Posted on 11/06/2004 4:09:37 PM PST by nosofar
In recent weeks, a debate has raged over the phrase "imminent threat." Many liberal critics have asserted that a central claim in President Bush's case for war in Iraq was that Iraq posed an "imminent threat." They argue that it's now clear that no such threat existed, and thus the President's argument has been revealed as deceptive or illegitimate. Conservatives retort that Bush never actually used the phrase and in fact specifically used language indicating that the threat was not imminent on several occasions.
As a factual matter, conservatives are largely correct and liberal critics and journalists are guilty of cheap shots or lazy reporting. However, the evidence is not completely clear and both sides are guilty of distorting this complex situation for political gain. Specifically, while there's some evidence indicating the Bush administration did portray Iraq as an imminent threat, there's much more that it did not. Those attempting to assert that the White House called Iraq an imminent threat are ignoring significant information to the contrary. Similarly, those who say the Bush administration never used the phrase or implied as much are ignoring important, though isolated, evidence.
(Excerpt) Read more at spinsanity.org ...
This type of stuff reminds me of John Kerry and the Rats in particular. They want to grab on to every word a person says and try to intrepret the meaning or even make things up and attribute it to the person. They never can provide any other solutions just nuance and distortion.
IMHO, an 'imminent threat' means my life is in jeapordy at this time. For example, a man decides to stab the tires on my car. He brings an icepick into my yard, but since I am not a mindreader and he is on my property and I am leaving to get into my car and we come face to face and his icepick could be used in a stabbing his intentions are not the question. The question is "Do I think at that moment that my life is in danger" Do the facts support my fears? If the answer to that question is yes, and he displays his weapon then my shooting him with the gun in my purse is self-defense. I felt that my life was in imminent danger from a stabbing. I acted appropriately, especially if he does not clearly indicate otherwise by dropping the weapon or clearly indicating otherwise.
NOW, as for Iraq. WE were attacked by Al Queda on 9/11 and over 3000 Americans died. Sadaam Hussein intelligence claimed he had WMD'd and connections to Osama bin laden. If all intelligence reported confirmed this, then the US would be totally correct in believing the citizens were in "imminent danger". We acted on the information available. And as we found out about the nuclear material recently, that supposedly didn't exist, it appears all our intelligence may not have been as bad as the media proposes.
Sadaam's mass murdering of his own people backed up any intelligence claims as to his ability to do the type of things that happened on 9/11.
Since the election, whenever my liberal friends have raised any of these old talking points I've simply replied "Y'all said all of that repeatedly, the American people rejected your position, now it's time to move on!"
A Site claims this is 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and Senior Iraqi Intelligence officer Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani in Prague in the Czech Republic, Winter 2000. See the LINK for more info...
If true, then there is no debate. Game, Set, Match......
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.