Where in the world did you find all these quotes so quickly?

GOOGLE RULES.

So, I was right. Bush never called Saddam's Iraq an "imminent" or "immediate" threat. Thanks for confirming that.

No.. Bush didn't say it.

But Rumsfield did.

Bush didn't say "imminent" or "immediate" because they have three syllables. He was afraid he might misunderpronounce them.

"No.. Bush didn't say it."

Thanks for confirming that. :-]

RJ, what's your point? Everyone who worked for Bush said it -- in the newspapers, on tv, in our faces every friggin' day, practically, during the months before the war. It was a PR effort to convince Americans that Iraq was an imminent threat to us.

The fact that Bush didn't say the word "imminent" when his entire staff did doesn't mean shit.

It's his administration doing the talkin for HIM. This is HIS policy. Perhaps if he actually gave a press conference or two, we'd have more quotes from the world's worst speaker.

"Everyone who worked for Bush said it -- in the newspapers, on tv, in our faces every friggin' day, practically, during the months before the war."

Hmm...I see a couple press-flacks who agreed to what someone else said, and I see Rumsfeld saying it once, probably accidentally. This means Bush lied?

"The fact that Bush didn't say the word "imminent" when his entire staff did doesn't mean shit."

His "entire staff"? I would be willing to give you the ten dollars you so desperately need, if you can actually back that statement up.

It's called hyperbole.

Donald Rumsfeld is a press flack? The press secretary is a press flack?

Rumsfeld said it. One press secretary said it and the other answered "yes" when asked if Iraq was an imminent threat.

These people speak for Bush. They are the voice of his administration because they are the ones who actually talk to the press. [Unlike the president, who has already set a record that will likely never be broken for NOT holding press conferences.]

The administration told America that we were in imminent danger from Iraq. You can't argue that point. Reread the quotes above.

Question: What does "unique urgency" mean?

Question: What is an "urgent threat"?

"Imminent" differs from "urgent." Consult your dictionary.

Imminent means that, any day, Iraq would nuke NYC. Urgent means that, at some point, Iraq would support a terrorist action against Americans.

This is clearly true. The Palestinian terrorists he funded often killed American citizens. And he could have rebuilt his WMD program had the US agreed with the French and Russian plan to end the UN sanctions.

Iraq was a threat, because its totalitarian leader had a horrific track record, and regime change (which was the policy of the USA since 1998) could only come about via military action.

Iraq was an optional war. So was Korea. So was the first Gulf War. So was WWI. Lots of things are options. Options are the hallmark of a free society. Our free society decided to topple Saddam. One of the reasons was WMD. None have yet been found. Maybe they are in Syria. Maybe Saddam destroyed them prior to the invasion. But he had them at one time, and used them numerous times.

So how did Bush lie?

RJ, you are again missing the point. Bush's people, the ones he trusts to tell his story to the American people and to the press, said that Iraq was an imminent threat.

That was in the build-up to the war. The threat was from those pesky invisible WMDs, remember?

Oh wait, now the story is that Hussein could have *rebuilt* his WMD program? That was the threat, his potential to rebuild something? More folklore. He had them, they said. And lots of them. And then after we entered Iraq, Rumsfeld said "we know where [the WMDs] are."

So Bush and his pals lied when they selectively used the intelligence to build a false case for war.

And then they started lying again when they said they never said Iraq was an imminent threat.

Almost every intelligence source in the world thought Saddam had WMDs. If he did indeed have them in 2003, he was indeed a threat.

It was up to Saddam to prove he had no WMDs. He did not prove this.

Bush didn't lie. The world's intelligence sources were possibly incorrect.

Anyway, I'm glad Saddam is in a cell rather than in control of a nation-state. Aren't you?

I don't really feel any safer, if that's what you're asking. That's because he wasn't really the big threat to us that he was made out to be. Bin Laden's boys, they're a different story.

Hussein was a nasty dude, and he should be put on trial in an international court. I hope the Iraqi people are better off without him in the long run. They are today, but the future is still uncertain.

You're being polite and rational again. I think this is your default position. I hope it remains so, despite my argumentative posts. :-]

Saddam was indeed a nasty fella. Better we are rid of him and his sons now, than sometime later. Ditto for the Iraqi people. Good men and women have died to bring this about.

As I said, it was an optional war. There are reasonable arguments against it. Claiming Bush lied to go to war is not one of them. Bush would, politically, be better off without this war. Bush would have been foolish to wage this war knowing there were no WMDs.

I am always rational and usually polite.

You do the math.

RJ, despite resorting to a dictionary and your gymnastics with semantics, BUSH could not have sold the war to the American public without the 'imminent' and/or 'immediate' threat of WMDs.

I'd say that's virutally indisputable, since he could barely sell the war WITH those threats.

An there is such a thing as IMPLIED, IMPLICIT, and that's one of the major games the Bushies play.

Now that we haven't found any "immediate" threat (WMDs), they're saying "We never said that."

Good fuckin' grief. When you go to war for a specific reason, it's kinda pathetic when the REASON you went to war turns out to be wrong and your supporters have to start MICRO-PARSING your previous statements in order to avoid looking like LIARS and the manipulative bastards that they are.

Same hypocrites who made fun of Clinton for his infamous "depends on what your definintion of "is" is..."

Except Clinton lied about a hummer, and Bush lied about a WAR. One guy screwed an intern, the other screwed a nation.

Big difference, babe.

So how did Bush lie?

By claiming to be a qualified candidate back in 2000. You think he doesn't know he's stupid?

Bush would, politically, be better off without this war.

Yeah, but he didn't know that when he started it. That's the beauty of Bush's war with Iraq: we get rid of Saddam, then the inevitable post-war fiasco sinks Bush. I love it when a plan comes together.

O, Bush did not lie, he was just wrong. He did not find WMD, but it was there before. Bush did not say 'imminent' he just had different intelligense... Bush is the best. He is very smart and good. Why we suck right now, I do not know. Something must be wrong?

It is like: doctor was an expert, surgery was perfect - pacient is dead.