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.
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.”
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.
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.
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:
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:
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.
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?
Hey, it’s public domain. We can quote it at length. It reminds me of something out of Joseph Heller:
Well, there is this, from old Scott himself on February 10, 2003:
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:
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.
Ari added his own insights on the meaning of this strange word way back on October 8, 2001:
And then there’s Paul Wolfow–uh, the National Security Strategy of the United States:
So, that’s what the playbook says. What does the President say again? Ari on March 11 said the President says:
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.
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:
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.
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
“…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…”
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.
True enough, but predicated on the assumption that an attack by Saddam was inevitable. I remain suspicious of foreign policy conducted by clairovoyance.
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.