Quote:

the G-man said:
Quote:

whomod said:
it is becoming clearer and clearer that the "imminent threat" case was false.

In this case, weapons of mass destruction and the immiment threat Hussein supposedly posed to us were the chief arguments. Absent proof of this immiment threat, those arguments were just a false pretext for military action. In addition, they make this government appear negligent of the horrors Saddam had been inflicting on his people during his time in power. The rhetoric, of course, was that Saddam was about to attack us. And that he was linked to al Qaeda.





Interestingly enough, the San Francisco Chronicle had to run the following correction Saturday (second item):

    A story Thursday about weapons inspector David Kay's Senate testimony incorrectly quoted President Bush as saying before the war in Iraq that Iraq posed an "imminent threat'' to the United States. The president never used the word imminent. In the months before the war, the president in speeches and appearances described the "threat'' posed by Saddam Hussein and Iraq in a variety of ways, including "serious,'' "grave'' and "terrible.''


Funny how the same people who tell us that "BUSH LIED!!!! " keep repeating the lie that Bush described the Iraqi danger as "imminent."




I'm hearing many people compare this to Clinton's infamous "depends on what is...is" moment. I don't think many are really buying it except for those that want to.


Fair play!