They meant, you know, maybe sometime in the unforeseen future

However, arguments about the war inevitably branch off into several different directions which lead eventually to going through every statement, in every speech before the war and then arguing that when the administration says that Iraq is «a serious threat to our country,» «a threat to any American,» «serious and growing threat,» they really didn’t mean NOW. I reject this argument. When the administration spoke of imminent, they were speaking of it in terms of the rockets being in the air on the way here! Hence, we could not wait until the attack is imminent. When you are I are discussing this, and when other members of the administration were speaking about it, they were talking about the idea that Iraq has the capability to harm the United States at any time (and let me just say before the attack begins, this is JUST MY opinion, and no, I can’t read minds).

For 8 years, liberals did the same, sifting through quotes to «prove» that Clinton was technically telling the truth (at the time, 1/4 of all American believed that «sexual relations» means intercourse remember, and thus he never lied- so went the liberal argument). Of course, they were wrong then to defend a man who clearly lied, if not in words then certainly in intent, both in the Lewinsky scandal and in many other instances. It was partisan blindness in defense of their guy in the extreme. I by no means implicate anyone on this post, or to implicate you, Mr. Lederer, as I have found all of your arguments thus far to be concise and intelligent, however, I seem to see the exact same refusal at critical appraisal of the administration from Republicans today.

Furthermore, I do not blame people (such as yourself) that supported the war for entirely rational reasons and maintain that support. However, I do blame those people who support the war primarily because they do not want Bush to look bad or deceitful, and they themselves to not want to explore the possibility that they may have been mistaken, a difficult thing to do for anyone and one that I applaud Bill O’Reily for acceptin (

«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.» — Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/

Now, I don’t blame Republicans for making this argument

«Saddam Hussein is a threat to America.» — President Bush, 11/3/02 «The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency.» — President Bush, 10/2/02 «There’s a grave threat in Iraq. There just is.» — President Bush, 10/2/02 «This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined.» — President Bush, 9/ «This is about imminent threat.» — White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/ «Well, of course he is.” — White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/

John H. Lederer – 6/

and in addition follow the link to Ari Fleischer’s «Absolutely» and conclude for yourself whether he is responding to «these [weapons]. » or «imminent threat».

I think the example is more apposite than we may have thought. As you recall during the Iraq resolution a number of Democrats said that the United states could not act unless there was an «imminent threat». The administration and its political allies expressly denied this, saying that waiting till the threat was imminent would be too late.