[Macfreak7]

For those of you that watched his speech, which was in itself fair enough and sincere, do you think it was enough "intelligence" to justify the attack on Iraq (not to mention the lives, money etc. lost)?

WASHINGTON (AP) — In his first public defense of prewar intelligence, CIA Director George Tenet said Thursday U.S. analysts never claimed before the war that Iraq posed an imminent threat.

That is quite contradictory to what G. W. Bush told America and the rest of the world.


link

[zigzag]

I think it's been shown that the administration never used the word "imminent" in the legalistic sense (i.e. "about to strike"), although it appears to have been used casually by some underlings. So we should be careful about that one.

However, even if wasn't used in that sense, the administration (and Blair) did make the case that it was a matter of some urgency. Since that appears not to be the case, the question is whether the administration cherry-picked and/or misrepresented the available intelligence.

As you say, in and of itself, Tenet's position seems quite reasonable.

[Lerkfish]

"Now I'm going take this here bullet, place it in my gun, pull the trigger, and propel the bullet through the air until it hits your head. But I did NOT say I was going to "shoot" you. Nosiree. If I'da used that there exact word, then you could criticize me. But since I didn't say "shoot", you can't accuse me of threatening to "shoot" you. Just send a bullet through your head. Its different. What we haaaave hehre is a faaaailure to communicate." (/strother martin)

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Macfreak7:
"WASHINGTON (AP) — In his first public defense of prewar intelligence, CIA Director George Tenet said Thursday U.S. analysts never claimed before the war that Iraq posed an imminent threat."

That is quite contradictory to what G. W. Bush told America and the rest of the world.

Check out the 2003 State of the Union, where Bush made his case for war to the American people. He flat out states that he was not going to wait for the threat to become imminent.

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? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

[zigzag]

I love Strother Martin - did he really say that or are you just trying to make me laugh?

[dialo]

"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
• White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03

"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
• President Bush, 7/17/03

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
• President Bush, 7/2/03

"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
• President Bush 4/24/03

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
• Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
• President Bush, 3/19/03

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
• President Bush, 3/16/03

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
• President Bush, 1/3/03

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
• President Bush, 11/23/02

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
• President Bush, 11/3/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
• President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
• President Bush, 10/28/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
• President Bush, 10/16/02

"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 could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
• President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02

"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."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02

http://www.americanprogress.org/site...VF&b=24970

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by dialo:
http://www.americanprogress.org/site...VF&b=24970

Yeah, those quotes are nice when isolated away from the rest of bodies they were encapsulated in.

The fact is President Bush (not Rummy, Powell, Cheney, etc.) undeniably made his case for war to the American people in the 2003 State of the Union address, and specifically stated that we were not going to wait for the threat to become imminent.

All the selective quoting in the world will not change that fact.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I love Strother Martin - did he really say that or are you just trying to make me laugh?

trying to make you laugh. and make a point.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Yeah, those quotes are nice when isolated away from the rest of bodies they were encapsulated in.

The fact is President Bush (not Rummy, Powell, Cheney, etc.) undeniably made his case for war to the American people in the 2003 State of the Union address, and specifically stated that we were not going to wait for the threat to become imminent.

All the selective quoting in the world will not change that fact.

Yes, we know he didn't use that exact phrase. But his meaning was nontheless clear to anyone listening.

Synonyms for "imminent":
approaching, brewing, close, coming, expectant, fast-approaching, following, forthcoming, gathering, immediate, impending, in prospect, in store, in view, ineluctable, inescapable, inevasible, inevitable, likely, looming, menacing, near, nearing, next, nigh, overhanging, possible, probable, threatening, to come, unavoidable, unescapable

Sounds a lot like "grave and gathering" to me.

Sadly, the intelligence reports made it quite clear that Iraq's WMD and programs were not "grave and gathering" either.

Time after time after time the administration quoted intelligence reports but failed to include the caveats those reports contained.

Yes, some felt Iraq had some form of nuclear program going--but they also reported it was years away from any hope of a weapon. The president certainly didn't include that caveat in his speeches.

He quoted Kamen's testimony on stockpiles--but failed to mention that Kamen also stated all those stockpiles had been destroyed in an attempt to comply with the UN.

He waxed alarmist about the aluminun tubes--but didn't mention that the vast majority of experts didn't believe they were intended for enrichment of uranium.

And we already know about the "16 little words".

The list goes on. What intelligence told the president is not what he told the country. The administration edited out every doubt, caveat, disclaimer and difference of opinion that didn't suit their case.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by dialo:
>long string of quotes<

*Le smack vers le bas!*

[thunderous_funker]

A pointed look at the farce to come and the farce that was

"intelligence failures" is a total snow job.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Yes, we know he didn't use that exact phrase. But his meaning was nontheless clear to anyone listening.

Synonyms for "imminent"...Sounds a lot like "grave and gathering" to me.

Perhaps you should use a dictionary. Their meanings are definitively different:

grave - requiring serious thought

gathering - accumulating and becoming more intense

imminent - about to occur

The fact is President Bush (not Rummy, Powell, Cheney, etc.) undeniably made his case for war to the American people in the 2003 State of the Union address, and specifically stated that we were not going to wait for the threat to become imminent.

All the wordplay in the world will not change that fact.

[Ayelbourne]

"In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world -- and we will not allow it. This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations, and could supply them with the terrible means to strike this country -- and America will not permit it. The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted. We hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm, fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat." - George Bush, February 26th 2003

Source: President Discusses the Future of Iraq

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
"In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world -- and we will not allow it. This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations, and could supply them with the terrible means to strike this country -- and America will not permit it. The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted. We hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm, fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat." - George Bush, February 26th 2003

Yup, he's describing the threat. Still no mention of any immenency.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The fact is President Bush (not Rummy, Powell, Cheney, etc.) undeniably made his case for war to the American people in the 2003 State of the Union address, and specifically stated that we were not going to wait for the threat to become imminent.

All the wordplay in the world will not change that fact.

I tacitly agree with this statement, but with a slightly different emphasis.

Just don't be surprised if the President does manage to change that fact. Wordplay is an administration speciality.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
A pointed look at the farce to come and the farce that was

"intelligence failures" is a total snow job.

LOL! well, that's predictable. Let's investigate the problem by using hand selected neocon or Bush Sr. representatives....oh yeah, that'll be enlightening.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Just don't be surprised if the President does manage to change that fact. Wordplay is an administration speciality.

Sure thing there, champ.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Yup, he's describing the threat. Still no mention of any immenency.

keep holding on to that tiny straw. You won't drown. Honest.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
All the wordplay in the world will not change that fact.

The only people playing with words are the administration and it's apologists. Must be nice to finally settle into Clinton's legacy, eh?

The message was perfectly clear to everyone who listened to it. And that message grossly mischaracterized the real intelligence reports.

But we already know that no amount of facts on the matter will ever dissuade you from your precious loyalties. You've made it abundantly clear that you'll always place faith before facts on this issue.

[effgee]

"In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world (...) The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. (...) The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat."
George Bush, February 26th 2003

1. Where are those weapons Saddam Hussein was hiding? George Bush himself said on 01/28/03 that Saddam had the materials "... to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
2. At what point in time was Saddam Hussein a direct threat to the American people?

There is no conditional and/or vague aspect or secondary meaning to the sentence "The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat."

This administration is full of dung - lower corner upper lip. They have not been able to produce a single piece of conclusive evidence that would support any of their statements.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
But we already know that no amount of facts on the matter will ever dissuade you from your precious loyalties. You've made it abundantly clear that you'll always place faith before facts on this issue.

Dignified and classy, as usual.

The fact is President Bush (not Rummy, Powell, Cheney, etc.) undeniably made his case for war to the American people in the 2003 State of the Union address, and specifically stated that we were not going to wait for the threat to become imminent.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by effgee:
"In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world (...) The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. (...) The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat."

It's very convenient that the exact statements you chose to cut via (...) are the very statements that clarify and complete the context of the passage. It's not like you cut out a whole lot. You easily could have quoted the entire passage. The problem withis that in doing so, you would be presenting the statements in their original and intended context, and that context doesn't suit your agenda.

Here you go. I filled in the your (...) cuts with the original contents.

"In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world -- and we will not allow it. This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations, and could supply them with the terrible means to strike this country -- and America will not permit it. The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted. We hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm, fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed.

The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat. Acting against the danger will also contribute greatly to the long-term safety and stability of our world. The current Iraqi regime has shown the power of tyranny to spread discord and violence in the Middle East. A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interests in security, and America's belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq."

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Dignified and classy, as usual.

The fact is President Bush (not Rummy, Powell, Cheney, etc.) undeniably made his case for war to the American people in the 2003 State of the Union address, and specifically stated that we were not going to wait for the threat to become imminent.

yes, we get that that is your spin and you're sticking to it.

but you honestly think, semantics aside, that he was telling us this would possibly happen in about 5-10 years, maybe, even though we don't have conclusive intelligence or concrete proof, because Saddam was contemplating restarting weapons of mass destruction program-related activities? and that was why he was a direct threat of such urgency we had to interrupt the weapons inspectors and order to leave before the invasion?

just curious how far back the revisionism of the faithful will stretch.

[effgee]

spacefreak,

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

George W. Bush, Address to the Nation, October 7, 2002

Here's what Webster's has to say on the issue ...

imminent

\Im"mi*nent\, a. [L. imminens, p. pr. of imminere to project; pref. im- in + minere (in comp.) to jut, project. See Eminent.] 1. Threatening to occur immediately; near at hand; impending; -- said especially of misfortune or peril. ``In danger imminent.'' --Spenser.

2. Full of danger; threatening; menacing; perilous.

Hairbreadth scapes i' the imminent deadly breach. --Shak.

3. (With upon) Bent upon; attentive to. [R.]

Their eyes ever imminent upon worldly matters. --Milton.

Syn: Impending; threatening; near; at hand.

Usage: Imminent, Impending, Threatening. Imminent is the strongest: it denotes that something is ready to fall or happen on the instant; as, in imminent danger of one's life. Impending denotes that something hangs suspended over us, and may so remain indefinitely; as, the impending evils of war. Threatening supposes some danger in prospect, but more remote; as, threatening indications for the future.

Three times to-day You have defended me from imminent death. --Shak.

No story I unfold of public woes, Nor bear advices of impending foes. --Pope.

Fierce faces threatening war. --Milton.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc

How exactly does the quote above not describe an imminent threat? Mind semanticizing that for me/us?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by effgee:
spacefreak,

Here's what Webster's has to say on the issue ...

How exactly does the quote above not describe an imminent threat? Mind semanticizing that for me/us?

its the barest sliver of a tiny semantic straw they cling to. they appear to find comfort in it.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The fact is President Bush (not Rummy, Powell, Cheney, etc.) undeniably made his case for war to the American people in the 2003 State of the Union address, and specifically stated that we were not going to wait for the threat to become imminent.

Keep harping on that, i'm sure it is endlessly comforting to you.

For those who are actually interested in how we got it so wrong, take a look at this terrific article on the subject.

I find it incredibly illuminating and persuasive because the author was an intelligence professional who argued for the war because he considered Iraq's WMD threat to be very significant.

He speaks frankly about why we assumed the worst, what the UN got right, what the UN got wrong, and what internal political pressures in Iraq might account for Saddam's suspicious behavior.

He also discusses the gap between intelligence assessments and the administration's public pronouncements.

The problems discussed so far have more to do with the methods of officials than with their motives, which were often misguided and dangerous, but were essentially well-intentioned. The one action for which I cannot hold officials blameless is their distortion of intelligence estimates when making the public case for war.

As best I can tell, these officials were guilty not of lying but of creative omission. They discussed only those elements of intelligence estimates that served their cause. This was particularly apparent in regard to the time frame for Iraq's acquisition of a nuclear weapon - the issue that most alarmed the American public and the rest of the world. Remember that the NIE said that Iraq was likely to have a nuclear weapon in five to seven years if it had to produce the fissile material indigenously, and that it might have one in less than a year if it could obtain the material from a foreign source. The intelligence community considered it highly unlikely that Iraq would be able to obtain weapons-grade material from a foreign source; it had been trying to do so for 25 years with no luck. However, time after time senior administration officials discussed only the worst-case, and least likely, scenario, and failed to mention the intelligence community's most likely scenario. Some examples:

· In a radio address on September 14, 2002, President Bush warned, "Today Saddam Hussein has the scientists and infrastructure for a nuclear-weapons program, and has illicitly sought to purchase the equipment needed to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should his regime acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year."

· On October 7, 2002, the president told a group in Cincinnati, "If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year."

· Vice President Cheney said on NBC's Meet the Press on September 14 2003:"The judgment in the NIE was that if Saddam could acquire fissile material, weapons-grade material, that he would have a nuclear weapon within a few months to a year."

None of these statements in itself was untrue. However, each told only a part of the story - the most sensational part. These statements all implied that the US intelligence community believed that Saddam would have a nuclear weapon within a year unless the US acted at once. Some defenders of the administration have reportedly countered that all it did was make the best possible case for war, playing a role similar to that of a defense attorney who is charged with presenting the best possible case for a client. But a defense attorney is responsible for presenting only one side of a dispute. The president is responsible for serving the entire nation. For the administration to withhold or downplay some of the information for its own purposes is a betrayal of that responsibility.

He tells how the president was routinely presented with 2 opposing stories on Iraq--one from the CIA and intelligence pros, the other from the Office of Special Plans and the Pentagon. He explains why it was reasonable for the president to have accepted one view, even if there were good reasons to doubt it.

He also isn't afraid to say that hindsight is 20/20 and that he was wrong. A refreshing statement in the midst of yet another Bush-pass-the-buck-a-thon.

All in all, a very good read that puts this issue in great perspective.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by effgee:
How exactly does the quote above not describe an imminent threat? Mind semanticizing that for me/us?

The statement you provided is describing the threat and a possible scenario. He did not say "Saddam has given a chemical weapon to terrorists who are about to carry out an attack on the US". That would be imminent.

[effgee]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
its the barest sliver of a tiny semantic straw they cling to. they appear to find comfort in it.

What boggles my mind is (I don't know spacefreak's positions that well yet - so I'm not going to lump him into this group) is how some of those folks can get up in the morning and look at themselves in the mirror without throwing up. It sure has to be nice going through life without even the slightest shred of a conscience. Gross.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The statement you provided is describing the threat and a possible scenario. He did not say "Saddam has given a chemical weapon to terrorists who are about to carry out an attack on the US". That would be imminent.

How many times can a hair be split? Is it releated to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?



BlackGriffen

[Joshua]

From Spinsanity.org:

Out of context quote in imminent danger of hardening into fact

Sorting out the "imminent threat" debate

Context is everything

The whole "imminent threat" issue is far more complex than either side is willing to admit.

[Joshua]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
keep holding on to that tiny straw. You won't drown. Honest.

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
its the barest sliver of a tiny semantic straw they cling to. they appear to find comfort in it.

Can we dub this 'spacebrushing'?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Joshua:
From Spinsanity.org:

Out of context quote in imminent danger of hardening into fact

Sorting out the "imminent threat" debate

Context is everything

The whole "imminent threat" issue is far more complex than either side is willing to admit.

no, I'll admit its complex: its a self-deluding backpedaling effort that depends on the willing suspension of disbelief in revisionism based on the semantics of two words independent of the intent and focus of the context.

Apparently, Bush lied, and some people can't accept that without diminishing their hero-worship of the guy, so they must retreat into this endless logistical loop so tightly woven no other facts or information can penetrate.

[effgee]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The statement you provided is describing the threat and a possible scenario. He did not say "Saddam has given a chemical weapon to terrorists who are about to carry out an attack on the US". That would be imminent.

Heh ... that's a load of bull. Kindly read part "2. Full of danger ..." in Webster's definition for the term "imminent". And then read it again. Kinda gives you a knot in the brain, doesn't it?

[tie]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
For those who are actually interested in how we got it so wrong, take a look at this terrific article on the subject.

Fallows has a good article in the same issue about how the administration willfully ignored planning for postwar Iraq.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Joshua:
The whole "imminent threat" issue is far more complex than either side is willing to admit.

We need to avoid any further mention of that term because it only serves to cloud the issues. There's plenty of evidence that the administration fudged things without getting into debates over the proper use of the term "imminent."

I'm just grateful that in all of these discussions, not a single person has used the word "eminent."

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by zigzag:
We need to avoid any further mention of that term because it only serves to cloud the issues. There's plenty of evidence that the administration fudged things without getting into debates over the proper use of the term "imminent."

I'm just grateful that in all of these discussions, not a single person has used the word "eminent."

We were warned of imminent danger by eminent persons... Who are now trying to split hairs finer than silk by saying, "But we didn't actually use that exact word."

God, but I hate the fact that the whole of government seems to be overrun with lawyers who think that an ever more twisted legalese is the answer to everything. What happened to the Atticus Finches of the profession?

BlackGriffen

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
no, I'll admit its complex: its a self-deluding backpedaling effort that depends on the willing suspension of disbelief in revisionism based on the semantics of two words independent of the intent and focus of the context.

Apparently, Bush lied, and some people can't accept that without diminishing their hero-worship of the guy, so they must retreat into this endless logistical loop so tightly woven no other facts or information can penetrate.

We've heard it a million times Lerk. Give it up already. Your posts are starting to sound mad.

Doesn't a man who has a family have better things to do than to debate politics on a web forum 24/7? Don't you ever want to go outside and play catch with the kid?

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
We were warned of imminent danger by eminent persons... Who are now trying to split hairs finer than silk by saying, "But we didn't actually use that exact word."

Yes, bandying semantics in order to divert questioning away from a crucial issue. It seems a little familiar... let's see..... hmmmmm...



As far as "Spacebrushing" goes, that term would be used to describe someone who unfairly characterises a poster as having the virtual traits of Spacefreak in order to gain advantage in a discussion, or to dodge the need to answer a point in the discussion; also, to lump a poster in with Spacefreak in order to gain a perceived advantage.

I can't recall having seen anyone do any Spacebrushing here.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
We've heard it a million times Lerk. Give it up already.

Yeah, Lerk - give it up. Get it through your head: there was no imminent danger from Iraq! Iraq was not an immediate threat to the U.S.!

How many times do we have to say it?

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Yeah, Lerk - give it up. Get it through your head: there was no imminent danger from Iraq! Iraq was not an immediate threat to the U.S.!

How many times do we have to say it?

Hey if Lerk's posts help to boost your self esteem then big bully for you.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Hey if Lerk's posts help to boost your self esteem then big bully for you.

No, actually I am quite concerned about him. He keeps yammering on about Iraq as "an imminent threat to America" and all kinds of alarmist tripe about weapons of mass destruction. Anthrax this, yellowcake that... portraying the President as some kind of a conspiracy nut!

It's sickening. I mean really - who would buy that story?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
We were warned of imminent danger by eminent persons... Who are now trying to split hairs finer than silk by saying, "But we didn't actually use that exact word."

God, but I hate the fact that the whole of government seems to be overrun with lawyers who think that an ever more twisted legalese is the answer to everything. What happened to the Atticus Finches of the profession?

BlackGriffen

I understand the frustration over hair-splitting on one hand, and the desire for precision on the other. I just try to be mindful of the fact that common, generic usage is often broader than technical meaning, and both have their place. Remember the debate we had about the use of the term "theft" in the context of file sharing? You and cpt kangarooski felt it was too loaded and imprecise; I argued that although it might not conform to certain statutory definitions, it was within the scope of the common, generic meaning, i.e. getting something for nothing, and therefore I didn't object to its use by the general public. So it's a matter of perspective.

The administration didn't say that an attack was imminent in the sense that Saddam "about to strike." It did say, for all practical purposes, that Saddam was capable of striking at almost any time, with more force than he really had, and that the threat was growing. So, OK, let's drop the "imminent" characterization if it'll allow us to have a discussion. Notice that when one changes the characterization to "urgent" instead of "imminent," defenders of the administration have a lot less to say.

Regardless, the administration had clearly decided to invade Iraq and had to come up with sufficiently heated rhetoric in order to sell the idea to the public. Politics.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Regardless, the administration had clearly decided to invade Iraq and had to come up with sufficiently heated rhetoric in order to sell the idea to the public. Politics.

True. They said as much: that they decided on WMD as the reason that was easiest to sell.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
True. They said as much: that they decided on WMD as the reason that was easiest to sell.

just out of curiousity, if the administration HAD found WMDs, would spacefreak and others still be claiming Bush never said it was an imminent threat?
Isn't the defense and the hair splitting ONLY because Bush failed to deliver on his justifications?

[Ayelbourne]

President George Bush can be very slippery with words. Take this statement that he made today:

"Knowing what I knew then and knowing what I know today, America did the right thing in Iraq"

It really doesn't say much, but it sounds very good - strong and patriotic.

"Knowing what I knew then" (That America needed to attack Iraq immediately - without waiting for effective UN inspectors to finish their jobs - to disarm Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction)

+

"Knowing what I know today" (That in all probability, Hussein posed no immediate threat to the America, as many in the world believed and argued at the time, and that America launched a war of self-interest based on conjecture that has proved deficit, whilst pissing off major allies at a crucially important time and bankrupting America's international credibility)

=

"America did the right thing in Iraq."



Okay. Well, it sounds good.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
just out of curiousity, if the administration HAD found WMDs, would spacefreak and others still be claiming Bush never said it was an imminent threat?

Yes, because he said what he said when he made his case to the nation.

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? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

If Iraq was an imminent threat, we'd have attacked ASAP. There would have been no going to the UN, and likely no obtaining of an "authorization to use force".

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Okay. Well, it sounds good.

Come here and be a citizen. Then you won't have to spend so much time spectating.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Come here and be a citizen. Then you won't have to spend so much time spectating.

Heh. Assumptions can mislead you.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Heh. Assumptions can mislead you.

You're right, I was assuming you were not a citizen. You may very well be a citizen located in (or portraying your location as) Scandinavia.

Actually, I hope you are a US citizen, especially when considering how much time you spend discussing US politics.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Actually, I hope you are a US citizen, especially when considering how much time you spend discussing US politics.

Well, here in Sweden, we discuss politics all time, that of the U.S. as well as that of all the other residents of the world. Have discussion of and concern over U.S. foreign policy become the exclusive rights of American citizens?

How would my being or not being a U.S. citizen alter the validity of my opinions, in your view?