>>WHY do you insist that "the problem" is that President Bush did or did not say the exact words "imminent threat"?
>>Surely he and his sycophants ALL said things that can be aptly/accurately characterized as "imminent". Repeatedly!
>
>Where? Where did anyone in the administration use words that mean the same as imminent?

I gave you one yesterday and JR provided numerous.

>
>>And if President Bush said, as quoted here so he obviously did, that he would not wait until things became "imminent" then isn't that WORSE????? I mean it essentially says that he wants war and ain't even going to wait until there's a REAL REASON to do so! He's going to war because he's worried. THANKS!!!
>
>As President Bush pointed out when does someone like Saddam or a terrorist group announce that they're going to attack? The U.S. had no warning what was going to happen on September 11, 2001. Does that mean we should not have invaded Afghanistan after the first World Trade Center bombing, the attacks on our 2 embassies in Africa, or the bombing of the U.S. Cole?

Well there would NOT have been a war with Afghanistan IF the Taliban had turned over Bin Laden and 'friends'. But they didn't and there was and the world was all on side.
Who were you going to war with after the embassy bombings or the Cole bombing... whoever you felt like??? There's a need to identify perpetrators before you can declare war.

>
>Your opinion seems to be that you should wait to be attacked before striking back. I disagree completely.

No, my opinion is that you've gotta have sound and factual reasoning before going to war. It's true that a direct attack does provide such very clearly. It's also true that a big powerful country has to have more than just a presidential wish before warring.

And I hope the Martians come soon < s >