Maybe the expression "imminent threat" was not used explicitely by Bush but: In an October 7, 2002 televised speech to the nation, Bush likened the standoff with Iraq to the October 1962 Cuban missile crisis, when Soviet missiles were revealed to be based just 145km off US shores. In that same speech, he warned that Saddam "could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists" like the al-Qaeda network behind the September 11, 2001, attacks. "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq," Rumsfeld testified to lawmakers in September 2002. Other senior Bush aides shied away from using the word "imminent" but agreed with that characterisation in exchanges with reporters. On January 26, 2003, CNN television asked White House communications director Dan Bartlett "is he (Saddam) an imminent threat to US interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?" "Well, of course he is," Bartlett replied. On May 7, 2003, a reporter asked then White House spokesman Ari Fleischer: "We went to war, didn't we, to find these â because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn't that true?" "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," the spokesman replied. "Another way to look at this is if Saddam Hussein holds a gun to your head even while he denies that he actually owns a gun, how safe should you feel?" Fleischer told reporters on October 9, 2002. http://www.themercury.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,8515134%5E1702,00.html
It is not necessary to use the word imminent in order to convey the same meaning. Imminent threat was implied by the urgency of the need for action without any delay. The weapons inspectors were calling for more time, many of our allies wanted more time and more evidence, yet Bush led people to believe that further delays were dangerous and would constitute severe risk such that a pre-emptive strike was the ONLY possible course of action. The situation would only be dangerous if there was indeed an imminent threat to be dealt with was the message sent loud and clearly by the administration. The danger was so great according to Bush and company that we had to break from our allies, the U.N., NATO, and spend money we didn't have in order to engage this war. We are currently continue to fund the Iraq effort to the tune of nearly 92% of all money spent on the nation building project, and have well over 90% of all military troops in Iraq. Hardly a coalition.
what???? man don't you read? [one of the many excerpts:] .... The President has maintained that this resolution is necessary at this time based on his assessment of the imminent threat to the United States posed by Iraq. If the President believes based on the intelligence that he has received that an imminent threat exists, then it is my belief that we must support him. ....As the President pursues diplomatic negotiations to end this imminent threat, it is ....He [GW] now seeks Congressional authorization to use military force in Iraq based on his assessment of the imminent threat presented by the untrustworthiness and that was from Congressman Paul E. Kanjorski edit/add, ....the resolution was requested AND SIGNED BY GWB.. so please let's get over this bs
Actually he did say it. When the President's top appointees speak, it is well understood that what they say is with the express approval of the White House. Surely, living in Wash/Md as you do, you know that simple fact of political life. So when Mr Cheney or Mr Powell or Mr Rumsfeld or Ms Rice speaks, that is the President speaking. Y'know, like when Ms Rice mentions things such as mushroom clouds.... Frankly AAA, if you would get off your high neocon horse for just a moment you might acknowledge the obvious truth that the President and His Administration did everything in their power to convey the urgency, the imminence of the threat as justification for the invasion. This is not rocket science and we don't need to keep trying to put a spin on it.
Clinton never said that he had sexual intercourse with Monica Lewinsky, yet the Repub's were running around saying he did and that he was a liar.
A misuse of our power that weakens us in the long run. But this administration acts from a position of extreme arrogance. ges
what's really ridiculous, billybubba's bj, cost us 60 plus million to investigate. Earned him the lying cheat husband label (among others) and good laughs/ridicule around the world and here. GW and cabal lies, costs the taxpayer 250 BILLION plus in fraudulent invasion of another nation, OVER 500 of our bravest citizens have died, dozens of thousands of Iraqis innocent children women and men. and God only knows how many new/true terrorsist we created. But hey!!! HAL Rand corp Betchel, and rest of MIC cronies are rolling in the dough, with enough loot to re-elect scumya:eek: