http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html per·il ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prl) n. 1. Imminent danger. 2. Exposure to the risk of harm or loss. 3. Something that endangers or involves risk. Yup, he said the opposite of imminent danger.
I don't care who said it -- countless Democrats said we should attack, too. That doesn't make it right. I'm just as pissed at Kerry and Edwards for swallowing Bush's load of crap without question. We were lied to. We were told that Saddam had caches of weapons that he planned to use on us. This has been proven to be an absolute sham. The Bush Administration lied to Congress, lied to the American people, lied to the U.N. and lied to the soldiers. Spin it all you want -- it doesn't change the fact that we went to war based on a disgusting lie.
You know, it may surprise you to learn that some of us are capable of looking at all the evidence, from the administration, from a variety of news sources including NYTimes, Wash Post, WSJ, CNN, MSNBC, FOXNEws, international press, as well as evaluating reports from the UN and then forming our own conclusions. I do not feel lied to since i didn;t rely on GWB to "convince" me that war was necessary. Sadaam's actions spoke for themselves, the theat, imminent or otherwise was clear, the need to act decisively obvious.
Convincing as that may be, here's another take: MR. RUSSERT: Where are the weapons of mass destruction, Senator? When you voted in favor of the resolution supporting the president in October of 2002, you cited Saddam’s possession of biological, chemical, developing nuclear weapons. Where are they? Were you misled or were the intelligence agencies just plain wrong? SEN. CLINTON: I think that it has to be said that our intelligence was wrong, and it wasn’t just our current intelligence, though, Tim. This was intelligence going back into my husband’s administration, going back to the first President Bush’s administration. And let’s not forget that we know we took out a lot of stuff starting in 1992 after the first Gulf War all the way through the inspection being ended in ’98. There was certainly adequate intelligence without it being gilded and exaggerated by the administration to raise questions about chemical and biological programs and a continuing effort to obtain nuclear power. Probably not worth posting on this board, but easy enough to find. Sorry to interrupt the drama queen-bush-hating.
sorry, i thought it was a rhetorical question. the idea that because we cannot take out every evil dictator we shouldn't try to take out any is just too absurd to take seriously.
It wasn't rhetorical, and thanks for answering. Part 2 of the question is....why Saddam instead of one of the even more evil and bloodthirsty dictators in the world?
well, i could post yet again the exhaustive case made in SOTU, but the short answer is he was a threat to the security of the US. just curious, who do consider more evil and bloodthirsty, kim jong il? anybody else?
Kim Jong Il and Charles Taylor, among others. Personally, I believe Saddam was much more of a threat to Israel and Iraq's neighbors than he was to the US. How was Saddam a threat to the US?
The citation of opposition is related to the assertion of imminence not peril. Your quote speaks of peril/danger nothing (as GV's citations do likewise) of imminence.
Imminence and peril are frequently used to define each other. I think I made that pretty clear. What is the magic about the word imminent? We're in peril, the threat is urgent, there's mushroom clouds. There are more semantics on display here since Clinton tried to redefine "is".
really? How was I, my cousin in Nebraska, or any other average joe threatened by Saddam Hussein and Iraq prior to the invasion?
Freak, Hilary was wrong on the war, too. It might be tough to understand, but this is not a Demo/Republican/ Bush hating thing with most of us. Maybe with many of the war supportes it is just a support Bush type of thing.
No. Imminent was used as an adjective to qualify peril by "the accusers." Nouns don't qualify adjectives and GWB never said the peril was imminent in the SOTU. Basso has clearly demonstrated that Bush said no such thing. Seems like GV76 (and others?) refuse to acknowledge that. Cohen backed it up his an echo from the Clinton Administration. Peril was clear; imminence was not.
From the transcript of Face The Nation: ______________ (CBS) BOB SCHIEFFER, Chief Washington Correspondent: Good morning. We begin in Austin, Texas, this morning where Governor Howard Dean of Vermont is. In San Francisco we find Congressman Dennis Kucinich, and in Chester, Connecticut, Senator Chris Dodd. First to Governor Dean. Governor, you are unabashedly seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, out already raising money for that. You have said at this point that the president has not yet made the case for war, and that nothing so far has justified a unilateral strike into Iraq. But Iraq now says, over the weekend, that it will not accept tougher rules for inspection. Doesn't that make the case now for the administration? GOV. HOWARD DEAN, D-VT: Not quite yet. There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies. The question is, is he an immediate threat? The president has not yet made the case for that. I think it may very well be, particularly with the news that we've had over the weekend; that we are going to end up in Iraq. But I think it's got to be gone about in a very different way. It really is important to involve our allies, to bring other people into the coalition, to get a decent resolution out of the U.N. Security Council. And if Saddam persists in thumbing his nose at the inspectors, we are clearly going to have to do something about it. But I'm not convinced yet and the president has not yet made the case, nor has he ever said, this is an immediate threat. In fact, the only intelligence that has been put out there is the British intelligence report, which says he is a threat but not an immediate one.
