So Tenet says they never said "imminent" threat. Bush says he never...

[Brotherjohn]

... said "imminent" threat.

That still, then, begs the question: If the threat was not imminent, then why did we HAVE to invade, and RIGHT AWAY? Why did we have to give Hussein a 48-hr deadline? Why did we cut off the U.N. inspections process? (EVEN IF you didn't think it was working, although what we now know shows it was working) Why, Bush, why? Explain that to the 500-plus dead soldiers.

This is all assuming that Bush didn't believe the threat was imminent, as he seems to be stating now when he says he never said the exact word "imminent" (although we know members of the WH did use that word). Of course, Bush may not have said "imminent", but we all know he and his staff used so many synonyms and phrases which meant that the threat was imminent ("immediate", "mortal", "mushroom cloud"...), that he DID in fact "say" the threat was imminent.

So in essence, in stating now that it was not imminent, he is admitting that he overstated the case for war when he repeatedly said, in other ways, that it was. Which begs the question: Why did you exaggerrate the case for war, Mr. Bush?

Both questions sink him. There are no adequate answers other than what everyone already knows, but he can't admit:
- He did say, in many ways, that the threat was imminent, and said that this threat was the reason we had to invade.
- He knew (and admits now) that the threat was not.
- He therefore took us to war for false reasons.

He should be impeached, but we'll have to settle for the electorate, since congress isn't up to the job.

[daveskilt]

1. the only imminent threats were

bush not being re-elected withour employing the age old beat up on a smaller nation to stir national pride plan (lets hope it works as well as the russo-japanese war of 1905 waged for the same reason)

and

bushco not making as much cash as they wanted to without getting their grubby little fingers on all that lovely oil.

[lovedems]

2. Can I make what I think is a valid point????

Intelligence is a TOOL it is not a basis to go to war. We can sit and bitch all day long about the intelligence being wrong but what went wrong was bu$h going to war SOLELY BASED ON INTELLIGENCE. I haven't heard that argument made yet. Like I said, intelligence is a tool in a long line of pre-requisites that should be present before you go to pre-emptively start a war and kill thousands!

Therefor, the chimp should still be held accountable for going to war using intelligence people have said has been bad for the last 20 years. Yeah, yeah, chimp, the rest of world thought so too, but they didn't join you in your crusade. Yeah, yeah, chimp, Clinton had a regime change policy too, but he didn't invade the country either.

[dennis4868]

4. Watch the movie UNCOVERED....

it is put out I believe by moveon.org. In the documentary a former CIA officer says that you never use intelligence to go to war, you use intelligence to prevent wars!

[lovedems]

9. I haven't seen it but I have heard of it. Why isn't ANYBODY bringing

this to light??? I am shocked that we are even engaging in an argument about the correctness of the intelligence. The bu$h regime started a war based on intelligence, I don't care if the intelligence was right or wrong, it is not the basis for war!

Now that it turns out there is a question about the intelligence, my next reasonable question to the chimp would be, "If you were going to invade a country based on intelligence, why in the hell didn't you check and double check and triple check to make sure your information was correct?" That would have been the role of the weapons inspectors that he so quickly booted out of the country! He knew the weapons wouldn't be there so they had to go. That is not the action of a team confident in their intelligence.

Either way the chimp and co. want to spin this, the shoe doesn't fit.

[Brotherjohn]

11. "Either way the chimp and co. want to spin this, the shoe doesn't fit."

Right. I guess that was my main point. No matter how they spin it, "the shoe doesn't fit". Everything they say contradicts something else they say or have said.

Why? Because, plainly, they haven't been honest. They have painted themselves into a corner.

[Brotherjohn]

5. Yes, I have made that point, too. Too bad we aren't on the talk show...

... circuit.

Even though it is obvious that Bush et al selectively used and sometimes outright ignored or contradicted it, regardless of what the intel said, BUSH made the decision to pre-emptively invade and conquer a nation, the CIA didn't.

"Yeah, yeah, chimp, the rest of world thought so too, but they didn't join you in your crusade."

Exactly.

Neither did Clinton in his last term.

[plcdude]

7. excellent point

and should be expanded. There is more to deciding to put our daughters and sons in harm's way than the mere existence of intelligence. This is why imho that the declaration of war was not and is not to be left in the hands of a single individual or dominant political party. We invaded this country based on intelligence only that we know was inaccurate and cherry-picked. The inherent flaw of pre-emption is that the criteria is limited by a lack of information, time, and an exhaustive use of diplomatic avenues. It is quite obvious that pre-emption is not an option for North Korea or Iran or wherever we want to declare as evil. Preemption was possible because they knew that this target posed no real significant danger of defeat for us.

[lovedems]

14. That is right,

When you decide to go to war, pre-emptively it should be a combination of diplomacy, reason, intelligence, a thoughtful plan, resources and alliances. (There should probably be more that I am not considering off the top of my head) and every criteria is somehow absent. They wanted to turn Iraq into a parking lot with shock and awe and then come up with a diplomatic plan later. It was all for different motives. Rummy was getting his rocks off big time bombing the shit out of what now appears to be a defenseless country, Cheney and friends wanted the oil, bu$h wanted revenge for his daddy, and the list goes on.

[Brucey]

3. These are the same guys who criticized Clinton and others

for their tricky use of language. Now they want to quibble about whether or not a particular word was spoken. If he didn't say it, he certainly more than implied it, and most Americans were suckered. They certainly thought that's what he meant. Are they really saying that it's okay to have a president who tricks us? Who doesn't communicate what he really means? What did he mean, if not "imminent?"

[YNGW]

6. So what happens if WMD's "suddenly" show up in Iraq...

... oh say, this summer and then around October or so Osama pops up? Will we all have egg on our faces?

[salin]

20. the embarassment for this adminstration is growing

as is their credibility problem. If they could "find" these weapons - they would have done so ala David Kay. If they coulda pulled the current fat out of the fire they would... and then the summer momentum (and fear and pump up for patriotic votes for shrub) would be tied to the next scheduled necessary action to protect America (Iran? Syria?) They (Rummy, Wolfie, Cheney, Perle) started talking about those awful WMDs being moved from Iraq within DAYS after the invasion ... to follow the same year long schedule for the next rampup/buildup to war.

[YNGW]

21. I appreciate it.

But really, I wanted an answer. What happens if WMD's show up and Osama is found? We're sunk, right? I mean, everyone who's been saying "Where's the WMD's? Where's Osama?" would look like idiots. Given the beliefs on this board that the BFEE is capable of anything, why wouldn't they pull the rabbit out of the hat once everyone is already up to their necks in cement? It seems like the perfect plan to me, make your enemies commit themselves to the point where everyone is all in a stir, and then make fools out of them. BOOM! You run the tables.

Just floating it, but who can say what's in their plans. :shrug:

[daveskilt]

23. yes we would be hosed

And I fully expect that we will be. you think they are too honest to do this?

[Greylady]

8. I didn't hear him say

*Simon Says* either. Could this administration sound any more childish?

[jbfam4]

12. Welcome, Greylady

With this corrupt administration you need a sense of humor. The answer is no, they couldn't sound any more childish.

[Greylady]

15. Thanks jbfam4

I've been lurking for months and decided to come out from my spider hole. I love this place, addicting at times.

[Brotherjohn]

18. Yes, the fact that they have to resort to semantics to defend a war...

... in which hundreds of America soldiers have died is indeed childish. Not to mention despicable, evil, disgusting, etc. etc...

On top of that, their semantic games do not even ring true, since everyone knows that they DID, indeed, make the case that the threat was imminent, regardless of what words they used.

Perhaps this childish behavior is why, finally, poll numbers are showing that the American people finally realize that the “grownups” are NOT, in fact, in charge.

[hlthe2b]

10. Someone with a few minutes needs to look into the justification he gave

for his preemptive war policy-- (speech given at Westpoint).

While I can't say for certain, does it not have imminent threat as a justification?

[Hubert Flottz]

13. Here is a good piece about what the liars really said!

Tenet Exposes Bush's Misleading on WMD

In a stunning blow to the president's credibility, CIA Director George Tenet said this morning that intelligence "analysts never said there was an imminent threat" from Iraq before the war.1 His comments are consistent with various warnings sent to the White House from the intelligence community that specifically told the president his claims that Iraq definitely had chemical/biological2 and nuclear weapons3 were unsubstantiated. Tenet's comments call into question whether the Bush Administration was knowingly ignoring intelligence and misleading the country by claiming definitively that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was therefore an "imminent," "immediate," "urgent" and "mortal" threat to the American people. More

http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df02052004.html

They Said It!

[wadestock]

16. Please read recent post.....The way the war was fought reveals....

Posted after reading this post, please read....

"The way the war was fought reveals...."

[htuttle]

17. If it wasn't an imminent threat, it was a war crime under the UN charter

While that may matter little to Bush, I believe it has quite a bit more pull on Blair over in Britain. Among other things, I think Britain signed the ICC treaty, no?

[papau]

19. "imminent" threat required by US Constitution-not "imminent"=impeach

Or does the US Media never read the Constitution.

Congress gave Bush the ability to go to war if necessary - but the Constitution still limits him to "imminent" threats


So will the media note this?

[daveskilt]

24. I work for fox - what is this "constitution" you speak of?

[Brotherjohn]

22. I guess what gets me so much about this "imminent" thing...

... and why I keep posting or responding to threads about it, is this:
They seem to think they can answer the "imminent" issue as an utterly separate issue from the issue of whether the war was actually necessary or not. They seem to think it's as simple as: they did not say "imminent", so the lack of WMDs isn't a problem.

This is, of course, ridiculous. If they are saying it was not imminent, then the obvious next question is "so why was the war necessary?" Unfortunately, the press have not been too eager in following up on this.

The fact that they actually did say it was imminent, in so many ways, further complicates things (the press hasn't been too eager to follow up on that either). They have a way of behaving so stupidly that it even confounds their critics, not to mention the casual news reader. It has confused me to no end, trying to find where to start the criticism! It is my hope, however, that most people are now finally asking that question: "Why then, Mr. Bush, was the war necessary?"