.
![]() | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
Discussion is locked
Nit picking, Josh. (both of us)
The first 3 comments are excerpts from briefing Q&A sessions. The wording used in those types of cases cannot be used to prove this kind of semantic point as they are out of the context and tenor of the remainder of the discussion. I have had the chance to watch many of those briefings and the soundbites (which these are) seldom bear any relation to the overall tenor of the session.
Rumsfeld is a man with a gift for explaining something almost as good as Wm Buckley. His explanation is very clear. The definition of 'imminent threat' has changed since 9/11. Senator Roberts also described the change during Dr Kay's testimony.
Pre 9/11, imminent threat meant that you knew for certain sure that the attack was coming, much as Israel did in 67. As Roberts said, you had to connect 7 or 8 of the 10 dots before you acted.
Post 9/11, a threat is where you find it. If a regime has designs on power beyond its own borders, violently represses its own people, traffics in terrorism and actively seeks WMDs, it IS a threat. The rest of the world cannot wait for clear proof that the threat is 'imminent' by the old definition. As Roberts said, In this environment, when you have 2 0r 3 of the dots connected, you must take steps to protect yourself and if action is the best protection, then action must be taken.
Arguing over semantics here is being done out of purely partisan motives.
Bo
Hi Bo:
I understand what you're saying, but regardless of how you wish to define the term, Evie says the Administration never used it, and they did, numerous times. That's all.
... about the term is that those who cry "Bush lied" contend he said those words to justify the war beforehand .... mostly referring to the SOTU address. While a few quips taken out of context might use that phrase, in the leadup to the war it was all about pre-emption -- IOW, removing the threat BEFORE it became iminent (or worse, after another 9/11?)
Evie ![]()
I don't know that I'd characterize those comments as "quips" and the fact is the Administration did use the term.
That said, the fact that we haven't found WMD doesn't automatically mean Bush lied. One theory floating around really ought to be looked into (assuming it isn't already). That theory is basically that even Saddam thought he had WMD that he didn't have, because his scientists were afraid to tell him they'd failed to produce them. Those scientists and the people around them may have orchestrated elaborate charades intended to pull the wool over Saddam's eyes, and their actions might have been convincing enough to fool the CIA as well. Now that Saddam is in custody and his sons are dead, those people should be more inclined to speak freely.
As I said, there are soundbite statements, one phrase answers taken out of the context of the discussion that led to that specific answer.
We all agree that Sadam did pose a threat to the mid east and by extension, the world at large. The adjectives used to modify 'threat' are all that are at issue. And the meaning of several of those adjectives have changed.
As to the existance of WMDs, your theory is a partial explanation, but remains incomplete. In January 2003, the picture was very different.
We KNEW that Iraq had had CB weapons.
We KNEW that he had used them on Iran and his own people.
We KNEW that he had an active nuclear program prior to 91 and that there was new construction going on at al Taifa (I think that is the correct name).
We KNEW that his government was funding international terrorism.
These were the KNOWN FACTS.
It is no great leap from there to what we were told by the President, Secretary of State, et al.
Both Tenet and Kay have said that given the knowns and the implications in January 2003, and the memory of 9/11, that the President had little choice in what he must do.
Bo
Many people and organizations have argued that Iraq was contained and isolated.
Dan
BTW, how do you contain and isolate terrorists if they are operating freely in a country the size of Iraq?
***
BTW, how do you contain and isolate terrorists if they are operating freely in a country the size of Iraq?
***
I don't know how, and neither does the huge army that we've got over there.
Dan
may explain the whole situation. I even suggested that myself somewhere else.
figuring the UN and the US would never dare attack if they believe he had chemical and biological rockets ready to fire short range.
roger
Hi Josh,
I think "blurbs" would probably be a better term. Soundbites taken out of context if you will. I went to look at the entirety of the list ... most are quotations including the word "threat" presented as evidence that the administration told us Iraq was an "iminent threat". Sorry, but they also include a few non-synonymous phrases in their list of synonyms, most obvious among them "serious and mounting threat", and most bizarre being "unique threat". Since when are unique and iminent synonyms?
I don't think it's quibbling on semantics to say that Rumsfeld's "use" of the term is a rather good explanation that those opposing the war fail to acknowledge. Was Al Quaeda an iminent threat on 9/10/01? To say in retrospect that Iraq had no ties to international terrorism and thus posed no threat to the US is absurd. The ties to Iraq of the 1993 WTC bombing are indisputable. Nobody disputes Hussein sought to assasinate a former President. I'm sorry but this argument that Iraq wasn't involved directly in 9/11 so has no place in the war on terror. That's like saying that because Hamas takes credit for a string of recent terror attacks, Israel doesn't have a right to fear or crack down on Hezbollah because they haven't done anything to them lately. Does anyone really believe that Abu Nidal committed suicide in Iraq with two gunshot wounds to his head??
Josh, everyone and their uncle thought Iraq was a threat in 1998. Clinton, Levin, Kerry and the whole merry bunch. None of the threats they listed were ever shown to have been eliminated and with inspectors absent for four years did ANY reasonable person have cause to believe Saddam had ceased all operations?
What Kay has had to say far more vindicates the Bush administration than the spin that's been put upon it. Tenet is a Clinton holdover who is on the hot seat for failures in his agency again. Maybe Saddam himself was fooled, and to that I say bravo to the Iraqi scientists who pulled it off. It should be comforting to the American people to discover that there weren't any such weapons. It's far more disconcerting that we don't know what was transported into Syria.
contd .......
I'm sick and tired of the media and the Democrats misrepresenting what Bush has actually said to accuse him of lying. Take that Niger flap. What he said was "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." But the spin has been that he lied because he supposedly claimed Saddam had actually procured the yellowcake. Wilson sipped his sweet mint tea for a few days and asked a few official like types and voila! Bush must have lied. Hogwash!
Read again, what Bush said about terrorism and Iraq in the 2003 SOTU Address
Since September the 11th, our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have worked more closely than ever to track and disrupt the terrorists. The FBI is improving its ability to analyze intelligence, and is transforming itself to meet new threats. Tonight, I am instructing the leaders of the FBI, the CIA, the Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense to develop a Terrorist Threat Integration Center, to merge and analyze all threat information in a single location. Our government must have the very best information possible, and we will use it to make sure the right people are in the right places to protect all our citizens. (Applause.)
Our war against terror is a contest of will in which perseverance is power. In the ruins of two towers, at the western wall of the Pentagon, on a field in Pennsylvania, this nation made a pledge, and we renew that pledge tonight: Whatever the duration of this struggle, and whatever the difficulties, we will not permit the triumph of violence in the affairs of men -- free people will set the course of history. (Applause.)
Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation.
This threat is new; America's duty is familiar. Throughout the 20th century, small groups of men seized control of great nations, built armies and arsenals, and set out to dominate the weak and intimidate the world. In each case, their ambitions of cruelty and murder had no limit. In each case, the ambitions of Hitlerism, militarism, and communism were defeated by the will of free peoples, by the strength of great alliances, and by the might of the United States of America. (Applause.)
Now, in this century, the ideology of power and domination has appeared again, and seeks to gain the ultimate weapons of terror. Once again, this nation and all our friends are all that stand between a world at peace, and a world of chaos and constant alarm. Once again, we are called to defend the safety of our people, and the hopes of all mankind. And we accept this responsibility. (Applause.)
America is making a broad and determined effort to confront these dangers. We have called on the United Nations to fulfill its charter and stand by its demand that Iraq disarm. We're strongly supporting the International Atomic Energy Agency in its mission to track and control nuclear materials around the world. We're working with other governments to secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union, and to strengthen global treaties banning the production and shipment of missile technologies and weapons of mass destruction.
In all these efforts, however, America's purpose is more than to follow a process -- it is to achieve a result: the end of terrible threats to the civilized world. All free nations have a stake in preventing sudden and catastrophic attacks. And we're asking them to join us, and many are doing so. Yet the course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others. (Applause.) Whatever action is required, whenever action is necessary, I will defend the freedom and security of the American people. (Applause.)
Different threats require different strategies. In Iran, we continue to see a government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction, and supports terror. We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty and human rights and democracy. Iranians, like all people, have a right to choose their own government and determine their own destiny -- and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom. (Applause.)
On the Korean Peninsula, an oppressive regime rules a people living in fear and starvation. Throughout the 1990s, the United States relied on a negotiated framework to keep North Korea from gaining nuclear weapons. We now know that that regime was deceiving the world, and developing those weapons all along. And today the North Korean regime is using its nuclear program to incite fear and seek concessions. America and the world will not be blackmailed. (Applause.)
America is working with the countries of the region -- South Korea, Japan, China, and Russia -- to find a peaceful solution, and to show the North Korean government that nuclear weapons will bring only isolation, economic stagnation, and continued hardship. (Applause.) The North Korean regime will find respect in the world and revival for its people only when it turns away from its nuclear ambitions. (Applause.)
Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth, will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States. (Applause.)
Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.
Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.
contd.........
SOTU continued:
The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.
The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.
Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.
Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.
With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)
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? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)
The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)
And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)
The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.
We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.)
Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the American Armed Forces: Many of you are assembling in or near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lay ahead. In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America, and America believes in you.
Kerry has announced that he wants to return to the failed Clinton era way of fighting terror -- that is to treat it as a law enforcement issue. Clinton's excuse for not "getting" Osama was because we didn't have enough legal standing to hold him. He claims that the threat of terrorism is exaggerated. Bet he woulda been doing that in August of 2001 too were it an election year and Bush had tried to convince the American public that we are not immune to such an attack.
Evie ![]()
... is PRIMARILY a law enforcement issue. That's a fundamental differrence between his and Bush's philosophy. I personally would feel less safe were we to return to treating it as such and subjugating our sovereignty to France, Germany and the UN.
One should also keep an eye on not only what Kerry SAYS now, but what he has done while in the Senate -- attempt to cut just about every military program imaginable and gut the CIA and intelligence budgets.
Evie ![]()
If you review pre-9/11 budget votes, I think you'll find that lots of people on both sides of the aisle voted to reduce military spending. As you noted, times were different then.
.
Yes, Josh, post Cold War there were advocates on both sides for cuts and restructuring of the military -- leaner force and all that.
But Kerry's record is abysmal. I do not want to trust our nation's security to this man, though it seems he is becoming your candidate. Check out his record and see if that jives with his current rhetoric.
Almost everyone agrees that a major part of our intelligence problems are in the area of Human Intelligence. Your fmr. Sen. Toricelli was instrumental in bringing this about ![]()
Evie ![]()
Actually Evie, because of 9/11 I think this will be the first Presidential election in which the candidates' prior voting records on matters of defense might not be relevant. A lot of people, myself included, changed their thinking very quickly after that day. I think what matters most is what each candidate proposes to do and how each candidate plans to prevent another 9/11.
... as someone who had a "moment of enlightenment" on 9/11 that dramatically changed his political philosophy.
Who was that John Kerry that voted for the Iraq resolution but not for the funds for the aftermath? How can a man expect to be the leader of the free world when in 18 years in the Senate his name is not found atop one piece of major legislation? Kerry wants to slam Bush's treatment of Veterans, cozy up to fringe Vet groups to boost his military image, but he never even sought a position on the Veterans Affairs Committee? Kerry saw all the intelligence on Iraq and AGREED with it pre-Iraq war. Now he expects us to believe that that dolt Dubya tricked him into voting for the war?
Oh ... and post 9/11 Kerry is apparently single handedly responsible for stopping Vietnam Human Rights Act (Senate Bill HR-2833).
Note, this is not a Republican saying this, this comes from Wesley Clark's blog
WASHINGTON - Despite growing calls from human rights groups, US Army Special Forces veterans, and pleas from homeless refugees fleeing genocide Senator John Kerry (D-MA) has stalled the Vietnam Human Rights Act (Senate Bill HR-2833) since September 2001.
The stalled Bill would have sanctioned the communist Socialist Republic of Vietnam (SRV) against further racially based sterilization, terrorism and genocide of the Christian hilltribe Degar peoples living in the Central Highlands region of the country....
... With HR-2833 stalled by John Kerry of Massachussetts, Vietnam is free to continue its widely publicized "cultural leveling " program. This means Vietnam will continue without restriction the ethnic cleansing of the Degar Christians in the Central Highlands region in an attempt to gain control of the Degar land and resources....
...This is undisguised genocide.
This is why HR-2833 was passed without delay through the House of Representatives last summer by a margin of 411 to 1 to bring an immediate halt to this tragic situation. The Bill was then rushed to the Senate where immediate passage was expected due to the urgency of the current situation.
But since September 2001 Senator John Kerry of Massachussetts has thwarted all attempts to bring HR-2833 to the floor for a vote. Kerry's deliberate sabotage of this urgent legislation has caused grave concern in the human rights community, especially because there is no explanation for Kerry's position. Attempts to contact the Senator on this issue have been ignored by his office.
![]()
Evie ![]()
.... from his speech on his campaign website:
We should be proud: Not since the age of the Romans have one people achieved such preeminence.
Can you just imagine if this had come from the mouth of a "neocon" imperialist hawk in ANY context?
But we are not Romans; we do not seek an empire. We are Americans, trustees of a vision and a heritage that commit us to the values of democracy and the universal cause of human rights.
And he now says to the Iraqi people, sorry, we shouldn't have liberated you?
Americans deserve better than a false choice between force without diplomacy and diplomacy without force. I believe they deserve a principled diplomacy...backed by undoubted military might...based on enlightened self-interest, not the zero-sum logic of power politics...a diplomacy that commits America to lead the world toward liberty and prosperity. A bold, progressive internationalism that focuses not just on the immediate and the imminent but insidious dangers that can mount over the next years and decades, dangers that span the spectrum from the denial of democracy, to destructive weapons, endemic poverty and epidemic disease. These are, in the truest sense, not just issues of international order and security, but vital issues of our own national security.
There's that word imminent ... what a scare monger that Kerry is ![]()
What America needs today is a smarter, more comprehensive and far-sighted strategy for modernizing the greater Middle East.
This same statement if made by Bush would be seen as interventionist or imperialist neocon dogma.
Now here is where it gets good Josh:
Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses.
He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.
That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies.
Threat, threat, threat!
Oh, and according to the campaign rhetoric, Iraq/Saddam is not part of the war on terror. Here silly me thought Bush "rushed to war". In almost the same breath that he calls our Afghanistan effort insufficient he is saying that immediately post 9/11 we should have gone to the UN about Iraq? Wheweeeeeeee that's pretty rich! So it wasn't just the neocon cabal that thought we should have dealt with Iraq sooner? Now THAT's news!!
Kerry may have differed in the manner in which he thought Saddam should have been disarmed and/or deposed, but clearly in his own words, Saddam was a threat threat threat.
Read through the rest. I see bold ideas that sound every bit as much like those of the Bush administration with no proposals as to how, exactly, he can achieve his idyllic "internationalism". Does he REALLY believe that had we only gone to the UN in October 2001 France/Germany and Russia would have hopped eagerly aboard the Iraq train? He talks of opening the region to trade and free markets and then says this isn't the same as imposing free markets. How does he propose to open all these markets, and would that not also breed terrorism? After all, that decadent Western capitalism fuels the fervor of Islamist fanatics no?
Ah well. Time will tell. I hope Bush's policies succeed because the alternative is not an option.
Evie ![]()
If you dislike him so much, I strongly urge you not to vote for him.![]()
as regards military and Defense spending and authorizations because the post events have demonstrated quite plainly what we have said all along--the country NEEDS a strong, well trained and well equipt mlitary and that is why the Constitution itself specifically authorizes taxation for them although it doesn't for all the entrenched social entitlement welfare programs.
Those who voted to weaken and now as "Johnny come latelys" advocate (at least in the open) beefing up the military are being looked at askance by many middle roaders.
.
... in Part I. Of all the quotations at the link, there were only the McClellan blurbs that could even be used as "proof". Yeah, I deliberately left out the et.al. because the charge has been Bush lied and more fluff about how Powell must have lied to the UN on his behalf. In neither the SOTU (I bolded the important part where Bush used the term imminent) nor Powell's speech is the threat described as imminent. Reasons far exceeding WMD were also cited.
Come on Josh, do you really think that "unique threat" is in ANY way synonymous with "imminent threat"? Did the intelligence community feel Al Quaeda was an imminent threat on 9/10/01? Imminent threat was just NOT used in the manner that those who oppose the war wish to spin it. By Bush/Powell/Rice and even et.al. Out of context blurbs just don't cut it cuz that's not even what the charge has been. This all goes back to distorted regurgitation of what Bush ACTUALLY said in his SOTU.
Sorry, but I think Rummy said it best the other day, one would think that the discovery of hundreds of thousands in mass graves and the liberation of these people who suffered for so long would be enough to make Americans (of all parties) proud of the courage of our Commander in Chief and military that DID THE RIGHT THING!
Evie ![]()
I couldn't figure out the point. The whole big thing about the Kay report and Tenet and Kay's and everyone elses comments has to do with the charge that BUSH lied lied lied. That HE said "imminent threat" in the SOTU (clearly THAT is a lie) and his minions drummed that into the heads of the American public and Congress to deceive everyone into believing something he supposedly knew to be false. They just didn't do that Josh, and it is DK's throwing in of et.al. that I ignored, because the use of the word in a few out of context blurbs is NOT evidence of the totally vacuous charges being hurled at Bush and Powell. Can Harry Belafonte be far behind saying he was right about Powell being the house boy?
Now if all the different uses of the word threat really mean "imminent threat" to you, then I suggest you read the Kerry Jan '03 speech I linked to and see how many times he uses that word. Then proceed to here and see what all the other "liars" said based on the SAME INTELLIGENCE!
Nice spin, but the "et al" consisted of the President's press secretary and other spokespeople who make statements on the President's behalf. Looked to me like you were willing to declare that some people hadn't used the term but weren't willing to go out on a limb for the "et al."
Your response parsed DK's original statement in a way that surprised me. I expect that from Ed but not from you. Oh well.