I am going to boil down what the problem is with this debate I am having with you and JR. Both of you read or heard somewhere in the media that the administration claimed Iraq was an imminent threat. This wasn't your fault, but the fault of the media. But no one in the administration ever claimed this. It was one of those things that if it gets repeated enough, people start believing it.

Here is the definition of imminent from dictionary.com:

Usage: Imminent, Impending, Threatening. Imminent is the strongest: it denotes that something is ready to fall or happen on the instant; as, in imminent danger of one's life. Impending denotes that something hangs suspended over us, and may so remain indefinitely; as, the impending evils of war. Threatening supposes some danger in prospect, but more remote; as, threatening indications for the future.

Can we at least agree that dictionary.com is probably a better source for the definition of imminent than you or me? And if so, end this part of the debate once and for all? 6 months is not imminent, by any stretch of the immagination. When the president says "grave and gathering", it in no way matches the definition of imminent. You have provided absolutely no quotes from anyone in the administration that matches this definition. If you have them, please let me know. But until then, you can fit a square peg in a round hole.

>>>I'll keep it short...
>>>
>>>"...grave and gathering..." was urgent enough in the President's mind that he went to war without his coalition.
>>
>>President Bush made the "grave and gathering" comment to the U.N. in September 2002. The coalition went to war 6 months later. Is that your definition of imminent? 6 months later?
>
>That it took 6 months to do the preparatory work, including working feverishly to get a second resolution through the U.N. as well as transporting troops/munitions/equipment, indicates to me that it was, ideed, considered "imminent".
>Using the 'overhead' of warring as proof of non-imminence is a bit awkward, don't you think?
>
>>
>>And despite what you may have read in the LA Times or NY Times, there was a coalition. Here is a list of some of the countries that supported us:
>>
>>Great Britain
>>Australia
>>Poland
>>Spain
>>Kuwait
>>Saudia Arabia
>
>Well just look at how the British PEOPLE have reacted through the whole thing. And Kuwait and Saudi Arabia really had no choice. That sum total of the "coalition" was far far less than what people originally took President Bush to mean. Eventually it degenerated into "coalition of the willing", many of whom were bought and paid for.
>
>>
>>>"...real and present..." sure has me interpreting "present" as even closer in that 'imminent' - NOW!
>>
>>As I wrote earlier, the Soviet Union was a real and present danger during the Cold War, but not an imminent threat. North Korea is a real and present danger NOW, but not an imminent threat. No matter how you or the LA Times try twist the words, they aren't what you say they are.
>
>So the DEW line and NORAD were built/maintained at great expense as a government work project??? "DEW" stood for "distant early warning", which one can figure wouldn't at all have been needed were it not for the imminence of a danger.
>
>>
>>>Finally, both the President and his henchpersons spoke far more often than 2 times and imminence was a theme very often.
>>
>>And yet no one can provide any proof that anyone in the administration said anything like imminent. I have provided the links to the full text of the 2 most important speeches President Bush made on the subject. Where is your proof?
>
>It is impossible to enlighten a mind that is made up and closed shut. Most of the people of the world, including those in the U.S., are perfectly comfortable in their belief that President Bush and his administrative officers repeated FREQUENTLY that the Iraq situation was critical and warranted war. I wonder how a war starts if not for 'imminent threat' whether real or imagined?????
>
>cheers