Bush Never Said "Imminent Threat"

You know, I agree. This has been brought up by many people but I don't think it will do any good. The conspiracy people here on the left are looking for a demon and they won't stop until they find one, even if it means having to make one up.

I seriously doubt that what President Bush said really matters. In another thread, I posted the transcript of an interview given by David Kay, head weapons inspector where he detailed how they had found WMDs. To a man, the anti-American left said, "Oh, but they didn't find WMD's". It's a bit like the old Monty Python "Dead Parrot" skit where the guy is standing there with an obviously dead parrot, banging it on the counter to demonstrate it's demise, all the while being told by the shopkeeper, "Oh, it's not dead, it's just resting."

 

Mike, the propogandists would have folks believe that the opposition to the Iraq policy is a left-wing perspective. That simply isn't true. Much of the opposition is on the right.

It's ironic that Bush supporters paint anyone who criticizes him as "leftists", when in fact much of the opposition comes from those who oppose his leftist policies.

If you are a Bush supporter, you are the leftist: massive federalization of education, massive, massive, massive, massive federal spending and deficits, promotion of the homosexual lobby, massive foreign aid, unrestricted immigration, and an imperialist foreign policy.

 

Actually, this thread is specifically about the war in Iraq and whether or not he said that there was an imminent threat.

It you have a problem with his domestic policy, then start another thread just for that.

 

So an attack in 45 minutes is not "imminent"? "Immediate" does not mean "imminent" either? Does it only count if the exact word is used whether the meaning is the same or not?

 

No. All he said was that British intel said that they were capable of being ready to attack in 45 minutes.

Simply being able to do something is not "imminent". "Imminent" means that something is going to happen soon or close by.

I don't see where he said anything was "immediate".

But the meaning isn't the same. Again, he hasn't said "immediate" and merely stating that British intel says that Iraq had the ability to be ready to make an atack is not even remotely the same as saying that an attack is "imminent".

 

This is a favorite tactic of the left. Make up something really bad that the Republicans are supposed to have done or said and then tell everyone how bad they are for doing or saying it, even if they never did. They can't fight us on the issues and they know that to demonize us is the only chance they have.

 

interesting thread - I am a bit confused though.

Bush & Blair said that he was:

a) able to launch against us in 45 mins
b) a threat to the west

moreover, i am interested in the difference between a threat and an imminent threat - love the semantics!

oh btw - found any wmd yet?

 

it is also interesting to note that Iraq posed no threat at all to the west - Bush certainly said that they were a threat did he not?

 

Kinda like the "Gore said he invented the internet" scam?

Sounds like poetic justice, to me.

Anyway, I too, would like to know why Bush is now running from his earlier claim that Saddam was a threat to the US.

Anybody want to explain that? Does it have anything to do with the fact that all the "evidence" he cited didn't exist? Or that he can't find any trace of WMD after all?

 

Here's Algore's exact quote:

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

[qb]

I wasn't aware that he is.

This is what I meant when I said that you would deny it. Thanks for bearing this out for me.

 

Mike - the point is that he wasn;t a threat to the west at all

regarding the al gore thing - http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.htm

 

I see that it turns out that the dyed-in-the-wool Bush supporters are no more honest than the dyed-in-the-wool Clinton supporters were. When they are backed against a wall, they try to use semantics to extricate themselves and to defend their leader.

 

Yes, the snopes piece includes the quote I posted, further emphasizing that he did, indeed claim to have invented the internet.

 

No, there are no semantics being played here. What we have are two different things: the president saying that British intel has found that Iraq could be ready to make an attack in 45 minutes and the false claim that Bush said that Iraq was an "immenent threat".

Again, two different things.

((Mozier - did I not call this one perfectly?))

 

all the while ignoring the fact that Iraq posed no threat - immediate or not - to the west

keep beating that strawman

 

Admitting up front that I am dense, what is the difference? I don't see any difference of substance here.

 

I've already explained that.

To say that something is "imminent" mean that it is likely to happen soon or close by. To say something is possible doesn't mean that it will happen, only that it is able to happen.

One is active, one is passive.

 

It all means the same thing to the average listener and reader. You supporters of President Bush are really straining to try to defend his language that he used which has resulted in the U.S. military being bogged down in a quagmire in Iraq. And you know if the situation a year from the now has not significantly improved, then Mr. Bush will very likely lose in November 2004.