They never said ?
"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03
"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
President Bush, 7/17/03
Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03
"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
President Bush, 7/2/03
"Absolutely."
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03
"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
President Bush 4/24/03
"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03
"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03
"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
President Bush, 3/19/03
"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
President Bush, 3/16/03
"This is about imminent threat."
White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03
Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03
"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03
"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
"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03
"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
President Bush, 1/3/03
"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
President Bush, 11/23/02
"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
"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
President Bush, 11/3/02
"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."
President Bush, 10/2/02
"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
President Bush, 9/26/02
"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
"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
"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02
And how could anyone find the inferrence of a threat to us in this statement?
" We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"
A few quotes from "The Swimmer" help to show the Left's penchant for politicizing terrorism, the war on terror, and anything that is remotely associated with both:
It's now clear that from the very moment President Bush took office, Iraq was his highest priority as unfinished business from the first Bush Administration. His agenda was clear: find a rationale to get rid of Saddam
No matter how many times the Administration denies it, there is no question they misled the nation and led us into a quagmire in Iraq.
Shamefully we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management, U.S. management.
The President's handling of the war has been a toxic mix of ignorance, arrogance, and stubborn ideology. No amount of Presidential rhetoric or preposterous campaign spin can conceal the truth about the steady downward spiral in our national security since President Bush made the decision to go to war in Iraq.
There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud.
Memo to Senator Kennedy in response to http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/commentary/hc-commentarykennedy0813.artaug13,0,5926112.story:
Senators who think they have a life-time appointment to their office are notorious for being attack dogs until they get their own way. You have gone too far when discrediting President Bush as this nations Commander in Chief, whether you like or not; your actions are disgraceful.
Democrats don't care about the security of this nation - just as long as they keep getting re-elected time and time and time again; and by doing that it's a attack on democracy itself.
But what happens in the Senate when those who are serving for over 40 years are not a model for democracy. There are few better messages we could send the world in these troubled times is when we place TERM LIMITS on Congress.
You are proud to say that you have had a say in who gets elected to the Supreme Court in 9 instances but that is ugly and frightening.
You show once again how power hungry you are and that you will do anything to get re-elected time and time and time again. It's obvious that you lack basic respect for our fundamental freedoms.
You never ever have a problem being re-elected. Why? Do you even campaign or everyone too afraid of your re-election war chest to even consider running against you. You are all for free speech - provided it supports the NARAL, NEA, ACLU, all the unions, etc.
You are for the rule of law - as long as the law does not prevent you and your cronies from getting what you want. And when you don't get what you want, you stomp your feet like a 10 year old.
Your recent editorial about the 2 new Supreme Court Justices proves that - because they do not have the same radical liberal ideology that you have; they are BAD.
When elections, speeches or laws are inconvenient, you do not hesitate to think you can still have your own way in this country.
YOU CAN'T!
By you being in office for over 40 years, I can think of no graver offense against our democracy. This is not free elections!
Ned Lamont's victory in Connecticut scares YOU because it only showed that your party, the democrats, are divided against the war on terror.
This nation needs term limits desperately to get the old crud out and the new ideas in. You need to be held accountable for your words and deeds.
The democrats of Connecticut spoke out loud and that there is a great division in your party.
You have stopped at nothing to make sure that the you win re-election time and time and time again.
The American people are ready to change the darkness that is hovering over the US Congress and to make the Senate and the House both act for the people and by the people instead of themselves. WE WANT TERM LIMITS! The American people are ready to change a Congress, yes with TERM LIMITS.
They are ready to change a policy in Congress that severely weakens this country by draining our resources on PORK and by weakening our security by having the so-called MSM leak classified national intelligence.
The November election will teach Democratic party and others of their ilk that they cannot use the political machine anymore to cling to power.
Sincerely,
Semby
The last paragraph from the Reverend's quotes from "The Swimmer" shows that ironically enough, the left sometimes lies when accusing Bush of lying. Bush NEVER said that the threat was imminent. Instead, he argued that the threat does NOT have to be imminent in order to justify acting on it. Too bad some people can't tell the difference.
Bush NEVER said that the threat was imminent.
But the Dems have repeated this lie so many times that many believe it to be true. Ironically, the statement (that Sadaam was an imminent threat) was actually made in a speech by none other than John Edwards.
Actually, Bigfoot, the entire quote cited by the Rev is a lie.
The Pentagon routinely prepares operational reports on a wide variety of potential threats, possible threats, and even highly unlikely threats. This is key to overall preparedness. People have probably been assigned to create plans for invasion from outer space, epidemics of heretofore unknown forms of illnesses, or even preparedness for giant asteroid impacts. It is partly preparedness and partly to keep peoples' minds agile and flexible when it comes to creative problem-solving.
The Left has jumped on the idea that because somewhere in the archives of the Pentagon there was an operational report on an invasion of Iraq, this is ominous proof that the entire Iraqi war was a set-up.
This is as true as saying that because I have auto insurance I am planning to have an accident. Or that I place fire extinguishers only in areas where I know I am planning to start fires.
The Dems are, certainly, politicizing the war and the entire threat of terrorism to try to make Bush look bad. Their short-term goal is to win the next two elections and regain power. I have to wonder if they have thought beyond 2008, and about what they are going to do with a deeply wounded and weakened country, which is the natural end result of their efforts now.
They can get by for a while by piously complaining about the "mess" they "inherited" but at some time they are going to have to actually DO something. And the fact is, the world terrorism complex views Democrats as weak on defense and easy targets.
Look at what Osaam said about his energized efforts after Clinton's refusal to exact retriubtion after the many attacks during his term in office. Osama referred to the weakness of "America" but as Clinton ran and Bush attacked it has to be clear to the world that of the two parties, it is the Democrats who are the easier and safer targets.
The Dems are terrified of the voters in this nation figuring this out, as if most have not already. If it were not for the success of the hignly personalized hate campaign against Bush himself, the Dems would be even farther behind than they are now. And everything they do is a frantic effort at misdirection----at keeping the light bulb from going on in American minds that the world sees America as a softer target with a Democratic administration.
But it is not just fear of making the wrong decisions that make Libs avoid making any decisions at all. Just look at the savagery they mete out to any decision which has not turned out to be 100 % perfect in every way. When you heap contempt and scorn upon any failure to immediately achieve total unqualified success, of course you are going to be afraid to try to do anthing.
But beyond simple paralysis, they take it to another level.
Liberals are, by nature, reactors instead of actors. They are much happier putting things off as long as possible, as well as finding ways to avoid taking responsibility for whatever happens. This is why they depend so much on what they call 'diplomacy' and on polls and appeals to others to make decisions for them, or to give them permission to act in their own self-interest.
But deep down they are a little embarrassed by their lack of determination, which is why they couch their refusal to act and take responsibility for their actions in terms that they think are morally superior---they prate on and on about "world opinion" and they demand accord among all before acting and they redefine "diplomacy" to mean refusing to take any action which any country might not like.
I know people who are honest enough to admit that they simply lack whatever it takes to be decisive, to take action, to make decisions, to take responsibility for those actions and decisions. At least in private life these people do tend to admit where they stand and seek out more decisive people to balance them.
But as a party, as a political movement, the liberals refuse to acknowledge their deficiencies in the backbone area, and think they can simultaneously refuse to take responsibility and attack those who do. If they would merely agree that they are really bad at certain types of thought processes and decisions, and stick to the emotion-based areas, we would all be better off.
It is the refusal to take a position and stick to it and defend it and be responsible for it that makes being a Lib so tiresome---and tiring. As a Lib, you have to make a lot of noise while refusing to commit to any path of action, so you can shift from one side to another and back again as the situation changes. So you vote for military action and then say you didn't realize it was really a vote for military action. You speechify about the need for regime change in Iraq and then complain when an administration actually implements regime change in Iraq. You complain that the government should have done more to prevent 9/11 while complaining about steps being taken to improve surveillance of terrorists and their plots.
But the problem of trying to keep one foot in the boat and one foot on the dock is that you can be torn apart by your indecision. And the determination to keep a position on both sides and to savage any decision made so you can undermine authority is not making you look very smart, very brave, or very interested in your own security or that of the country.
semby... I totally agree with you in regards to term limits.
The longer a politician is in office, the more likely it is they will be corrupted. Term limits would help limit the power of lobbyists and other, already corrupted politicians over an particular elected official.
It seems anymore that the politicians do not (at least not always) vote their consciences. They hold out on votes they know are right in order to gain promises of votes for their own causes, or they vote for things they know are wrong because that was the only way they could garner additional votes for something they wanted passed. I think term limits would help here.
I haven't done a serious study on it, but I believe most pork projects, especially the large ridiculous ones, are pushed through by long-time politicos, not the newer ones. If that is the case, then term limits would help reduce those wastes of taxpayer monies.
It's fairly well established that incumbants have an advantage (both in the primary and in the actual election), simply by the fact of being the incumbant. As long as they don't do something significantly wrong in the eyes of their constituents, they generally get sent back. Even when they do go against their constituents desires and their own campaign promises, it's often forgotten, or they're able to fob off responsibility for it.
Certainly, you wouldn't want them to be limited to only one term... because then they don't have the any reason to keep their word in order to maintain credibility for reelection, but overly lengthy stays, I believe are equally damaging to the political process.
I'd be really surprise, though, if term limits were ever able to be enacted, because those that have to vote for them are the ones who least want them.
Bush NEVER said that the threat was imminent.
More mincing of words by the shameless Bushbots. Your guilty conscience is making you say ridiculous things.
How about Bush's former mouthpiece, Ari Fleischer:
" Q Well, we went to war, didn't we, to find these -- because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn't that true?
MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely. One of the reasons that we went to war was because of their possession of weapons of mass destruction. And nothing has changed on that front at all. We said what we said because we meant it. We had the intelligence to report it."
***
QUESTION: Ari, the President has been saying that the threat from Iraq is imminent, that we have to act now to disarm the country of its weapons of mass destruction, and that it has to allow the U.N. inspectors in, unfettered, no conditions, so forth.
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes.
Retired Spook, Maybe bush didn't but others sure did including White house spokesman Scott McClellan.
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970
More mincing of words
Hey, troll, no citations? Did you just make that stuff up? Get it off Kos? And speaking of mincing words:
Who is asking the question? Who is "we" who said what the questioner said? Pretty vague if you ask me. And Ari could well have been saying yes to the "thrust" of the question - that we went to war to find the WMDs. And then:
Another anonymous questioner who says the President has been saying...no quote, no citation - still no evidence the President ever said that. Again Ari could well be agreeing with the actual question which asked if we had to disarm Iraq.
If these actually happened, let's see the links to the actual press conference. And lets see the questions in the context of the press conference. Not that I don't trust you or anything...
To see who said "imminent" go to http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
And that's all folks................
jeff777,
It would help your credibility if you did not link to a liberal "progressive" website. It would be much more believable, here, if you had links that would bring us to where we could get it directly from the horses mouth. Otherwise how do we know that it is a real quote or if its being taken out of context.
Semby,
Similarly, what kind of website are you linking us to, how do we know its credible?
I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country.
-Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
-February 24, 2002
Source CNN transcript.
Q Well, we went to war, didn't we, to find these -- because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn't that true?
MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely. One of the reasons that we went to war was because of their possession of weapons of mass destruction. And nothing has changed on that front at all. We said what we said because we meant it. We had the intelligence to report it. Secretary Powell said it. And I may point out to you, as you may know, there is a news conference at Department of Defense today at 2:00 p.m. to discuss one element in this.
And so we have always had confidence, we continue to have confidence that WMD will be found. He's had a long period of time to hide what he has in a variety of different places, and there is a whole protocol of the search that is underway, that is being conducted in a very methodical fashion.
White house Press Release
So yes, the White House spokeman speaking for Bush and his administration refered to Iraq as an IMMINENT threat. Can't get any clearer then that.
Q Well, we went to war, didn't we, to find these -- because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn't that true?
MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely. One of the reasons that we went to war was because of their possession of weapons of mass destruction. And nothing has changed on that front at all. We said what we said because we meant it. We had the intelligence to report it. Secretary Powell said it. And I may point out to you, as you may know, there is a news conference at Department of Defense today at 2:00 p.m. to discuss one element in this.
And so we have always had confidence, we continue to have confidence that WMD will be found. He's had a long period of time to hide what he has in a variety of different places, and there is a whole protocol of the search that is underway, that is being conducted in a very methodical fashion.
White house Press Release
So yes, the White House spokeman speaking for Bush and his administration refered to Iraq as an IMMINENT threat. Can't get any clearer then that.
Morphie, thank you for giving us a link that we know is reliable and we can see it in context. Now that's the way it should be done.
From the reference link provided, if we care to add just a little context and also pay a teensy bit of attention to the date of the press conference (hint: after the start of the war in Iraq) things look just a little bit different. First the question:
If you can put the fake controversy out of your head for a second, and look at the real meaning of the question, it sorta comes out like:
"We went to war to find these WMDs." I see no question there asking if there was really an imminent threat nor any quote from anyone who said there was. Ari answered:
The entire substance of this part of the answer is based on the question about the fact we went to war and one of the reasons was that Iraq possessed WMDs. Nothing there about "imminent threat." Then he continues:
He talks again about the likelihood of finding WMDs and there is nothing - nothing about any "imminent threat."
So the only one who used those words in the citation is some nameless reporter. And that is what you call proof. If we were in a court, your "testimony" would be stricken as without basis in fact. Not to mention that this press conference was after the war on Iraq started which means that there is still no proof that anyone - except John Edwards - ever claimed there was an imminent threat to justify going to war beforehand. As a matter of fact, President Bush said this:
Source.
Given that our leftists are driven by BDS and the talking points of DU and Kos, I can only surmise that they are trying to invent their version of the "truth," but being leftists they have no experience with the truth. But thanks for playing...Johnnie...tell us what the prize is for such a fine attempt.
They never said ?
"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03
"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
President Bush, 7/17/03
Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03
"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
President Bush, 7/2/03
"Absolutely."
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03
"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
President Bush 4/24/03
"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03
"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03
"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
President Bush, 3/19/03
"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
President Bush, 3/16/03
"This is about imminent threat."
White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03
Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03
"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03
"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
"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03
"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
President Bush, 1/3/03
"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
President Bush, 11/23/02
"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
"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
President Bush, 11/3/02
"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."
President Bush, 10/2/02
"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
President Bush, 9/26/02
"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
"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
"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02
And how could anyone find the inferrence of a threat to us in this statement?
" We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"
"I see no question there asking if there was really an imminent threat nor any quote from anyone who said there was."
"Q Well, we went to war, didn't we, to find these -- because we said that these weapons were a direct and IMMINENT threat to the United States? Isn't that true?"
Read that above question again Rev. Let me know if you see the word IMMINENT in there.
Thank you Rev for twisting a straightforward question and answer to your perspective. A reporter at a White House press conference asked if the weapons that Iraq supposedly possesed were a direct an Imminent threat to the United States.
The answer? drumroll.....
'Absolutly'. Agreeing that the threat was imminent. That is pretty definitive.
Nice try Rev....
Nice try Rev....
Again no citations. Again, no elected official of the Bush administration saying that Iraq was an "imminent threat." Weak, totally weak, cut and past from some libbie swamp site, no doubt.
Let me know if you ever come up with anything, you know, like true, that actually quotes the President, Vice-President, Rumsfeld, or any other top government official claiming before the war that the threat was "imminent." You won't, because you can't. Instead you think your worthless cut-and-paste will work. It didn't. Its as phony as your claim.
I cited the Official White House Press Release above(twice),and pasted from that,which you clearly failed to read. The White House Spokesman doesn't speak for the President or administration? Of course he does. Try reading the press release please...
The relevancy of before or after the war doesn't matter just whether it was said which was what this debate is about.
Just because I disagree I'm a lefty huh? Very typical.... and dead wrong.
Read that above question again Rev. Let me know if you see the word IMMINENT in there.
I already addressed that quote from Fleisher and he was agreeing that we went into Iraq to get the WMDs. That is the point of the question he was asked and he answered it. The only one who used "imminent" was the reporter. You have failed to provide anyone who used the idea of an "imminent threat" to justify the war in Iraq - which is the claim of leftists everywhere. I have provided the quote from the only elected official who said that and said it before the war - John Edwards. Citing press conferences and what reporters say as "proof" is grasping at straws. Reading plain English and twisting in a futile attempt to make some point is a classic trait of liberals. If you are not one, you sure behave like one. Walk like a duck, quack like a duck - yer a duck.
Okay, so what we have here is an instance where the Bush administration official did not himself use the word imminent, but agreed with a general statement in which the word imminent was used by another individual.
I guess the question then is whether or not he was responding to the general gist of the question, or if he, on the spot, probably on camera, and pressed for time nitpicked the wording of the sentence and was agreeing specifically with the choice of the word imminent.
My personal feeling is that he was responding to the overall question and didn't notice the "gotcha" word stuck in there. If he'd used the word himself, that would have been sufficient. But, since he did not, and at no other time has any other administration official in speaking to the public, I wouldn't say this example is sufficient proof against the administration.
Ok, You should not cite CNN or any other news sourse as proof. Also , according to you, Official White House Press Releases should not be taken as proof.
The quotes were cited and in context. I am just trying to understand your logic when you read the PR. Seems you are the only one who has to knock everything someone else says. Looks like your alone on this one.
Okay, so what we have here is an instance where the Bush administration official did not himself use the word imminent, but agreed with a general statement in which the word imminent was used by another individual.
I guess the question then is whether or not he was responding to the general gist of the question, or if he, on the spot, probably on camera, and pressed for time nitpicked the wording of the sentence and was agreeing specifically with the choice of the word imminent.
My personal feeling is that he was responding to the overall question and didn't notice the "gotcha" word stuck in there. If he'd used the word himself, that would have been sufficient. But, since he did not, and at no other time has any other administration official in speaking to the public, I wouldn't say this example is sufficient proof against the administration.
Ah the rare and elusive white elk comes out from hiding once again.
Let me ask you something. Who still listens to this guy? His credibility rating is somewhere below that of the former Iraqi Information Minister Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf.
In other words Dick Cheney, credibity zero.
About the only thing Cheney is good for any more is acting as Bush's bullet proof vest against impeachment.
"Okay, so what we have here is an instance where the Bush administration official did not himself use the word imminent, but agreed with a general statement in which the word imminent was used by another individual.
I guess the question then is whether or not he was responding to the general gist of the question, or if he, on the spot, probably on camera, and pressed for time nitpicked the wording of the sentence and was agreeing specifically with the choice of the word imminent."
I agree to a certain extent...thx for a good response.
If the question was 'Is Iraq an imminent threat?' and the spokesman responds with 'yes' then he is validating that the threat is/was imminent, even if they didn't use the word itself. Seems to be the case here.
Now, if we are talking about whether or not he heard the 'gotcha' word is another story. I think he heard the word fine and dandy and responded honestly that the threat is/was 'absolutly' imminent.
Alright... let's assume for a moment that you are correct and that Mr. Fleisher intended to agree with the specific word 'imminent'.
Being as this is the only instance anyone has been able to show here of an administration official saying that Iraq was an imminent danger to the US, and in all other cases (including those where Mr. Fleisher spoke to the public), they deliberately avoided using the word imminent, and especially considering that the President himself specifically said that we would NOT wait until the threat was imminent... I would submit that this was a departure from the official position of the Bush administration, not proof of it.
Whether that departure was made because Mr. Fleisher didn't notice that word in the question, or whether he personally agreed with it, or whatever other explaination there might be... the preponderance of the evidence shows that this was an abberation.
LNC,
The simple fact is that the words "imminent threat" were never used by the Bush administration to justify the attck on Iraq. That stupid press conference was AFTER the attack so could not be used as any justification. The only justification that the President needed was the approval of congress. When he presented his case, he never used those words nor did he imply them. Ths lefty here is trying to construct some kind of alternate reality that is popular on sites like Kos and MyDD. He/she/it is just playing word games hoping someone will take it seriously. We've explained enough. If it can't figure out the truth, no need to waste more time on it.
Scara...
ya know... I was looking at the date of the press conference (May 7, 2004), and while I wondered if it was early enough for Fleischer to have realized the press was playing gotcha with the word imminent, I didn't even realize that the date was AFTER the war started.
So, yes, you're right. This fails also in timing to prove the left's assertion that the administration used the notion of imminent threat to convince Congress to go to war. The one and only instance where they can ARGUABLY connect an administration official to the word imminent happened well after the fact.
Thank you LNC.Good response again...Like I said I agree to a certain extent.
"Ths lefty here is trying to construct some kind of alternate reality that is popular on sites like Kos and MyDD. He/she/it is just playing word games hoping someone will take it seriously. We've explained enough. If it can't figure out the truth, no need to waste more time on it."
Thank you Rev for another 'lefty'hate rant. For the record, I do not visit Kos or whatever the other site is. I goto the major news sites including Fox and make my own conclusions. I research govenrment sites and try to understand for myself. Maybe you should try it instead of being spoon fed news you like to hear. I support the POTUS and most of what he is doing ,but not all.
Here is a good piece analyzing that both sides are a little guilty, democrats and media more so it seems but one DOES NOT trump the other. It was definitly implied that the threat was imminent, immediate, impending,threatening..etc.,etc.. even if the dems and MSM blew it all out of proportion. good read...
Spinsanity