Bush's approval rating hits a staggering 57%

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
They sold this war publicly using many reasons, WMDs being the primary one. But since they were wrong about WMDs, some people want to pretend it was the only reason given when that is nowhere near the truth.

It's the only reason the Dub and his Administration got approval for the invasion of Iraq and they knew it. That's why their argument for the Invasion of Iraq centered on WMD's.

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!! TLC's denial knows no end!

Your denial on this subject was already demonstrated in the other thread yesterday, conjur, where it was demonstrated precisely what Powell said and which is not what you claim.

Keep up the hardy-har-harring though. It makes you look so smart. :roll:

Nice shot man.:roll: That still doesn't refute what most say that without the supposed thread of WMD's the Dub never would have gotten the support of the American Public to invade Iraq.

I agree they wouldn't have gotten that support. But let's retain perspective on that and not view it through corrective lenses loking into the past. At the time, any official organization in an actual position to know, including the UN, thought Saddam still probably had WMDs or development programs. So it wasn't only Bush that was ultimately wrong in that respect. Many who disagreed that Saddam had WMDs or programs (and most of those weren't in a position to know one way or the other) didn't come to that conclusion until the US announced its intentions to invade. Suddenly they had a change of heart. Off, that.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
They sold this war publicly using many reasons, WMDs being the primary one. But since they were wrong about WMDs, some people want to pretend it was the only reason given when that is nowhere near the truth.

It's the only reason the Dub and his Administration got approval for the invasion of Iraq and they knew it. That's why their argument for the Invasion of Iraq centered on WMD's.

BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!! TLC's denial knows no end!

Seriously. In other threads TLC is the first to throw around "fear mongering" insults. Too bad he doesn't recognize it when he sees it.

How am I fearmongering? Please explain.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I agree they wouldn't have gotten that support. But let's retain perspective on that and not view it through corrective lenses loking into the past. At the time, any official organization in an actual position to know, including the UN, thought Saddam still probably had WMDs or development programs. So it wasn't only Bush that was ultimately wrong in that respect. Many who disagreed that Saddam had WMDs or programs (and most of those weren't in a position to know one way or the other) didn't come to that conclusion until the US announced its intentions to invade. Suddenly they had a change of heart. Off, that.

If you are going to attack another country you better make sure your reasons for doing so are right. Just because others were also wrong doesn't absolve the Dub though many seem to disagree. Unlike Harry Truman, with the Dub the Buck always seems to fall elsewhere.

 

[whistleclient]

Nationalism is power hunger tempered by self-deception.
--George Orwell

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I agree they wouldn't have gotten that support. But let's retain perspective on that and not view it through corrective lenses loking into the past. At the time, any official organization in an actual position to know, including the UN, thought Saddam still probably had WMDs or development programs. So it wasn't only Bush that was ultimately wrong in that respect. Many who disagreed that Saddam had WMDs or programs (and most of those weren't in a position to know one way or the other) didn't come to that conclusion until the US announced its intentions to invade. Suddenly they had a change of heart. Off, that.

If you are going to attack another country you better make sure your reasons for doing so are right. Just because others were also wrong doesn't absolve the Dub though many seem to disagree. Unlike Harry Truman, with the Dub the Buck always seems to fall elsewhere.

The reasons were right according to the vast number of intelligence agencies on this planet. The facts were ultimately wrong, which we didn't and couldn't find out definitively until after we invaded.

What would have been more surprising before the war, and not knowing what you know now? Going in and finding WMDs in Iraq, or going in and not finding any?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I agree they wouldn't have gotten that support. But let's retain perspective on that and not view it through corrective lenses loking into the past. At the time, any official organization in an actual position to know, including the UN, thought Saddam still probably had WMDs or development programs. So it wasn't only Bush that was ultimately wrong in that respect. Many who disagreed that Saddam had WMDs or programs (and most of those weren't in a position to know one way or the other) didn't come to that conclusion until the US announced its intentions to invade. Suddenly they had a change of heart. Off, that.

If you are going to attack another country you better make sure your reasons for doing so are right. Just because others were also wrong doesn't absolve the Dub though many seem to disagree. Unlike Harry Truman, with the Dub the Buck always seems to fall elsewhere.

The reasons were right according to the vast number of intelligence agencies on this planet. The facts were ultimately wrong, which we didn't and couldn't find out definitively until after we invaded.

What would have been more surprising before the war, and not knowing what you know now? Going in and finding WMDs in Iraq, or going in and not finding any?

Well I was surprised there weren't any. In my wildest dreams I couldn't fathom our Intel being so wrong. What is even more surprising is how the Dub and his boys insisted that they were an eminent threat to our security because of those WMD's. On that part I do believe they were flat out lying to us!

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well I was surprised there weren't any. In my wildest dreams I couldn't fathom our Intel being so wrong. What is even more surprising is how the Dub and his boys insisted that they were an eminent threat to our security because of those WMD's. On that part I do believe they were flat out lying to us!

By Jove I think you're right!

2001: Powell & Rice Declare Iraq Has No WMD and Is Not a Threat
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: tangent1138
Nationalism is power hunger tempered by self-deception.
--George Orwell

Liberal: a power worshipper without power.
--George Orwell

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I agree they wouldn't have gotten that support. But let's retain perspective on that and not view it through corrective lenses loking into the past. At the time, any official organization in an actual position to know, including the UN, thought Saddam still probably had WMDs or development programs. So it wasn't only Bush that was ultimately wrong in that respect. Many who disagreed that Saddam had WMDs or programs (and most of those weren't in a position to know one way or the other) didn't come to that conclusion until the US announced its intentions to invade. Suddenly they had a change of heart. Off, that.

If you are going to attack another country you better make sure your reasons for doing so are right. Just because others were also wrong doesn't absolve the Dub though many seem to disagree. Unlike Harry Truman, with the Dub the Buck always seems to fall elsewhere.

The reasons were right according to the vast number of intelligence agencies on this planet. The facts were ultimately wrong, which we didn't and couldn't find out definitively until after we invaded.

What would have been more surprising before the war, and not knowing what you know now? Going in and finding WMDs in Iraq, or going in and not finding any?

Well I was surprised there weren't any. In my wildest dreams I couldn't fathom our Intel being so wrong. What is even more surprising is how the Dub and his boys insisted that they were an eminent threat to our security because of those WMD's. On that part I do believe they were flat out lying to us!

The word is "imminent" and I'm sure you know that Bush nor his admin ever claimed Iraq was an "imminent threat."

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The word is "imminent" and I'm sure you know that Bush nor his admin ever claimed Iraq was an "imminent threat."

Sorry, that was Tony Blair.

Anyway the Dub was wrong so the invasion of Iraq was wrong. Surely there was no rush to invade.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The word is "imminent" and I'm sure you know that Bush nor his admin ever claimed Iraq was an "imminent threat."

Sorry, that was Tony Blair.

Anyway the Dub was wrong so the invasion of Iraq was wrong. Surely there was no rush to invade.

I think Blairs words were "serious and current threat."

And yes, the Dub was wrong. Let's fire up your wayback machine and change everything that's been done, now that we know better.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The word is "imminent" and I'm sure you know that Bush nor his admin ever claimed Iraq was an "imminent threat."

Sorry, that was Tony Blair.

Anyway the Dub was wrong so the invasion of Iraq was wrong. Surely there was no rush to invade.

I think Blairs words were "serious and current threat."

And yes, the Dub was wrong. Let's fire up your wayback machine and change everything that's been done, now that we know better.

Unfortunately the Dub's error was so grevious there's no taking it back. Now we are saddled with a long term occupation which will cost hundreds of American lives (if we are lucky) and Billions of dollars.

 

[Tommunist]

haven't we already crossed over into the 1000+ area?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The word is "imminent" and I'm sure you know that Bush nor his admin ever claimed Iraq was an "imminent threat."

Sorry, that was Tony Blair.

Anyway the Dub was wrong so the invasion of Iraq was wrong. Surely there was no rush to invade.

I think Blairs words were "serious and current threat."

And yes, the Dub was wrong. Let's fire up your wayback machine and change everything that's been done, now that we know better.

Unfortunately the Dub's error was so grevious there's no taking it back. Now we are saddled with a long term occupation which will cost hundreds of American lives (if we are lucky) and Billions of dollars.

It's a real shame we can't go back.

We could deal with the whole UNSCAM fiasco and get that straightened out. We could also see if no intervention in the ME would have cost us more lives in the long run by not going directly after the terrorism problem in the ME (assuming you understand that going into Iraq was more than just about Iraq). We could also see if Saddam would've killed more Iraqis than we did. Oh the joys of second guessing our actions.

Instead we'll have to live with the decision made.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The word is "imminent" and I'm sure you know that Bush nor his admin ever claimed Iraq was an "imminent threat."

"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

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
? President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
? President Bush, 10/28/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
? President Bush, 10/16/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
? President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
? President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is." <--- My favorite
? President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
? President Bush, 9/26/02

"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

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The word is "imminent" and I'm sure you know that Bush nor his admin ever claimed Iraq was an "imminent threat."

Sorry, that was Tony Blair.

Anyway the Dub was wrong so the invasion of Iraq was wrong. Surely there was no rush to invade.

I think Blairs words were "serious and current threat."

And yes, the Dub was wrong. Let's fire up your wayback machine and change everything that's been done, now that we know better.

Unfortunately the Dub's error was so grevious there's no taking it back. Now we are saddled with a long term occupation which will cost hundreds of American lives (if we are lucky) and Billions of dollars.

It's a real shame we can't go back.

We could deal with the whole UNSCAM fiasco and get that straightened out. We could also see if no intervention in the ME would have cost us more lives in the long run by not going directly after the terrorism problem in the ME (assuming you understand that going into Iraq was more than just about Iraq). We could also see if Saddam would've killed more Iraqis than we did. Oh the joys of second guessing our actions.

Instead we'll have to live with the decision made.

No doubt but that still doesn't absolve the Dub.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The word is "imminent" and I'm sure you know that Bush nor his admin ever claimed Iraq was an "imminent threat."

"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

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
? President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
? President Bush, 10/28/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
? President Bush, 10/16/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
? President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
? President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is." <--- My favorite
? President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
? President Bush, 9/26/02

"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

Thanks for reinforcing that neither Bush nor his admin ever said Iraq was an "imminent threat."

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The word is "imminent" and I'm sure you know that Bush nor his admin ever claimed Iraq was an "imminent threat."

Sorry, that was Tony Blair.

Anyway the Dub was wrong so the invasion of Iraq was wrong. Surely there was no rush to invade.

I think Blairs words were "serious and current threat."

And yes, the Dub was wrong. Let's fire up your wayback machine and change everything that's been done, now that we know better.

Unfortunately the Dub's error was so grevious there's no taking it back. Now we are saddled with a long term occupation which will cost hundreds of American lives (if we are lucky) and Billions of dollars.

It's a real shame we can't go back.

We could deal with the whole UNSCAM fiasco and get that straightened out. We could also see if no intervention in the ME would have cost us more lives in the long run by not going directly after the terrorism problem in the ME (assuming you understand that going into Iraq was more than just about Iraq). We could also see if Saddam would've killed more Iraqis than we did. Oh the joys of second guessing our actions.

Instead we'll have to live with the decision made.

No doubt but that still doesn't absolve the Dub.

Never said it did.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

No doubt but that still doesn't absolve the Dub.

Never said it did.
[/quote]:thumbsup:

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Thanks for reinforcing that neither Bush nor his admin ever said Iraq was an "imminent threat."

Uhh


"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

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"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

Now, you'll hedge on Rumsfeld's statements but the implication is plainly there.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Thanks for reinforcing that neither Bush nor his admin ever said Iraq was an "imminent threat."

Uhh


"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

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"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

Now, you'll hedge on Rumsfeld's statements but the implication is plainly there.

So let's see what yo've got here, conjur. From your longer original list you've pared it down. Two of those quotes are attributed to Rumsfeld, who never actually said "imminent threat," unless you close your eyes and squint and play a bit of word scrabble. What's that called? Oh yeah, it's called creative editing, also quite often known as dishonesty.

The only other two you have are from the White House press lackeys, two guys that don't make policy that affects any sort of decisions or determinations of the Bush admin.

Got any more stories for us, stretch? Can you show me where Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney, or anyone of any real importance and who issues policy statements said "imminent threat"?

Of course you can't, because they never did.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur

Now, you'll hedge on Rumsfeld's statements but the implication is plainly there.

So let's see what yo've got here, conjur. From your longer original list you've pared it down. Two of those quotes are attributed to Rumsfeld, who never actually said "imminent threat," unless you close your eyes and squint and play a bit of word scrabble. What's that called? Oh yeah, it's called creative editing, also quite often known as dishonesty.

The only other two you have are from the White House press lackeys, two guys that don't make policy that affects any sort of decisions or determinations of the Bush admin.

Got any more stories for us, stretch? Can you show me where Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney, or anyone of any real importance and who issues policy statements said "imminent threat"?

Of course you can't, because they never did.

You'll see from the only part of conjur's post I left intact that he admits (implied) that no top official actually said the phrase "Saddam poses an imminent threat." But it is implied so clearly that to nitpick over "rash assumptions" based on their actual comments is nothing but petty.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Thanks for reinforcing that neither Bush nor his admin ever said Iraq was an "imminent threat."

Uhh


"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

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"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

Now, you'll hedge on Rumsfeld's statements but the implication is plainly there.

So let's see what yo've got here, conjur. From your longer original list you've pared it down. Two of those quotes are attributed to Rumsfeld, who never actually said "imminent threat," unless you close your eyes and squint and play a bit of word scrabble. What's that called? Oh yeah, it's called creative editing, also quite often known as dishonesty.

The only other two you have are from the White House press lackeys, two guys that don't make policy that affects any sort of decisions or determinations of the Bush admin.

Got any more stories for us, stretch? Can you show me where Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney, or anyone of any real importance and who issues policy statements said "imminent threat"?

Of course you can't, because they never did.

You're right. I don't believe he actually ever used the phrase "imminent threat". He did however characterize it that way. For example:

In September 2002, Bush echoed a British claim that Hussein could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes. (That claim has since been discredited.) When Bush was seeking authority from Congress to launch a war against Iraq, he sent to Capitol Hill a draft resolution that stated there was a "high risk" Iraq would use weapons of mass destruction "to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its armed forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so."

In a high-profile speech in Cincinnati on October 7, 2002, Bush said, "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."

Even if Bush did not use the I-word he sure made it seem as if the threat from Iraq was a clear and present?right now. A surprise attack. A WMD handoff "on any given day." Deploying Al Qaeda as his own private army. It all added up to a gunning-for-us-now threat. And when the war was nearly at hand, Bush held a press conference on March 6, 2003, and said, "Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people." A reporter asked Bush why other nations did not believe the threat from was "so real, so imminent." Bush did not take issue with this characterization. He replied, "I think the threat is real."

So sure, he never said the I-word, but he was making the case, never the less.

 

[Engineer]

From the same Gallup poll...

Economic confidence:

Good/Excellant: 41%
Poor: 59%

State of the Country:

Satisfied: 46%
Unsatisfied: 53%

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Thanks for reinforcing that neither Bush nor his admin ever said Iraq was an "imminent threat."

Uhh


"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

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"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

Now, you'll hedge on Rumsfeld's statements but the implication is plainly there.

So let's see what yo've got here, conjur. From your longer original list you've pared it down. Two of those quotes are attributed to Rumsfeld, who never actually said "imminent threat," unless you close your eyes and squint and play a bit of word scrabble. What's that called? Oh yeah, it's called creative editing, also quite often known as dishonesty.

The only other two you have are from the White House press lackeys, two guys that don't make policy that affects any sort of decisions or determinations of the Bush admin.

Got any more stories for us, stretch? Can you show me where Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney, or anyone of any real importance and who issues policy statements said "imminent threat"?

Of course you can't, because they never did.

You're right. I don't believe he actually ever used the phrase "imminent threat". He did however characterize it that way. For example:

In September 2002, Bush echoed a British claim that Hussein could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes. (That claim has since been discredited.) When Bush was seeking authority from Congress to launch a war against Iraq, he sent to Capitol Hill a draft resolution that stated there was a "high risk" Iraq would use weapons of mass destruction "to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its armed forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so."

In a high-profile speech in Cincinnati on October 7, 2002, Bush said, "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."

Even if Bush did not use the I-word he sure made it seem as if the threat from Iraq was a clear and present?right now. A surprise attack. A WMD handoff "on any given day." Deploying Al Qaeda as his own private army. It all added up to a gunning-for-us-now threat. And when the war was nearly at hand, Bush held a press conference on March 6, 2003, and said, "Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people." A reporter asked Bush why other nations did not believe the threat from was "so real, so imminent." Bush did not take issue with this characterization. He replied, "I think the threat is real."

So sure, he never said the I-word, but he was making the case, never the less.

And now we get down to the crux of the discussion - intent.

I could conceivably be persuaded that what is being claimed is true. Except that the person making this argument of intent to me is also denying in another thread that the "intent" of Baghdad Bob in Nigeria cannot be proven concerning yellowcake.

So which is it? Shall we only move toward interpreting intent when the interpretation of such bolsters the argument for our side?