Here's the context. It's about whether NATO should join the invasion. It's a bit unclear whether he's saying Iraq is an imminent threat to the US, to Turkey, or to the world in general, but that's sort of the point. Look, I'm in communications; I get what they're doing, and if I worked at the White House, I may have told them to do the exact same thing. They want to imply it as much as possible while remaining slightly ambiguous so as not to have to defend that assertion. We can split hairs and call this truth if we want, but then we're the Democrats. Let's just take the high ground by saying this: yes, the administration exaggerated and fibbed, but not on the core issues, and war was justifiable anyway.
QUESTION: What about NATO's role? Belgium now says it will veto any attempt to provide help to Turkey to defend itself. Is this something the administration can live with, or is it a major obstacle?
MR. McCLELLAN: Two points. We support the request under Article IV of Turkey. And I think it's important to note that the request from a country under Article IV that faces an imminent threat goes to the very core of the NATO alliance and its purpose.
QUESTION: What can you do about this veto threat?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, I think what's important to remind NATO members, remind the international community is that this type of request under Article IV goes to the core of the NATO alliance.
QUESTION: Is this some kind of ultimate test of the alliance?
MR. McCLELLAN: This is about an imminent threat.
No thanks.
That is YOUR *opinion*, and that is ALL it is, and I reject it.
Neither example you have shown stated who he was an imminent threat to. Ask the Kurds about imminent threats, ask Kuwait about imminent threats. Unfortunately, you can't ask the 200,000 people found in mass graves about imminent threats.
A little reading comprehension goes a long way:
QUESTION: What about NATO's role? Belgium now says it will veto any attempt to provide help to Turkey to defend itself. Is this something the administration can live with, or is it a major obstacle?Taken in context, given the highlighted part, he does mean Turkey. Also, maybe you didn't notice when they redefined "imminent threat"...MR. McCLELLAN: Two points. We support the request under Article IV of Turkey. And I think it's important to note that the request from a country under Article IV that faces an imminent threat goes to the very core of the NATO alliance and its purpose.
QUESTION: What can you do about this veto threat?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, I think what's important to remind NATO members, remind the international community is that this type of request under Article IV goes to the core of the NATO alliance.
QUESTION: Is this some kind of ultimate test of the alliance?
MR. McCLELLAN: This is about an imminent threat.
For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.
We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction—weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning.