Actually, they never said Iraq was an imminent threat to the US.

In the build up to the war, I always said that IF * said that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the US, I would consider supporting an invasion.

They never said it but it is obvious that that is what people heard. I'm enjoying hearing them get bashed for something they never actually said.

in fact, Blair did say this, and has been quoted numerous times since then.

It was also certainly intimated by Bush's "mushroom cloud" statement.

The 45 minute thing is just misinformation to "show" that he had operating WMD's. I have heard "pundits" on TV asserting that * said that Iraq was an imminent threat. Over and over he used the word "could." Now he's been stuck with the word "imminent."

I don't have a link because there is just my memory. I repeated the same mantra over and over in the build up to the invasion. The words I heard were, "Iraq could attack the US." I listened for the words "direct" and "imminent" and never heard them.

I could have sworn...but maybe I was listening to the BBC. I do that a lot.

some would say we should wait until the threat was imminent but....yada. that's what i read here. maybe bush said it elsewhere but that's the quote i saw debunked.

You are as wrong as wrong can be.

The word they used over and over was "could" as in Iraq "could" attack the US. I don't deny that they scared people and made connections to 9/11, but * never said they posed an "imminent" threat.

... on or about Sept. 6th. He repeats the charge made by Tony Blair about 45 minutes, and then adds a few others. Funny thing, but the Guardian reported a couple of weeks ago that the "45 minute" BS came from the US. We fed it to the British, and then Bush said, "the British say...." Very neat deniability.

Saying that an IAEA report indicated Iraq was within 6 months of nukes. The IAEA later came out and said there was no such report.

that's why he's nervous about those missing WMD's.

they couldn't even give the UN ten more days to search.

Saddam was a danger to the entire world.

Yeah, they said all that and more.

But everyone will argue with you anyway. But no, Blair wasn't as "careful" with his rhetoric.

saying that * said Iraq was an imminent threat.

that this administration had made it out that Iraq was a clear and presant danger and we didn't have time to wait for UN INSPECTIONS to conclude the danger was so great.

and it would be even MORE damming if bush went in there knowing full well that they weren't, and therefore didn't need to claim CAPD as you aledge, hence the current SCANDAL brewing.

:hi:

peace

and I agree with everything you say about what was implied. I never heard that Iraq was such a threat that they couldn't wait. What I heard was that he's had 12 years to cooperate, yadda, yadda, yadda. There is an entire mountain full of lies, but they implied a lot more than they said.

can't wait for the inspections to finish or give them more time as requested, must go in NOW.

there is AMPLE proof... shoot TB said they could luanch'em with only 45 warning.

sorry pal, but that IS what all the TALK is about, this is a full fledged SCANDAL that hopefully will bring them all DOWN.

:hi:

peace

All these things you mention are not the same as saying that Iraq posed a direct and imminent threat to the US. I agree that they implied it over and over again, but the fact that they never said it was proof of the sham. Why not say it? Because it wasn't true. Iraq was not a direct and imminent threat to the US. That's why President "plain-spoken" never came right out and said it.

"The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country and our friends and our allies."



http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/sotu.transcript/

"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."

Remarks by the President on Iraq
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
Cincinnati, Ohio
8:02 P.M. EDT

is that he never said Iraq was an imminent threat under oath. Why are you looking to parse words over a matter as grave as thousands of deaths. We attacked Iraq because according to Bush, Iraq had WMDs whcih posed a threat to America. We know and knew that this was false. And for you to say is Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat that you would have considered supporting an invasion tells a lot. For me the fact he said it assured would have me that Iraq was no threat. The man lies every time he opens his lips.

are smart enough to listen to what people say, and what they don't say, in order to determine the truth of the matter. The fact that * did not say Iraq posed a direct and imminent threat told me that the whole thing was likely a sham.

Had any POTUS said that another country posed an imminent threat, I would have to take it seriously.

a politician as craven as Bush to actually come out aand say exactly what he means before you can put 2 and 2 together to see the truth then you have a long wait coming. Bush isnt going to say, "you know we scheduled the GOP convention close to the 3rd anniversary of 9/11 so we could exploit the tragedy" is he? But any one with some sense knows that is exactly what he is doing. Dont expect them to hand you the rope to hang them with, we have to fight and dig for the truth with these folks.

get the blood going!!

:hi:

:hi:

. . to convey any message. There is no need to use any specific words to convey any message. In fact it is often more effective not to say something directly. Advertisers do this all the time. Almost never will an ad directly say "buy me". That would just raise the resistance level of the viewer. Yet that is the underlieing message of every ad.

Karl Rove knows all this very well.

Margi

Bush & the End of Reason

In September 2002, for instance, Bush started his march to war by going to the U.N. and demanding a tough stance against Iraq over its alleged WMD. "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons," Bush said. "Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

<snip>

On another occasion in those early days of war fever, Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair cited a "new" report supposedly from the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency saying Iraq was "six months away" from having a nuclear weapon. "I don’t know what more evidence we need," said Bush.

more...
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2003/061703a.html

see also...
http://news.globalfreepress.com/wmd

:hi:

peace

will put them at the same level as defining what "is" is.

In other words they're dancing around technical usage of words.

True, Our Glorious Leader never actually used the words "imminent threat" in that particular order in his SOTU speech:

"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?"

By using the rhetorical question, he implies the threat is immiment, without actually saying so.

Additionally, this administration never made any effort to correct the common assumption that he said Iraq was an imminent threat. In fact, an October 8, 2002 headline from Radio Free Europe reads: "Iraq: Bush Tells Americans Saddam Is An Imminent Threat" Certainly, the administration had time to clarify these misleading headlines, did they not?

Yeah, let them try to weasel out of it -- it just further demonstrates they are weasels. (No offense to weasels, of course...)

That's the beauty of it. What people heard was imminent threat to the US and now the administration is stuck with the product of their own devices.

I really dont understand the point of this thread. Even though he may not have said "imminent threat" that was most obviously the implication of their hysteria.

six months from having NUKES hello... that is pretty IMMINENT where i come from... i suppose it's all realitive to some :shrug:

WMD quotes...
http://news.globalfreepress.com/wmd

peace

It's called word association. Yes, * was saying that they would get nukes. That is different from an imminent threat to the US. He made vague connections which misled people. However, our crack media now says that * said that Iraq was an imminet threat. Not quite.

when we are talking about WMDs and he said that in sept 02 6 months before we went in.

that is more than saying they are an imminent threat, that is also describing what the imminent threat is and even mentions the SHORT timeline/deadline

:hi:

peace

nukes and an indication that they would be used against us. Don't get me wrong, the administration should be in jail for what they have done. What I'm saying is that there was much in what they did not say that should have given the knuckleheads posing as journalists pause.

and i saw it live on the teeVee

peace

I couldn't find the quote in the GFP link you listed, but I did find a quote from the Telegraph (9/9/2002):

"President Bush, speaking during his summit with Tony Blair, said that Saddam was just six months away from going nuclear."

I remember this now....this was the claim he made based on an IAEA report, which turned out to be from before Gulf War I!

Just wanted to make sure a link was out there in case anyone doubted that Bush actually said this.

Thanks for the reminder.

as well now...
http://news.GlobalFreePress.com/wmd

I couldn't believe I didn't have that one ;->

peace

And the crack media isn't just now using the phrase. As has been posted elsewhere in this thread, headlines saying that Glorious Leader claims Iraq is an imminent threat go at least as far back as October 8, 2002.

And as has also been posted elsewhere in this thread, the administration did everything they could to imply there was an imminent threat.

The White House had plenty of time to clear up misconceptions, but that would not have helped them in their rush to war.

So, maybe I didn't quite understand your point. If you're saying that you're enjoying watching the administration squirm over something they created, I agree. If you're implying that they're having to squirm over a false impression they did not intend to make, well....I'll just say I disagree.

They tried planting this seed of "imminent threat" and everyone has convinced themselves that he actually used those words. To be honest, I thought he did, too, but I can't find anything in Google to support that -- just a lot of press reports that he said it, and not a single denial from the WH, at least not until people started to question whether there was an imminent threat after all.

They sowed fear with these false impressions. Now they get to reap the anger of a public that is beginning to believe they were duped.

they made the case that iraq had and would use WMD against america if we didn't act and act FAST.

peace

And here's the administration trying to say "Yeah, well...we didn't use the PARTICULAR phrase 'imminent threat'" like that somehow makes it all better.

No, I think I see what the original poster is getting at -- they convinced everybody (well, except most of us on DU, I guess) that there was an imminent threat without actually saying those words, and now they think that they can get away with arguing that they never said the phrase "imminent threat". Yeah, like that's some sort of magic phrase? Well, they sure as hell did imply it, and most people think he DID say it, so they really end up looking like they're trying to weasel out of something.

They get to reap the anger of a public who were misled into hearing "imminent threat". It would not have mattered had the flower-throwing Iraqis greeted us with the keys to their cities.

She very cynically compared it to the warnings before Sept. 11, and more than one of them warned that Iraq would strike without warning.

It doesn't matter if they used the word "imminent" or not, as that's clearly the picture they painted with their talk of mushroom clouds over manhatten.

29 Jan 2003

Source: Los Angeles Times , January 29, 2003

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.

But the president made clear his decision whether to attack Iraq would not hinge on U.N. approval.

"All free nations have a stake in preventing sudden and catastrophic attack. We are asking them to join us, and many are doing so," the president said. "Yet the course of this nation does not depend on the decision of others."

Calls have mounted in recent weeks for the president to make a better case for going to war. In response, Bush argued that use of force is not only justified but necessary, and that the threat is not only real but imminent.

"If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late," Bush said. "Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option." http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/iraqimminent.html

-----------

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.

Speaking from Cincinnati, Bush said Iraq's president, Saddam Hussein, poses a unique threat to the Middle East, to the United States, and to the world. "While 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's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people," Bush said.

Bush said the United States and the world cannot afford to wait -- as some have suggested -- for Saddam to abandon his programs of weapons of mass destruction, as required by the United Nations under the terms of the cease-fire that ended hostilities in the 1991 Gulf War. "The longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence," Bush said. http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2002/10/08102002135121.asp

....not Bush himself.

"All free nations have a stake in preventing sudden and catastrophic attack. We are asking them to join us, and many are doing so," the president said. "Yet the course of this nation does not depend on the decision of others.".

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

Well I think "sudden and catastrophic" would incite the same sense of urgency.

Got any other hairs to split?

Julie

talking.

This is the only hair I'm splitting tonight.

This a straight-talkin' president, who says what he means. Isn't that what we're always being told?

And to have a straight-talkin' plain-spoken regular kinda guy get out there and dance around whether he actually used a particular phrase or not is NOT the image his handlers want to portray. Makes their straight-talker look like a hypocrite. Or a liar.

Now the key is to get Fearless Leader himself, and not just his apologists, to dance around this issue. Would the press be brave enough to try that?

I want to see a videotape of Bush saying "I never said imminent threat", followed by videotape of every other phrase he used that implied "imminent threat".

I was sure I heard such things as "implies that Iraq is an imminent threat" "alleges that Iraq was an imminent threat"...etc. And these words were uttered by the media whenever they report or conduct one of those "interviews" with administration officials. If Dan Rather asks the question, "why was Iraq and imminent threat" of "if Iraq was such an imminent threat.." he is not saying that Bush SAID Iraq was an "imminent threat." He is merely questioning the administration's implications which any and many reasonable people understood to mean Iraq was an imminent threat, a clear danger to the US and its neighbors...etc. If Iraq were not an "imminent" threat there was no basis for invading when we did! I guess I don't get your "trial baloon" point!

That's right.