Now, Bush says he never said Iraq was an imminent threat

[BarnOwl]

We must have all fallen asleep somewhere.

Here’s a snippet from The Daily Mislead… a Daily Chroncle of Bush Administration Distortion:

When asked about the issue yesterday, White House spokesman Scott McClellan claimed the entire WMD issue was unimportant because the Bush Administration had never said Iraq was a threat. He said, “the media have chosen to use the word ‘imminent’” to describe the Iraqi “threat” - not the Bush Administration.

Read the rest at
http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df01282004.html

[blowero]

Sadly, nothing they say surprises me anymore.

[Leaper]

Not that I’m a huge flag-waver for GWB, but I’d love to see a cite for this statement other than “The Daily Mislead(er): a Daily Chronicle of Bush Administration Distortion.”

[Squink]

The buzzphrase at is today’s white house press briefing “Gathering Threat.” For once, the presscorps isn’t devouring it hook, line and sinker, so the transcript makes quite the amusing read.

Scott McClellan, speaking with the same certainty with which his superiors spoke of germ bombs and nukes:

Saddam Hussein has been removed from power. America is more secure. It was the right decision then, and we know that it was the right decision today.

[NutWrench]

Google Newsgroup Search on ‘wmd scott mcclellan’ over past 24 hour period

Spokesman Scott McClellan told journalists on Tuesday that it was the media who chose to use the word ‘imminent’ and not the administration.

“We used ‘grave and gathering’ threat”, McClellan said.

Linky

I believe Mr McClellan is mistaken.

Now, I trust Al-Jazeera about as much as I trust the Weekly World News, but if this news briefing actually took place, it should be fairly easy to get a transcript of what was actually said.

[London_Calling]

This is going to seem like a really silly question, but if it wasn’t an immediate threat, why invade ?

Answer: They invaded because it was a “gathering threat”

So, where does that get us ?

Not very far it seems to me . . .

[Age_Quod_Agis]

Am I crazy or does the Misleader.org link do a little misleading itself?

First, Misleader.org says

When asked about the issue yesterday, White House spokesman Scott McClellan claimed the entire WMD issue was unimportant because the Bush Administration had never said Iraq was a threat.

But the Press Conference transcript shows that McClellan did not say that the Bush Admin never said Iraq was a threat. In fact, McClellan said the opposite:

MR. McCLELLAN: I think we’ve said all along that it was a grave and gathering threat. And that in a post-September 11th world, you must confront gathering threats before it’s too late.
. . . .
MR. McCLELLAN: He was a gathering threat, and it was important that we confront that threat.

Second, according to Misleader.org, McClellan said:

“the media have chosen to use the word ‘imminent’” to describe the Iraqi “threat” - not the Bush Administration.

Misleader then provides 3 “examples” of the Bush Admin saying the threat is imminent. Except the 3rd example does not say the threat was imminent:

Most notably, Vice President Cheney said two days after President Bush’s 2003 State of the Union that Saddam Hussein “threatens the United States of America.”

So instead of providing an example of the Bush Admin’s saying that Iraq is an imminent threat, Misleader.org provides an example of what McClellan was talking about, when the media inserts or imagines the word “imminent” in the Bush Admin’s statements.

Was this secretly added by the Republicans to make the website look bad?

NutWrench, the links to the White House press briefings at issue are at the bottom of the Misleader.org cite provided by the OP.

[John_Mace]

I think “grave and gathering threat” is the phrase of choice now.

[Ghanima]

First:
US Gov’t: We know he has WMDs! The UN inspectors are going too slow! This is too important to wait! We must invade now!
US public: Ummmm…well maybe we should…oops, too late. We already invaded.

Then:
US Gov’t: This isn’t just about WMDs! This about a tyrant! This is about massacres! (Subtext: This is about oil.)
US public: Ummmm…well…we support our troops. Yay team! (Let’s go fill up the hummer.)

Now:
US Gov’t: We never said it was imminent. Sheesh. Oh well, we won right? So it’s all OK, right? Right?!?!?! Let’s all say the pledge now! President’s ratings slipping? Whoops, orange alert!
US public: Whatever. What else is on TV?

Double plus ungood…

[Sofa_King]

Hey, it’s public domain. We can quote it at length. It reminds me of something out of Joseph Heller:

Q On the question of Iraq, two issues. First, you’ve been using the phrase, “gathering threat” and “grave danger,” which obviously are words that the President, himself, used many times before the war. You have not used the word “imminent threat.” And the essence of Dr. Kay’s comments recently would suggest that there was no way for there to be an imminent threat.

Does the President now believe that, in fact, while the threat was gathering, while the threat may have been grave, that, in fact, it was not imminent?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think we’ve said all along that it was a grave and gathering threat. And that in a post-September 11th world, you must confront gathering threats before it’s too late.

I think some in the media have chosen to use the word “imminent.” Those were not words –

Q The President himself never used that word?

MR. McCLELLAN: Those were not words we used. We used “grave and gathering threat.” We made it very clear that it was a gathering threat, that it’s important to confront gathering threats in this post-September 11th world, because of the new dangers and new threats that we face.

Q So then under your interpretation, if you’re not using the word “imminent” and the President didn’t use it, this was not a preemptive attack, this was a preventative war? Is that the White House position?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, again, September 11th taught us that we must confront gathering threats before it’s too late. Saddam Hussein – Saddam Hussein had ample opportunity to come clean.

Q I hear you, Scott. But there’s a definitional difference. “Preemptive” has to do with imminent threats. “Preventative” has to do with non-imminent threats.

MR. McCLELLAN: He was a gathering threat, and it was important that we confront that threat. I don’t know that I necessarily agree with your distinctions that you’re making there.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040127-6.html

Well, there is this, from old Scott himself on February 10, 2003:

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, what we’re focused on – and, remember, it goes back to what the President said over the weekend. And this is about disarmament. This is about 12 years of deceiving and denying and cheating and retreating and playing hide-and-seek. And those games are over. And the President has made that very clear. And now this is an opportunity for the United Nations Security Council and the United Nations to show its relevance; 1441 is very clear in what it says. And Saddam Hussein has continued his defiance of the international community. And this is a moment for the Security Council to come together and show its relevance. And we will not put up with any more games of deception and any more games of hide-and-seek, as the President has made very clear.

QUESTION: What about NATO’s role? Belgium now says it will veto any attempt to provide help to Turkey to defend itself. Is this something the administration can live with, or is it a major obstacle?

MR. McCLELLAN: Two points. We support the request under Article IV of Turkey. And I think it’s important to note that the request from a country under Article IV that faces an imminent threat goes to the very core of the NATO alliance and its purpose.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030210-8.html

But I suppose you can say he’s talking about an imminent threat to Turkey… by Iraq? If we start beating the snot out of Iraq, maybe? I don’t know.

Here’s some words being firmly placed into the President’s mouthpiece:

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

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/excerpts_oct16.html (October 16, 2002)

And then there is the President, talking about North Korea on October 21, 2002

[QUOTE]
Q They’re not an imminent threat, though?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, that’s an operative word. We view this very seriously. It is a troubling discovery, and it’s a discovery that we intend to work with our friends to deal with. I believe we can do it peacefully. I look forward to working with people to encourage them that we must convince Kim Chong-il to disarm for the sake of peace. And the people who have got the most at stake, of course, in this posture are the people who are his neighbors.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021021-8.html

Ari added his own insights on the meaning of this strange word way back on October 8, 2001:

Q Fine-tuning this if I may – the British press, at least two newspapers, are implying today that Tony Blair says that war against the Afghani Taliban is imminent. Without getting into op-sec, is that a statement you’re willing to buy?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I’m not going to discuss with you the timing of any military actions.

Q Not timing, but just imminent as a kind of a –

MR. FLEISCHER: The last I look up “imminent,” it had something to do with a sense of time. (Laughter.)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011002-11.html

And then there’s Paul Wolfow–uh, the National Security Strategy of the United States:

For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. 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.

We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction—weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss5.html

So, that’s what the playbook says. What does the President say again? Ari on March 11 said the President says:

Q Can you substantiate the credibility of the President’s statement that Iraq is capable of, or direct an imminent attack on the United States? And I have a follow-up.

MR. FLEISCHER: The President does believe that Iraq is a direct threat to the United States as a result of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, particularly biological and chemical weapons.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030311-5.html

Direct, but not imminent. Because it’s an operative word that involves a sense of timing, and Ari won’t violate operational security by revealing details of timing. No. That makes too much sense.

I… just… I really don’t know what to say about this one from March 5, 2003.

Q There is no imminent threat.

MR. FLEISCHER: This is where – Helen, if you were President you might view things differently. But you have your judgment and the President has others.

Q Why doesn’t he prove it? Why don’t you lay it out? When have they threatened in the last 12 years?

MR. FLEISCHER: They have attacked their neighbors. They have gassed their own people.

Q Twelve years ago.

MR. FLEISCHER: They have launched attacks.

Q With our support.

MR. FLEISCHER: And September 11th showed the United States is vulnerable to those who would attack us. And one of the best ways to protect the homeland is to go after the threats abroad.

Q You haven’t linked terrorism to Saddam Hussein, in terms of 9/11.

MR. FLEISCHER: It’s not – the threat is what took place on 9/11. You don’t have to make a direct linkage between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 to know that others who are planning can try to do it again, Saddam Hussein included.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030305-7.html

So… there we have Ari patiently instructing a reporter that it’s the threat of 9/11 that allows us to connect Hussein and terrorism. And if YOU were President you might see that threat as… IMMINENT! Maybe.

And finally, I give you the State of the Union:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-22.html

So there we go. Hope that clears everything up. Looks like the President really didn’t say much about Iraq being an imminent threat. Because we must adapt ourselves to a new security outlook which uses the concept of preemtively attacking a plainly visible threat which is operative and implies timing of attack against you, and apply it to an enemy whom you cannot see but who poses a direct and gathering threat against you sometime in the future. In other words, it might not be an imminent threat, because we don’t know, so it’s best to kick 'em in the balls now before they have a chance to kick us.

Yes. It’s all clear now.

[vibrotronica]

Oh, I get it now! It all depends on what the definition of “is” is!

[greenteeth]

I’m not sure if Bush actually ever said Iraq was an imminent threat, though I do remember Blair talking about the case for war (well before the war started) on some MTV Europe (or something similar) forum in which he took questions from the young audience. What struck me was he said over and over that Iraq WAS NOT and imminent threat, but might well be one in years to come if left unchecked. I always assumed that was Bush’s position as well and I don’t quite understand the harping about the fact that Iraq wasn’t an imminent threat. I always go the impression that we went to war so that we wouldn’t have to in 5-10 years

[ElvisL1ves]

Bush 2004 Campaign Pledges To Restore Honor And Dignity To White House

“After years of false statements and empty promises, it’s time for big changes in Washington,” Bush said. “We need a president who will finally stand up and fight against the lies and corruption. It’s time to renew the faith the people once had in the White House. If elected, I pledge to usher in a new era of integrity inside the Oval Office.”

[elucidator]

Could still happen!

Excerpt from high school history book, 2036.

“…after the excesses and disappointment of the Bush Administration (insert here an illustration of Paul Wolfowitz committing seppuku in the Rose Garden), all branches of government have been under the control of the Democrats, in alliance and consultation with the Trostkyist/Green Popular Front. After being rebuffed by the Libertarian Party (illustration of Libertarian Party Maximum Leader Libertarian II saying “Fuck 'em, they had thier chance”), the majority of the Republican leadership devoted themselves to cultivating drug habits and indulging exotic sexual practices…”

[John_Mace]

The interesting thing is that if you look at the SotU speach from 2003 quoted by Sofa King Bush explicitly says he wants to act before the threat becomes imminent. That’s the crux of the pre-emptive doctrine. Nothing secret or backdoor about it.

[elucidator]

True enough, but predicated on the assumption that an attack by Saddam was inevitable. I remain suspicious of foreign policy conducted by clairovoyance.

[Rashak_Mani]

Imminent becomes Gathering becomes Eventual becomes Probable becomes Available… BS BS BS

If the threat wasn’t imminent… why the hurry ?

[Desmostylus]

@John Mace

The interesting thing is that if you look at the SotU speach from 2003 quoted by Sofa King Bush explicitly says he wants to act before the threat becomes imminent. That’s the crux of the pre-emptive doctrine. Nothing secret or backdoor about it.

Yes, he says that he can’t afford to wait until the threat becomes imminent, because then it’ll be too late. All this crap goes back to the National Security Strategy document, which attempts to redefine what “imminent” means. So Bush and Co can never be pinned down on “imminent”, because they’re using the same word to mean two completely different things.

[Rashak_Mani]

This seems to sum it up:
Qualifying Word

[gouda]

The audacity of the this administration is staggering!! And so is that of those on this board continuing to defend them.

This subtle play with words seems to me to be nothing more than attempts to obfuscate the whole issue.