>I gave you one yesterday and JR provided numerous.

JR didn't provide any sources. What he provided were newpapers, senators, and others who claimed the President called Iraq as or viewed Iraq as an imminent threat, but he didn't say anything like that! I am not just saying that the President didn't use the word "imminent", I am saying that he didn't use any words that mean the same thing. Nor did anyone else in the administration.

Here is a direct quote from his speech before the United Nations:

"The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger."

Grave and gathering. Not imminent. Instead of putting words in President Bush's mouth, which seems to be OK for the LA Times and NY Times, why don't we just read what he said?

And here is the example you provided:

Here's one reference that does it for me "The United States will not and cannot run that risk to the American people. Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world." and here's another "The gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the threat that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose to the world. Let me now turn to those deadly weapons programs and describe why they are real and present dangers to the region and to the world.".

For the first quote: Although imminent may be a relative term, it does not mean months or years. I may consider weeks as being imminent, but months or years? Come on. How can you conclude, especially with the use of the word years, that he is saying the threat is imminent? Imminent means about to occur.

For the second quote: Real and present is a far cry from imminent. In the Cold War, the Soviet Union was a real and present danger. However, no one claimed the threat was imminent.

Here is his 2003 State of the Union Speech:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

"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."

This is not someone talking about an imminent threat. A dangerous threat, yes, but not imminent, immediate, or any synonyms. And it's also clear: if Saddam had chosed to disarm, the war would not have happened.

So there you are: 2 major speeches, one before the country, the other before the United Nations. There is no talk of an imminent threat from Iraq. But if the LA Times and NY Times print it, I guess some will believe it.

>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.

We knew who was responsible for the embassy bombings and the Cole bombing: Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The point is that we knew Bin Laden was up to something before these events took place, but we did nothing. Now if we had done something back in 1998 before the embassy bombings, what would you say? From your arguments, you sound like you would have been against us invading Afghanistan in 1998.

>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.

I will agree with that.

>And I hope the Martians come soon < s >

It's the only way we'll ever agree on anything < s >.

Chris McCandless
Red Sky Software