will ever do. Here's the link:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss5.html

The wormiest freeps will still argue that Bush never said "imminent threat." Your answer is: "It didn't have to come out of his smarmy little mouth in order for him to 'say' it."

Your point being: The National Security Strategy is the official position of the White House. And who's White House is that? (No sloughing the blame off on Condi Rice or Stephen Hadley this time!)

Now, keeping the NSS in mind, let's turn to Shrub's October 7, 2002, speech in Cincinnati. I love going over this speech with a fine-tooth comb -- it's just a cornucopia of deceptions, half-truths, quarter-truths, and 1/64th truths, and great fun to pounce all over at any opportunity.

But enough about me -- the important thing to remember here is that this speech draws heavily from Bush's National Security Strategy, published a scant month earlier.

Following are the points most pertinent to our discussion. Notice, not once does the Boy King use the phrase "imminent threat" in reference to Saddam Hussein, or Iraq. He misleads you (and just about every left-leaning politician and pundit on the planet) to that line of thought -- but never do the actual words once leave his smirking little maw.

Notice how many times he uses the word "threat" (I count ten in just the excerpts below), and how many times he uses "imminent" (once) or synonyms or convenient substitutes for "imminent" (i.e., "urgent," "grave," "significant," "moving ever closer," "put us on notice," etc.):

Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.

The threat comes from Iraq. ...

Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. ...

While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone ...

The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons? ...

Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations ... We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. ...

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. ...

Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. ...

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year ...

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. ...

Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.

...Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon. ...

And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. ... And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions. ...

Some have argued we should wait -- and that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. ...

Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities. ...

-- Cincinnati, October 7, 2002
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

Next, remember what I said about Jack Straw stating that Tony Blair never said "imminent" threat, either -- but he most certainly did say Saddam might be capable of launching WMD within 45 minutes?

Now, you tell me: Does "45 minutes" seem "imminent"?

Bushie Boy echoed that "45 minutes" claim repeatedly (and then squirmed out of it by saying he was only repeating what the Brits said -- which is technically true, but still slimy):

The Iraqi regime is building the facilities necessary to make more biological and chemical weapons. And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given.

President Bush Discusses Iraq with Congressional Leaders, September 26, 2002
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020926-7.html

The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given.

Radio Address, September 28, 2002
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020928.html

So, did Bush never, ever actually say "imminent threat"? No, he didn't.

He did, however, write it:

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate

Due to our success in Afghanistan, we have detained hundreds of al-Qaida and Taliban fighters who are believed to pose a continuing threat to the United States and its interests. ...

In furtherance of our worldwide efforts against terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the United States, our friends and allies, and our forces abroad, we continue operations in other areas around the globe. ...

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

Other speeches to read carefully (which is easier than having to listen to this drek):

2003 SOTU, which includes much of the same; e.g.:

Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

Also (but not half as interesting):

President Signs Iraq Resolution
October 16, 2002
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/iraq/20021016-1.html

President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly
September 12, 2002
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html


Beyond that, let's look at a few quotes from Bush's mouthpieces -- people who represent the Bush administration in an official capacity -- who did indeed say Saddam and/or Iraq was an "imminent threat," or at the very least agreed with those "exact words" (which are extremely helpful for debunking the claim that "no Whote House official" ever said such a thing):

Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent, that Saddam Hussein is at least five to seven years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. Before Operation Desert Storm in 1991, the best intelligence estimates were that Iraq was about five to seven years away from having nuclear weapons. The experts were flat wrong. When the U.S. got on the ground, they found that the Iraqis were probably six months to a year to 18 months from having a nuclear weapon, not five to seven years.

Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld before the House Armed Services Committee regarding Iraq
September 18, 2002
http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2002/s20020918-secdef2.html

Different version of the same testimony at the White House site:

Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent—that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons.

I would not be so certain. Before Operation Desert Storm in 1991, the best intelligence estimates were that Iraq was at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. The experts were flat wrong. When the U.S. got on the ground, it found the Iraqi’s were probably six months to a year away from having a nuclear weapon – not 5 to 7 years. ...

Moreover, let’s say he is 5-7 years from a deliverable nuclear weapon. That raises the question: 5-7 years from when? From today? From 1998, when he kicked out the inspectors? Or from earlier, when inspectors were still in country?

Statement of Donald H. Rumsfeld
U.S. Secretary of Defense
Before the House Armed Services Committee on Iraq
September 18, 2002
http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-18rumsfeld.html

QUESTION: Ari, the President has been saying that the threat from Iraq is imminent, that we have to act now to disarm the country of its weapons of mass destruction, and that it has to allow the U.N. inspectors in, unfettered, no conditions, so forth.

MR. FLEISCHER: Yes.

Excerpts from the Press Briefings by Ari Fleischer October 16, 2002
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/excerpts_oct16.html

BLITZER: But is he (Saddam) an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?

BARTLETT: Well, of course he is.

White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett
CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer
January 26, 2003

RICHARD PERLE: You know, crown jewels were the jewels in the crown, and you don't give them away because you're giving the crown away, but Saddam has lots of crown jewels, plenty for himself and to distribute to others if he chooses to do so. And the only point I want to make is that as long as Saddam is there, with everything we know about Saddam, as long as he possesses the weapons that we know he possesses, there is a threat, and I believe it's imminent because he could choose at any time to take an action we all very much hope he won't take.

PBS NewsHour
February 12, 2003
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june03/why_war_2-12.html

Q Well, 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?

MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely.

Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer, May 7, 2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030507-7.html

Here, Scott McClellan is talking about Turkey -- not the United States -- but one must ask, If Saddam is an "imminent threat" to Turkey, doesn't that make him an "imminent threat," period?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, what we're focused on -- and, remember, it goes back to what the President said over the weekend. And this is about disarmament. This is about 12 years of deceiving and denying and cheating and retreating and playing hide-and-seek. And those games are over. ...

QUESTION: What about NATO's role? Belgium now says it will veto any attempt to provide help to Turkey to defend itself. Is this something the administration can live with, or is it a major obstacle?

MR. McCLELLAN: Two points. We support the request under Article IV of Turkey. And I think it's important to note that the request from a country under Article IV that faces an imminent threat goes to the very core of the NATO alliance and its purpose.

Press Gaggle by Scott McClellan, February 10, 2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030210-8.html

Finally, enjoy this little bit of fancy footwork as McClellan tries to sidestep the issue -- this very afternoon, in fact:

Q On the question of Iraq, two issues. First, you've been using the phrase, "gathering threat" and "grave danger," which obviously are words that the President, himself, used many times before the war. You have not used the word "imminent threat." And the essence of Dr. Kay's comments recently would suggest that there was no way for there to be an imminent threat.

Does the President now believe that, in fact, while the threat was gathering, while the threat may have been grave, that, in fact, it was not imminent?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think we've said all along that it was a grave and gathering threat. And that in a post-September 11th world, you must confront gathering threats before it's too late.

I think some in the media have chosen to use the word "imminent." Those were not words --

Q The President himself never used that word?

MR. McCLELLAN: Those were not words we used. We used "grave and gathering threat." We made it very clear that it was a gathering threat, that it's important to confront gathering threats in this post-September 11th world, because of the new dangers and new threats that we face.

Q So then under your interpretation, if you're not using the word "imminent" and the President didn't use it, this was not a preemptive attack, this was a preventative war? Is that the White House position?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, again, September 11th taught us that we must confront gathering threats before it's too late. Saddam Hussein -- Saddam Hussein had ample opportunity to come clean.

Q I hear you, Scott. But there's a definitional difference. "Preemptive" has to do with imminent threats. "Preventative" has to do with non-imminent threats.

MR. McCLELLAN: He was a gathering threat, and it was important that we confront that threat. I don't know that I necessarily agree with your distinctions that you're making there.

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan, January 27, 2004
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040127-6.html


If you'd like more examples, they do exist -- in which Bush calls Iraq an "urgent threat to America," Cheney calls it a "mortal threat," and many, many more.

[Sparky McGruff]

9. I still don't get it...

Why is it so important to them to insist that he didn't use the word imminent? As if that makes any difference? This is obviously very important to them -- it's a focused talking point. But WHY?

Anyone have any idea? I'm seriously stumped, and I keep thinking that there must be some very important reason why they're so insistent. I just can't figure out what it is.

[Kimber Scott]

11. I think

it has something to do with the doctrine of preemption. But, I was under the impression one must consider oneself to be in imminent danger for one to strike the first blow. So, why are they insisting now he didn't say it? I don't get it either. Maybe they're beginning to crack - choking on their own tangle web.

[Sparky McGruff]

18. That's exactly what I was thinking...

I can see how you'd want to play up the "imminent threat", but not why you'd be so insistent that you'd never used that word. I can see how they might make an argument (that I wouldn't buy) that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat, based on what we "knew" then (a.k.a. what the Office of Special Projects cooked up). I can even imagine another argument that SH was an imminent threat because he was *trying unsuccessfully* to acquire weapons, although it's hard to imagine that being truly "imminent".

But, saying that there was NO imminent threat seems to undercut the whole rationale for the war. We just did it on a whim; we could have waited a year, two years, ten years, or maybe just tried to work things oud some other way. But, we ran it past some focus groups and political strategists, and decided that a war would help our re-election strategy.

Again, I have this deep nagging feeling that there's something very important in the fact that they're hammering on this point. It doesn't make sense to my non-republican brain. Is there a reason for this point, or is it just another sign that the wheels are falling off the bus? (deny anything, just for the sake of denial)

[K8-EEE]

10. If He Didn't Say It....

It's because he knew the whole thing was a lie.

There were so many "imminent threats" listed in the 2003 SOTU.

I totally remember him saying in resonse to the protests "they think Saddam Hussein is not an imminent threat to the world and I respectfully disagree."

[Dr Fate]

12. Can Bush even PRONOUNCE the word?

I would hate to think that 500 Americans died after using the word "imminent."

THANK GOD he never said that one word.

[ComerPerro]

14. You nailed it

Exactly. If Bush never said that Saddam was an imminent threat, then why was it so urgent that we go to war with him??

[maggrwaggr]

21. that's it. They were in a HUGE hurry to go to war because

the threat was so "grave", "gathering" "imminent" or whatever.

They couldn't wait for the inspectors, even though they had free access, etc. etc. etc.

The whole POINT of invading was that it was imminent.

God I hate these people.

[Memekiller]

15. Here's the whoslying post on the subject

http://whoslying.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=30

Background

Repeatedly, we have heard the assertion in the media that Bush made the claim that the Iraq threat was "imminent".

Statement/Action

One example:

"We didn’t go into the war on the basis that we were going to kill Saddam. We went to war on the basis that there were weapons that made him an imminent threat. And that’s not true. That’s the critical issue, and there’s no getting around that. The fact of the matter is the weapons aren’t there."

Interview with Seymour M. Hersh, The New Yorker online, Oct. 23, 2003

Reasonable Inference

Bush made the case for war based on the fact that the Iraq threat was "imminent".

Contradictory Statement/Action

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

State of the Union, January 28, 2003



Comments

Update #1:Some readers have raised the point that although he may not have used the exact word "imminent", he did more than enough to give the impression of a immense and immediate threat (i.e. imminent). Those arguments can be found here and here.

Update #2:Yet more evidence it may in fact be those who say Bush never claimed Iraq was an "imminent" threat are the actual fibbers here:

"Let’s start by looking at what the president’s spokesmen said about the 'imminent threat' claim before things in Iraq started going sour.

"Last October, a reporter put this to Ari Fleischer: 'Ari, the president has been saying that the threat from Iraq is imminent, that we have to act now to disarm the country of its weapons of mass destruction, and that it has to allow the U.N. inspectors in, unfettered, no conditions, so forth.'

"Fleischer’s answer? 'Yes.'

"In January, Wolf Blitzer asked Dan Bartlett: 'Is an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home.'

"Bartlett’s answer? 'Well, of course he is.'

"A month after the war, another reporter asked Fleischer, 'Well, 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?'

"Fleischer’s answer? 'Absolutely.'

"Silly Word Games and Weapons of Mass Destruction", The Hill, Nov. 5, 2003.

[Zero Gravitas]

17. We're not stupid

Their case for war was:

a) we KNOW Saddam has WMDs
b) we KNOW he is in league with al Qaeda
c) he could give weapons to them at any time

They are a bunch of weasels and liars, they are expert fear-mongers. They knew exactly what they were doing, what impression they were giving even if they were careful with the exact wording and parsing of their statements. If I recall correctly, the right used to call that careful use of language "Clintonian". But these people make Clinton look like an amateur when it comes to dissembling.

OK so lets, hypothetically, accept that they never said the the threat was imminent. So why then was it so urgent that even long-standing alliances were broken so we could invade sooner rahter than later? If the threat was not imminent why not take the time to convince our allies of the danger?

No the fact is they have always lied about the need to invade Iraq. They wanted to do it for reasons that have nothing to do with 9/11 and WMDs. They cynically think they can lie and manipulate and frighten with impunity. And so far they are getting away with it, but people are beginning to wake up.

[scottcsmith]

19. Another trick of Karl Rove, I suspect

It just shows the real contempt the Right has for most Americans. They think if they re-write history and change the threat from "imminent" to "gathering" that we'll just accept that version of reality, rather than the reality that the Bush administration peddled to the world from Sept. 2002 - March 2003.

Read through these press releases and speeches made by Bush and Colin Powell. They certainly tried to make the case that Saddam Hussein was an "imminent" threat.

Sept. 28, 2002
President Bush radio address
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/arms/02092803.htm

"The danger to our country is grave and it is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq. This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year."



Oct. 7, 2002
Bush speech, Cincinati, OH
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

"Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?"



Jan. 28, 2003
Bush State of the Union Address
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)"


Feb. 5, 2003
Colin Powell speech to the United Nations Security Council
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/17300.htm

This is the speech where Powell makes this statement:
"My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources."


March 17, 2003
Bush address to the nation
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people."

Just a "gathering" threat, right, Mr. Bush? Bullshit.

[RapidCreek]

20. Interesting.....If he didn't say he posed an iminant threat then why

and or how was the war authorized?

RC

[BigBigBear]

22. The talking point everyone misses

Bush and Co dragged Congress into this as Constitutional and political cover, warning of dire consequences in a 9/11 sensitized climate. In the Joint Resolution, weapons of mass destruction are mentioned 13 times.

Liberation of the Iraqis is peripherally mentioned once.

What he said in speeches matters little - what he forced the Congress to respond to and give him authority tto make his war is what really mattered, and how we really ended up there.

[FDRrocks]

24. 2002 SOTU address...

Christ. If this passes then we are depicted in 1984.

[rman]

25. then why attack Iraq?

if Iraq was not somehow an imminent, or immediate threat, then there was no cause for this war. that also means the WMDs weren't the threat they were made out to be.