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

General discussion

CIA Chief: Agency never called Iraq 'imminent threat'

Feb 5, 2004 10:05PM PST

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Let me try to state this more directly ...
Feb 8, 2004 11:29PM PST

... DK following the lead of the liberal media has been on a quest to put the words "imminent threat" in Bush's mouth (and more recently by proxy through Powell). That charge goes with the drumbeat that begins with the SOTU (where what he said about Niger has also been misrepresented in the press). So my response was to ignore the superflous et.al. and respond with Bush/Powell/Rice (those named specifically) never said that.

Now, you have a valid point that there are those who speak on the President's behalf. But of that whole laundry list of "smoking gun" quotations, you can only produce a couple of blurbs probably taken out of context in a routine briefing. The rest are just smoke and mirrors and often milder than comments made by those shouting "liar" the loudest. Can you distinguish which of these comments are misleading or misrepresenting the threat?

"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."

"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."

"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."

Hard to tell who is saying these huh? Have to go back and check? McClellan clearly needs a little polishing on getting tricked into using certain phrases by the press.

I would have thought you could see past all the garbage on this one Josh. You'll find more references to the threat of Iraq in that one Jan '03 Kerry speech I linked elsewhere than you will in Bush's entire SOTU. Maybe he was trying to fool us to get us to subjugate our sovereignty to the impotent UN, France and his neocommie internationalism Sad I prefer to believe that all of our leaders believed the intelligence and acted to remove a threat. That the intelligence may have been wrong doesn't change the integrity of their actions at the time ... either side of the aisle. That Kerry and just about every Democrat to a one that voted for the resolution would now have you believe is that a President they view as a dim bulb apparently succeeded in duping their superior intellects. I'm not buyin' it.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Re:Let me try to state this more directly ...
Feb 9, 2004 12:26AM PST

Hi Evie:

We're really not as far apart on this as the tone of our posts may make it seem. I was just wondering why you chose to omit the "et al."

I didn't see it, but apparently on Meet the Press yesterday Bush admitted that Iraq probably didn't have any WMD at the time we went in. He also insisted that he had good reason to believe otherwise at the time. Whether that is the case or whether anyone "sexed up" the evidence to justify the invasion will hopefully be determined through the investigation now being recommended.

- Collapse -
I think that if one looks at the consensus ...
Feb 9, 2004 12:52AM PST

... of all the intelligence agencies (ours and our allies), and just about every major politician in America should be enough to put to rest this idea that we even need to investigate Bush "sexing" anything up with regards to the war. He did everything asked. Tried to get the UN Security Council on board to enforce their resolutions -- the UN, not Bush/Blair has been discredited by this. Got the Congressional resolution. I would note that for actions in the Balkans Clinton did neither yet there was no call for any investigation there either. Read through my quotes, half come from people now claiming Bush lied. There are those who disagree with the hows and whys that Bush took us to war on. That's fine, but that doesn't prove any malfeasance any more than the fact that the claims of genocide and mass graves have not born out for Clinton's wars in the Balkans. I have my differences with Clinton for sure, but I'm not willing to say that he "sexed up" the claims of ethnic cleansing to take us to war. Perhaps there was a willingness to believe some reports from the ground (like some in the press were so eager to label Jenin a massacre?) and our intel was poor there too. But is it just because the French were on board that time and Milosevic is now on interminal trial in the Hague that there is no hue and cry over the fact that the causus belli (to use DK's fave term du jour) for going to war turned out to be a flop? Is that the difference?

I would like to know why the intelligence was such a universally abysmal failure. That is preferable than finding out a year down the road that they were right all along as evidenced by a WMD attack by terrorists who were given them before war broke out. The issue of intelligence failures is not something that can be pinned on just this Administration and should not be politicized, although the gutting of our intelligence has been consistently the purpose of one political party and the wisdom of that should be evaluated too. Sadly it has been already with the willing participation and one can only believe deliberate abetting of the likes of the NYT and CBS. I would rather see an honest debate over anti-terrorism strategies than the bankrupt accusations. Kerry has laid out his ideal of internationalism. Let him promote that and explain to the American people just HOW he plans to go about making his vision a reality (I think he'll run into problems there).

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Re: Let me try to state this more directly ...
Feb 9, 2004 2:46AM PST

Hi, Josh.

>>will hopefully be determined through the investigation now being recommended.<<
Conveniently scheduled to report after the election. This discussion shouldn't be taken in a vacuum -- it should be put in the context of O'Neill's insider claim that Bush et al. wanted to invade Iraq from day 1, and were really looking for the pretext. And this whole issue is about word parsing that would do Clinton pround -- is "immediate" the same as "imminent?" How about "serious?" Meanwhile, I'm sure the North Koreans can't be really happy with Bush's latest explanations, as they all seem to apply to NK better than Iraq!

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Re:Re: Let me try to state this more directly ...
Feb 9, 2004 3:17AM PST
it should be put in the context of O'Neill's insider claim that Bush et al. wanted to invade Iraq from day 1,

Dave, don't you EVER READ links or follow up reports?

O'Neill himself stated that HE NEVER SIAD THAT and that the media was distorting it. That LIKE THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION an Iraqi regime change was discussed early and regularly (again, just like the Clinton Admin and following up what had already been put in motion).

You are propagating a LIE when you keep repating this fabrication.
- Collapse -
Re: Let me try to state this more directly ...
Feb 9, 2004 1:11PM PST

Hi, Ed.

Please provide a link where O'Neill denied saying that. What he said was he wished he'd used different language on some of his points, because people were focusing on the language (e.g., the "room full of deaf people") rather than the important issues he was raising -- and one of them was the President's fixation on Iraq. No link, and you're just blowing smoke.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Provide a link -- AGAIN? Will you read it this time? (NT)
Feb 10, 2004 1:38AM PST
- Collapse -
On the assumption that this time you will READ it here you are...
Feb 10, 2004 1:50AM PST
O'Neill himself claims otherwise. "But O'Neill said his comments have been distorted to suggest last year's invasion of Iraq was being planned from the beginning of the administration." (and surely you can believe what the Clinton Network News reports http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/13/news/economy/oneill/?cnn=yes

That should shoot down your assertion that he claimed otherwise.

Also posted here in response to your false assertion

It was initially referred to on January 13th (same date it came out) in your earlier O'Neill thread and you ignored it there too.

Contantly making the same false statement will not make it true Dave--never has and never will although it is a favored technique for influencing those who consume biased OP-EDs like pablum without bothering to look around and see what is really happening.
- Collapse -
Bumping because Dave WANTED the link again...
Feb 11, 2004 3:30AM PST
- Collapse -
p.s. No comment on the imminent threat issue?
Feb 7, 2004 12:39AM PST

Even your link demonstrates that Bush/Powell/Rice even et.al. didn't use those words in the context that the media and Dems are trying to spin.

- Collapse -
Re:p.s. No comment on the imminent threat issue?
Feb 7, 2004 5:13AM PST

I think that's just a matter of you and I interpreting the comments differently.

- Collapse -
Easy to say! Specifically, HOW will he make America safer than Bush, and
Feb 7, 2004 6:42AM PST

what police force will he use?

'But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world'

Does he intend to rely on France?

- Collapse -
Evie says the Administration never used it, and they did, numerous times. That's all.
Feb 6, 2004 4:22AM PST

No Josh she didn't. ALL she said was "(NT) Bush/Powell/Rice never did either *NEW* Evie | 02/06/04 7:01 AM"

Administration was not included among those three names nor were any of the citations you provided attributable to any of the three.

- Collapse -
(NT) I had 10 bucks wagered that you'd parse it exactly that way. Woo hoo! I win!
Feb 6, 2004 5:03AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Glad you won. maybe next time you won't try to rephrase...
Feb 6, 2004 5:23AM PST

and answer what wasn't said with citations that don't apply.

You were "putting words in Evie's mouth" that she simply and emphatically DID NOT SAY.

That ISN'T semantics Josh. That is fabrication.

- Collapse -
Re:Glad you won. maybe next time you won't try to rephrase...
Feb 6, 2004 5:37AM PST

DK's original post references "Bush, Rice, Powell et al." I don't think Evie omitted the "et al" on purpose in order to play semantic games with Dave. Not her style. The only one here doing that is you.

But since you are quibbling over who did and didn't use the term, I guess that means you acknowledge that some members of the Administration used it, which is what DK was saying.

- Collapse -
I will readily admit that...
Feb 6, 2004 6:24AM PST

some persons connected to or working within the Current Administration have most likely used the words if you can bring yourself to admit that your response to Evie was NOT a response to what was actually stated but to what you "thought" she "meant" to say or what you read between the lines.

Et al does NOT signify "Administration" Josh, it means simply "and others". Dave did not signify that he was intending it to mean only others in the admin--actually by listing as he did a more likely interpretation would be others OUTSIDE the Administration as the listed names are exclusive to the Administration.

Now, since Dave did NOT signify Administration what makes you think Evie intended to?

- Collapse -
(NT) Tell ya what, let's ask them. Dave? Evie?
Feb 6, 2004 11:13AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Re:Re:Yes they did
Feb 6, 2004 3:17AM PST

Hi, Bo.

The Bush Administration are the ones arguing over semantics, and the whole world knows it. If Powell's presentation to the UN wasn't designed to show such an imminent threat that it was a causus belli, what on earth was it? The thing you folks don't see is that the rest of the world sees US as the biggest threat ti international stability. Couple the Bush doctrine of "premptive strike" with our new line that we're justified in attacking regimes with whom we strongly disagree, and where does it end/ That logic ("he was a bad man" can be used to justify immediate attacks on Syria, Iran, and North Korea, just for starters. It has had good effect -- Libya crumpled under the pressure. But the Administration's current rhetoric is Dale Carnegie in reverse! (Well, we're actually succeeding in influincing people -- just not the way we want!) Add to that the growing anti-UN sentiment, exemplified by the Utah Legislature (can Idaho be far behind), and ask yourself honestly -- if I lived in France, or Germany, or Sweden, or Brazil, how would I feel about the US?

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Syria, Iran, and North Korea didn't invade another country, get defeated,
Feb 6, 2004 4:16AM PST

agree to certain disarmament measures, and then stonewall for a long period of time. If I lived in France, Germany, etc., I would be very aware of what the US has done for my country both directly and indirectly. I would try hard to understand US motives, and not obstruct for the sake of my own economic interests.

- Collapse -
Re:Re:Re:Yes they did
Feb 6, 2004 4:30AM PST
Add to that the growing anti-UN sentiment, exemplified by the Utah Legislature (can Idaho be far behind), and ask yourself honestly -- if I lived in France, or Germany, or Sweden, or Brazil, how would I feel about the US?

One can hope that Idaho won't be far behind nor the other 40+ states with more interest in sovereignty than globilization.

As someone who has lived in a couple of those countries you mentioned and spent a little time in the other two, I can honestly say that the majority of the populations have a favorable opinion of the US. Like us right here in the states though the media presents a distorted picture of opinion around the country and around the world.

"10,000 demonstrated against..." but never a mention of the 1,000,000 who didn't or who demonstrated support by staying away from the demonstration.
- Collapse -
Re:Re:Re:Yes they did
Feb 6, 2004 11:28PM PST

'The Bush Administration are the ones arguing over semantics'

Wrong, Dave and most people can recognize it. I was watching News Hour last night and Lehrer asked who started the semantic debate. Mark shields said emphatically, "The pundits did."

Taking multiple quotes from multiple sources out of context, single 'facts' without the remainder of the data, innuendo, etc to make a point that is denigrating to the administration seems to be the current left wing strategy.

I was dismayed during the runup to the war by the reporting of the discussions of tactical plans, possible casualties, etc based on some facet derived from the above type exercise. Common sense told me that much of it was overblown and of highly unlikely possibility.

Now we have the same tactic being used to 'prove' the President 'lied' when such is obviously not the case.

Bo

- Collapse -
Good point Bo! Evie has great posts too. Any idea why I can reply to you, but
Feb 7, 2004 6:47AM PST

Josh's posts have the 'no reply' message?

- Collapse -
I don't know, Kid.....
Feb 7, 2004 10:43PM PST

There is something in the software that puts that up at a certain point in a thread.

There is also a way to get past it. I saw it referenced once, but it didn't give details.

Maybe someone will post the complete instructions for it.

Bo

- Collapse -
(NT) Change the 5208 in the URL to 5224 and hit 'go'
Feb 7, 2004 10:45PM PST

.

- Collapse -
Re:Good point Bo! Evie has great posts too. Any idea why I can reply to you, but
Feb 8, 2004 8:32AM PST
- Collapse -
I didn't know they did. What would an 'imminent threat' from Iraq mean?
Feb 5, 2004 11:47PM PST

Obviously, no one thought Iraq was going to invade us or launch a military strike. So what does Tenet mean?