Agghhhh

Brit Hume is parsing words on FoxNews.

He's saying that Bush didn't say that Iraq was an imminent threat.

What an idiot.

And the repukes on the panel are messing with the CIA.

They are really going to get it. Tenet isn't going allow Bush and Co to get away with it.

imminent. I KNOW he said it, I just can't find it. I've been ridiculed at work because I tell my republican co-workers that I'm positive Bush said the theat was imminent. They have offered me $500 if I can provid them with a quote where he said that. I've tried and tried but I can't find one. I'm 1000% sure he said it but I'm getting frustrated looking for it. Can anybody help me?

is.

(You quack me up Jackpine!)

-- Allen

Indeed I did have a relationship with Mr. Novak which was not appropriate... :D

"preemptive" "freedom" "disarm"


Might bring up a speech where he said that.


I don't remember him outright saying "Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat...", but he has said a lot of shit that means the very same thing.

The original quote was "we can;t wait until the smoking gun takes the form of a mushroom cloud."

Arguing that Bush never used the exact term "imminent" is splitting mosquito pubes; he very clearly conveyed the impression that the threat was imminent. To say otherwise is intellectually dishonest. The people who do so should be pissed that they were taken for fools by the Bush Admin., not actively seeking another shell game to get suckered into.

He never gave the impression we had to go in there and take care of business because it would be better to do it now than later. That was definitely not the impression that he left.

If it wasn't imminent, why the need to go to war in the first place?

That's the whole argument behind STARTING a war, after all - the threat is so great and imminent that we can't wait for inspectors or sanctions or anything else to save us.

Turn the tables, basically. Ask your coworkers why, if the threat WASN'T imminent, we had to go to war when we did.

(I can see how people might still argue around this, but I think that would require lowering the standards of a "just war.")

They all admit the threat wasn't imminent but that Saddam "could" have had weapons which he "could" have given to terrorists.

Yeah, there's no way to debate with people who keep shifting their arguments in order to stay on top.

In his "get out in 48 hours or we attack" speech, Bush said:

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.

(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html)

Iraq CONTINUES TO POSSESS AND CONCEAL, not Iraq COULD BE POSSESSING AND CONCEALING.

Of course, I agree with you that people won't listen to what they don't want to hear.

to find...uh, to find, errr, to find...NOTHING. No nukes, no gas, no NOTHING.

Why did we have to rush in? 'Cause the whole damn excuse for having a war was about to collapse.

. . . the simple fact that we went to war, every american should have thought the threat was imminent. why else would we go to war? people that spin this are either dumb or stupid.

He has a new book out and lays out all the things that Bush did say about Iraq. http://bushlies.com I heard him on Randi Rhodes last week and the only conclusion that CAN be drawn is that Iraq was an imminent threat.

The irony is that Bush never said, "Iraq is an imminent threat" but he's certainly gotten credit for those exact words. Why? Because that's what he meant for us to believe.

The mere fact that we are debating this NOW shows that the administration was "parsing" words and have now been hoisted by their own petard.

is something Bush said and it sounds pretty imminent to me. Besides, it's the cumulative effect of Rice, Cheney, Bush and their lapdog press showing them over and over and never questioning that made it imminent. We were told that we could not wait - that we had to go to war right away. That in itself was imminent language.

The administration is clever and cunning.

the closest he came was in the 2003 State Of The Union Address, where he said "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent." But he has certianly said that there WAS an imminent threat IN SO MANY WORDS.

Before your co-workers start celebrating, point out to them that if they're suggesting that the Pretzel-Dunce didn't know or didn't believe that there was an imminent threat, then his invasion of Iraq is both illegal and impeachable. Congress gave permission for Bush to invade Iraq ONLY if there was--guess what?--AN IMMINENT THREAT! I guess Brit Hume didn't get the memo to kill this particular story--it turns Bush into a war criminal!


rocknation

And I can't find the phrase "imminent threat" anywhere. It empowers the President to use U.S. military force to counteract the "continuing threat" from Iraq.

Here's the link.

www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

I'd love to be wrong about this.

Can you get transcripts from meet the press?

I remember Cheney basically saying Sadam had the ability to arm wepons and strike our homes in a manner of minutes. Yes, I know this is a dumb claim, but thats what he said.

Actually Cheney and Rummy were the ones I frequently remember refering to the immanent threat.

...up at headquaters, highly irregular meetings, on a nearly daily basis telling the CIA that analysts need to "look" deeper into their papers for what the VP said was right there all along. And by that I am sure that Cheney was refering to the justification that the Nixon-Bush-Cheney Admin needed to preemptively attack Iraq. Well they got it. And now, as is all too common for Republicans, they do not want to admit that that is their pile of steaming shit in our living rooms. It will always be someone else's fault; that is how they play the only game they know how ~

:shrug:

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9143

He is a person of high integrity and backs his arguments up with substance.

This is totally stupid.

This is like Clinton's thing with, "Well it depends what the definition of is "is"?

I explicity remembered that Bush re-itererated the statement by Blair that Iraq could attack Britain within 45 minutes. This was in October of 2002.

Did he or didn't he say it? It doesn't matter! Counter their argument and tell them the U.S. invaded Iraq under what is known as the Bush Doctrine which is explained in the link which follows this quote:

In September, President Bush unveiled a new military strategy that supports US right to preemptive strikes. "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," the strategy document states. It continues, "We must adapt the concept of imminent threat," and goes on to assert the right to strike first even if no imminent threat exists.
http://www.futurenet.org/iraq/morebushdoctrine.htm

Repeat loudly, repeat often: The Bush Doctrine is premised on the right to invade on the perceived condition of the existence of an imminent threat. Invading Iraq was the first application of the tenets of the Bush Doctrine.

Also see Kennedy's speech: http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.09A.kennedy.htm

On September 20, the Administration unveiled its new National Security Strategy. This document addresses the new realities of our age, particularly the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and terrorist networks armed with the agendas of fanatics. The Strategy claims that these new threats are so novel and so dangerous that we should "not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting pre-emptively. ... Traditionally, "pre-emptive" action refers to times when states react to an imminent threat of attack. For example, when Egyptian and Syrian forces mobilized on Israel's borders in 1967, the threat was obvious and immediate, and Israel felt justified in pre-emptively attacking those forces. The global community is generally tolerant of such actions, since no nation should have to suffer a certain first strike before it has the legitimacy to respond.

;-)

Did he not invade a country that was not a treat to us? Isn't that a definition of a war criminal?

sure as hell sounds "imminent."

Here's just one,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17424-2003Jul19?language=printer

A mere 45mins and robot controlled planes filled & brimming with bio-laced WMD would be at your doorstep presumably Main Street U.S.A.

argument with a rethug about the word "imminent"...I used it in a point I was trying to make...out of all the 100's of words I used...this rethug focused on that one word..."imminent"...totally bypassing every other point I was making and asked me to prove that he said it...no comments on any other thing I said...only the word "imminent"...

So I said that he may have not said those words but he sure as hell implied it...then there was nothing...she refused to post another word about it...I guess I hit a soft spot...!

So...it seems to me that when you post your feelings and thoughts about this war and how this country was misled...they don't want to talk about that...they would rather focus on arguing over "one fricken word" instead of debating the issues...it's pathetic...

"All of us recognize military option is not the first choice. But disarming this man is, because he faces a true threat to the United States." - Bush

"Saddam Hussein has thumbed his nose at the world. He's a threat to the neighborhood. He's a threat to Israel. He's a threat to the United States of America." - Bush

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021001-2.html

"The House of Representatives has spoken clearly to the world and to the United Nations Security Council: the gathering threat of Iraq must be confronted fully and finally." - Bush

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021010-5.html

"While 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." - Bush

"America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us." - Bush

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-6.html

"And all of us, and many others in Congress, are united in our determination to confront an urgent threat to America. And by passing this resolution we'll send a clear message to the world and to the Iraqi regime" - Bush

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020926-7.html

"He's a threat that we must deal with as quickly as possible." - Bush

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020913.html

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace." - Bush

"Our goal is to fully and finally remove a real threat to world peace and to America."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021016-1.html

Bush described the threat at various times as a "true threat," "a threat to the United States of America," "a gathering threat," an "urgent threat," "serious and growing," so unique as to be described as gathering the "most serious dangers of our age in one place," and a threat that must be dealt with "as quickly as possible."

Did he ever use the words "imminent" and "Iraq" and "threat" in the same sentance. Apparently not. But his descriptions and the other rhetoric of his and his cabinet to suggest the frightful outcome of not attacking him were understood by most Americans to mean that the threat was indeed so grave that war was the only option.

But again, as noted above, if the threat was not imminent, why war?

Yes, what an excellent word parser is our brave and forthright, plain-talkin' president. He did everything in the universe to convey the impression of an imminent threat--after all, the doctrine of preemption depends on it: if it's not an imminent threat, it's a preventive war, a very different legal kettle of fish--a preventive war gets condemned by everyone as setting a horrendously chaotic precedent for international relations. Certainly a morass that the forthright, honest, straight-talking WH clearly didn't want to get into. But on the other hand, he never actually said the word "imminent," despite being a real, jest-folks, plain-spoken kinda guy.

You might say he showed a weasely, politician-like, mealy-mouthed, legalistic care not to use the word that all the lawyers told him he mustn't use, so that later, if things went sour, he could cling in a highly Clintonian manner to the literal transcripts rather than the obvious sense of what he blatantly implied over and over again.

But of course anyone who said that would be unpatriotic, and would be showing a disgraceful lack of respect for a man obviously elected by God Himself to Save America.

:evilgrin:

1. The subject line of a discussion thread must accurately reflect the actual content of the message.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=463744

Thank you
AnnabelLee
DU Moderator