"Imminent Threat" In Bush administrations own words

[flamingpie2500]

"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

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

"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03

"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. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970

[bryant69]

1. Good roundup

But none of those are the president. Air Fleischer and Scott McClellan and Dan Bartlett don't speak for the President (well they do, but not when it's inconvenient for the President. At thost points they are speaking for themselves).

And Rumsefled didn't say that it was an immediate threat, only that he wasn't sure it wasn't.

What's funny is imagining you could go back in time and talk to freepers and say exactly what the adminstration is claiming today in the present tense. They'd be all "What do you mean it's not an imminent threat? Do you want us to all get blowed up?"

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[flamingpie2500]

2. My point was this--

Perhaps I should have said more, but ran out of room-lol
George Tenet yesterday clearly stated that he did not claim that Saddam was an "imminent threat" It's obvious to me that someone did. Just because they don't use the exact term "imminent"--the quotes from GW himself certainly would lead us to believe we were being threatened.
The Cuban Missile crisis was an "imminent threat" Iraq was not.
The administration is certainly caught in a quagmire of words, but then again so was our beloved President Clinton.

[spanone]

4. These guys speak FOR the president. Is this why Ari opted out?

[loudnclear]

11. It doesn't matter that Bush did not use the word "imminent."

He used "mushroom cloud" gathering danger and a host of other words desgined to create an imminent threat picture. What matters most is that he led this nation into an unnecessary, immoral, and illegal invasion of a sovereign nation that killed thousands of innocent citizens, over 500 US soldiers, maimed and injured 10s of thousands more and destroyed the infrastructure, cultural artifacts and human souls of the seat of civilization. And he is damned proud of it. No remorse, no regrets, no recanting....just plain arrogance, boastfulness, and evilness!!

[roughsatori]

3. Thank you that is an important post for us all to be able to quote

to refute the latest rethug talking point/lie.

[Bozola]

5. Here you go, from the Commander Bunnypant's own lying lips.

im·mi·nent (ĭm'ə-nənt)
adj.
About to occur; impending: in imminent danger.


Tell me, someone, how many ways can one say "imminent danger"? The fact that the word wasn't used is meaningless; the meaning and intent are there.






http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text2003/0317bush.htm
----------------------------------
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.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.
...
Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.

The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep.
...
Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq.
...
Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed.
...
These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world.
...
In desperation, he and terrorists groups might try to conduct terrorist operations against the American people and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible. And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed.

Our government is on heightened watch against these dangers.
...
We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities.

The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new and undeniable realities. In the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators, whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war. In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth.

Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair notice, in formal declarations — and responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.

[Dr Fate]

7. The Party of Personal Responsibility becomes the party of semantics...

"fancy pants word games" is what the DEM candidate should call it...

[ignatius]

13. UGH, I can still remember him saying the day of "horror" only it was

haura..LIAR and MURDERER..no wonder he doesn't attend any funerals..the mourners would spit on him.

[KansDem]

6. Uh-oh, Rumsfeld said "immediate threat"

"Immediate" vs. "imminent." So now are we going to have a national debate, lead by the Media Whores, for the next 9 months parsing the interpretation of "imminent" and "immediate? This might play into Rove's hands to delay...delay...delay anything until after the s/election.

[nostamj]

10. rumsfeld is an immediate and imminent thread

[Ridley Park 704]

8. liars all

and they impeached Clinton over a b.j.

[mojo2004]

9. The misleading thing about the...

McClellan quote is he is actually talking about Iraq being an imminent threat to Turkey.

[F.Gordon]

12. "Some have argued....."

"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. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
Rumsfeld, 9/18/02.

There is no need for an investigation into "pre-War" WMD intelligence. It's very clear that the Bush* administration chose to ignore our own intelligence and just "make up shit" that would push the march to "war".

Let me turn to the nuclear issue.

In the estimate, all agencies agree that Saddam Hussein wanted nuclear weapons. Most were convinced that he still had a program and if he obtained fissile material he could have a weapon within a year.

But we detected no such acquisition.

We made two judgments that get overlooked these days. We said that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/7883730.htm

So, Rumsfeld ignored our own intelligence and Bush* went ahead with the revised "let's make up our own bullshit" version;

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.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

The regime is seeking a nuclear bomb -- and, with fissile material, could build one within a year.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020926-19.html

Both are inconsistent with what OUR intelligence conveyed. The $3.22 question is; If Bush* ignored what the CIA was telling him, then where did he get this ONE YEAR NUCLEAR DOOM intelligence? If "some other source" came up with this "one year" scenario, then as the President of the United States it is HIS responsibility to confirm that intelligence with OUR sources. Bush* decided not to.

edit: chose, choose, cheese

[Poiuyt]

14. "We don't have time"

Didn't bush say something to the effect that we don't have time to wait for all the intelligence to come in, or we don't have time to wait for the UN inspectors to do their job?

What was that quote?

[snippy]

15. Bush said "urgent" not "imminent."

This was because "urgent" is a two syllable word, while "imminent" is a three syllable word. Others in the administration did say "imminent" or "immediate" though.
http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=5357&fcategory_desc=Iraq

In October of 2002, Bush did say military action against Iraq was not "imminent." But he was lying or confused.