It's MORE incriminating if BushCo DIDN'T use the phrase "imminent threat"!

[ElementaryPenguin]

Because it shows an intent from the very beginning to avoid using a phrase that perfectly surmised the "crisis" in Iraq as they were describing it to the U.S. and the world!! The "imminent threat" description was used repeatedly by the press worldwide to describe the Bush Administration's case for war - never drawing a single denial from the Administration. On at least 2 occasions Ari Fleisher was asked if Iraq posed an IMMINENT THREAT - and both times he carefully responded that it did - WITHOUT repeating the phrase "imminent threat" itself! In its own "National Security Strategy Of the United States of America" the White House justifies the legitimacy of its preemptive attack policy by the existence of imminent threats - and suggests that the definition of "imminent threat" must now be adapted to include the potential threat of rogue nations in possession of weapons of mass destruction.

So clearly, any intentional avoidance of the term "imminent threat" before this war began, by any official of this administration, is evidence that the administration knew full well that this was something they would need to deny having said in the future - BECAUSE THEY KNEW FULL WELL BEFOREHAND - that Iraq DID NOT pose an imminent threat to the United States!!

:grr:
:argh:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf

[Oilwellian]

1. There's also this...

Didn't we send the same message to the international community and justify a pre-emptive invasion which went against international laws? Also, why would Bush say "find me a way to do this" when "find me a way" implies they knew there wasn't a logical reason for this war?

[ElementaryPenguin]

2. Yes we did.

Bushler's "find me a way" statement is certainly as incriminating as it gets!

:grr:

[DinahMoeHum]

3. Beg your pardon, but they DID use the phrase "imminent threat"

CLAIM:
"I think some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent.' Those were not words we used."
- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 1/27/04

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040127-6.html
(scroll down halfway)
(snip)
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.

------------------------

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

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030210-7.html
(scroll down a third of the way)
(snip)
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.

QUESTION: What can you do about this veto threat?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, I think what's important to remind NATO members, remind the international community is that this type of request under Article IV goes to the core of the NATO alliance.

QUESTION: Is this some kind of ultimate test of the alliance?

MR. McCLELLAN: This is about an imminent threat.

QUESTION: Who's going to do the reminding to NATO?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I just made some comments regarding that and, obviously, we will work through NATO, as well.
(snip)

[ElementaryPenguin]

5. Great find, FZ!!! You found what I had failed to find!

Has this been pointed out and spread widely - or send to the mainstream press whores?

:wtf:

[librechik]

4. Duh. That's why we know they are stupid as well as evil.

It is laughable indeed. This is a bunch of school bullies who always hated the smartest kid in the class, and swore to show him a thing or two when they got the chance. Well, they are doing it now.