No, not "regardless". You made the specific statement that the Administration said the threat was imminent. It has now been shown that that statement was not remotely true. You now try to take the discussion in a completely different direction.
I'm sorry, but you have been discredited and I have no reason to believe that you have any clue what the "real reasons" for going to war were.
Your agenda was exposed.
Then don't. Nobody's forcing you to - or even trying very hard to convince you.
"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?"
First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.
Can't you see they're all saying the same thing. Just playing with words. Is a threat "imminent" if it's months away? Or only "growing and gathering"? If it "growing and gathering" can it be contained with "a strong inspection system" and sanctions - or are these latter terminally flawed concepts?
By the way, what threat is Bush referring to when he talks about "growing and gathering"? I don't remember the context. I'll have to go back to the SOTU to see.