'Imminet threat'? Whoever gave you that impression?

[MC_Master_of_Ceremonies]

’Imminent threat’ is revisionist spin

Jonah Goldberg (archive)
October 17, 2003
Jimmy Carter never used the word “malaise” in his “malaise speech.” Abraham Lincoln never said, “God must have loved the common people, he made so many of them.”

And George W. Bush never said that the threat from Iraq was “imminent.”

He never said it. Seriously. Not once.

Teams of rhetoric inspectors have been pouring over Bush’s comments, utterances, speeches and gesticulations for about as long as we’ve been looking for WMD in Iraq and, to date, nobody has found a shred of proof that the president - or anybody in his Cabinet - ever once said Iraq or Saddam Hussein posed an “imminent” threat to the United States.

In fact, one of the only good finds on this score actually says the complete opposite. In President Bush’s State of the Union Address last January, he said:

No, of course he didn’t leave anyone with that impression:

Iraq: Bush Tells Americans Saddam Is An Imminent Threat

By Andrew F. Tully

U.S. President George W. Bush is facing some skepticism about his plan to confront Iraq – militarily if necessary – over its development of weapons of mass destruction. Last night, Bush addressed the American people in an effort to ease their concerns.

Washington, 8 October 2002 (RFE/RL) – President George W. Bush addressed the American people last night in an effort to convince them of what he believes is the urgency to confront Iraq about its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, and to go to war over the issue if necessary

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2002/10/08102002135121.asp

THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS

Bush Calls Iraq Imminent Threat

"Trusting in Hussein’s Restraint ‘Is Not an Option,’ President Says

By Maura Reynolds, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON – A somber and steely President Bush, speaking to a skeptical world Tuesday in his State of the Union address, provided a forceful and detailed denunciation of Iraq, promising new evidence that Saddam Hussein’s regime poses an imminent danger to the world and demanding the United Nations convene in just one week to consider the threat.

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/iraqimminent.html

He (Rumsfield) told a caller who questioned the imminent threat from Iraq to remember what life was like pre-September 11.

“Was the attack then an imminent threat two, three, or six months before? When did the attack on September 11th become an imminent threat, when was it sufficiently dangerous? Now transport yourself forward … if Saddam Hussein were to take his weapons of mass destruction and transfer them, or use them himself, or transfer them to the al Qaeda, and some of the al Qaeda were to engage in an attack on the United States or on U.S. forces overseas with weapons of mass destruction, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?” Rumsfeld asked.

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/US/11/14/rumsfeld.iraq/

I’m stunned, Words fail me.

[Lemur866]

I noticed that you quoted headlines stating that Bush called the threat imminent, without actually quoting Bush calling the threat imminent.

Please post a link where George Bush uses the phrase “imminent threat” in reference to Iraq. Or admit you were wrong. Either way is fine with me. But reporters calling the threat imminent and the president calling the threat imminent are two different things, no?

The supporting cites you chose to give do not support your premise.

[hansel]

Josh Marshall, of Talking Points Memo fame, held a contest for the best “imminent threat” quote. here’s the results.

the winner, from a speech Dubya gave:
Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

first runner up, from the same speech:
Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof – the smoking gun – that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

second runner up, from a White House press conference:
**Question: 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?

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.**

one from Richard Perle:
And the only point I want to make is that as long as Saddam is there, with everything we know about Saddam, as long as he possesses the weapons that we know he possesses, there is a threat, and I believe it’s imminent because he could choose at any time to take an action we all very much hope he won’t take.

another good one:
**Last October, a reporter put this to Ari Fleischer: “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.”

Fleischer’s answer? “Yes.”**

So while the words “Iraq is an immenent threat” may never have come out of Dubya’s mouth, it was demonstrably the party line that the Bush administration was pushing.

[sailor]

Lemur866, let us not play silly semantic games. whether the president used the word “imminent” or not is quite irrelevant. What counts is whether he intended to convey that impression. The meaning is what counts. Are you denying that it was not his intention to convey that meaning regardless of the words he used?

Suppose a writer who dislikes president Bush writes: “It has been reported that president Bush fondled an 8 year old girl’s genitals and exposed himself and fondled a 10 year old boy”. Would you admit the writer is right when he later says “hey, I never said he molested children”.

The fact that you did not use a word does not mean you did not convey the meaning of that word. You can say president Bush killed a baby with his own hands. Did you call him a murderer even you did not use the word?

[Binarydrone]

And the Right used to bitch about what the meaning of is, is. Oh how the wheel has turned.

[London_Calling]

*Originally posted by Binarydrone *
And the Right used to bitch about what the meaning of is, is. Oh how the wheel has turned.

Oh yeah! Oh yeah! . . . um, what about the tables ?

[sailor]

What I want to know is what is an “immi-net”. I know the Internet, intranet, local area net, wide area net, etc, but never heard of an “immi-net”.

Maybe it was the one being installed at a place I know. It has been plagued with delays and the installers keep saying it is a matter of days and it will soon be working. It is imminet.

I also heard the term emmynet but I am not sure what that is either. IT changes too fast for me to keep up.

[Revtim]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020928.html

September 28, 2002

Radio Address by the President to the Nation

On Thursday, I met with Democratic and Republican members of Congress to discuss the threat posed by the Iraqi regime. The security of our country is the commitment of both political parties, and the responsibility of both the President and the Congress. We are united in our determination to confront this urgent threat to America.

(bolding mine)

The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given.

(bolding mine)

Does anybody seriously believe that because the specific word “imminent” wasn’t used that’s somehow significant? Pure sophistry.

[MC_Master_of_Ceremonies]

*Originally posted by Lemur866 *
**I noticed that you quoted headlines stating that Bush called the threat imminent, without actually quoting Bush calling the threat imminent.

Please post a link where George Bush uses the phrase “imminent threat” in reference to Iraq. Or admit you were wrong. Either way is fine with me. But reporters calling the threat imminent and the president calling the threat imminent are two different things, no?

The supporting cites you chose to give do not support your premise. **

No, I didn’t say he used that particular phrase, but you can hardly say that he did not say as much using different words.

[MC_Master_of_Ceremonies]

I should of been clearer I’m not pitting GWB, I’m pitting the author of the first article (to be fair he’s not the only one saying this, I only choose this one as I thought that him accusing others of revisoinism is a bit rich).