[Dr. Frank fan]

I couldn't remember who said it, and whoever said it was definitely saying there was an imminent threat, even if they didn't use the word "imminent".

Hmm, since you don't even know who you're talking about, how can I possibly respond. I'm sure that someone, somewhere in the world said the sentence "there is an imminent threat" sometime within the last two years. Um, but so what.

If you're trying to say that Bush said this in his war campaign, however, then you are simply wrong. It's not just that Bush didn't say there is an imminent threat without using the word "imminent", it's that he said there isn't an imminent threat, and he actually used the word 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.

So in the face of an explicit statement to the contrary of there being an imminent threat, it's not only silly but downright asinine (not to mention intellectually dishonest) to insist that Bush was "definitely saying there was an imminent threat, even if [he] didn't use the word "imminent"".

So I hope that's not what you're trying to say.

My point was that an attack within 45 minutes is very imminent.

I agree with that point. But who in your opinion said "Saddam Hussein is going to attack us in 45 minutes"? I don't recall anyone saying this.

What's your point? That 45 minutes isn't imminent,

No. An attack which is coming in 45 minutes is obviously imminent. But something which "could" happen within 45 minutes is not necessarily. An asteroid could smash into the earth with as little as 45 minutes warning for example. Do you know any different? Of course not. But that doesn't mean that there is always an "imminent threat" of an asteroid impact.

or that Jacques Chirac and Vladimir Putin are threats to the US and we should go to war with them?

I think that on their own levels and in some ways Jacques Chirac and Vladimir Putin are indeed threats to the U.S. In other ways they are friends and in still other ways they are neutrals. Whether or not we should go to war with France and/or Russia depends on a multitude of factors not the least of which is the fact that each of them possesses nukes. My guess is no, at least not at this juncture.

Again, what's your point?

[halfdome]

Uh, you already did respond to my question about who said Saddam Hussein could attack us within 45 minutes -- you said it was Tony Blair. Now I don't know what I'm talking about, so you can't respond? Okaayyy. If you had actually read my post, I asked who made the statement, you said Tony Blair. Where did I even mention Bush?

It is silly and asinine to try to say that I am saying Bush said there was an imminent threat. I merely asked a question about who made a certain statement. I never mentioned George Bush or anything he said. You come back with all these suppositions and accusations.

My original point, which has been made clearly, was the an attack within 45 minutes is imminent, which you agreed with.
I never said anyone said Saddam Hussein was going to attack us in 45 minutes, as you say I did.

What's your point? I mean beyond the obvious, that you're a nasty, lonely person with too much time on his hands?