Hey Chris,

Here's what you DID say:

>>To the best of my knowledge, the Bush administration never claimed Iraq was an imminent threat.

See that? Not just Bush, the Bush administration. Your words.

So: did you notice the section on "Imminent Semantics" in the first of those links you scoffed at? I hope so, because with respect, that section is for you since you are so keen on definitions. Here it is:

--------------------------------------------------
"IMMINENT THREAT," PART I: White House spokesman Scott McClellan yesterday lashed out at reporters yesterday saying "some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent'. Those were not words we used." But almost exactly a year ago, it was McClellan who said the reason NATO should go along with the Administration's Iraq war plan was because "this is about imminent threat." Similarly, when White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked whether America went to war in Iraq because of an imminent threat, he replied "Absolutely."

"IMMINENT THREAT," PART II: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was asked whether Iraq was an imminent threat and replied affirmatively, citing 9/11 as justification: "Go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?" And despite the Administration's efforts to pass the blame for failure to find WMD onto the intelligence community, Rumsfeld essentially admitted that the intelligence community had, in fact warned the White House of the weakness of its WMD case – yet still raised the "imminent threat" specter. On 9/18/02, he said "Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain."

"GATHERING" THREAT: McClellan told reporters that the White House only "used the phrase 'grave and gathering threat.' We made it very clear that it was a gathering threat." According to the Roget's Thesaurus, "gathering" is a direct synonym of "imminent". A synonym, we might recall, is defined as "a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word" – meaning the White House's continued attempts to differentiate between the use of "imminent threat" and "gathering threat" are hollow and silly semantics. It was President Bush who said in October 2002 that Iraq was a "gathering threat" – and has continued to repeat this phrase for the next two years.

"IMMEDIATE" THREAT: Once again, Roget's Thesaurus defines "immediate" as a direct synonym of "imminent" – and the Administration also repeatedly used this phrase to describe Iraq. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told Congress on 9/19/02 that "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."

"URGENT," "UNIQUE," "TERRIBLE, " "MOUNTING" THREAT: Other phrases of similar hue to "imminent" were also repeatedly invoked by the Administration to play on America's post-9/11 fears. The phrases "urgent" and "unique" threat were also repeatedly invoked. As President Bush said on 11/23/02, "The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq." He said on 10/2/02 that "the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency." Vice President Dick Cheney said on 1/30/03 that Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said on 1/29/03 that "Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country."
-------------------------------------------------

Just a reminder this is a quotation, not my own words... but hopefully you can see why this is relevant to your own assertion above?

Next: as I kept saying, there is a link in this same article that doesn't come from the NY Times or National enquirer as you seem to insist. Here it is: http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss5.html ... this is a section of the 2001 National Security Strategy. The "Bush administration's" position is very clear, is it not? Whether the threat was "gathering" or "immediate" or whatever, it fits within the concept of an imminent threat as laid out in this document. Hostile intent + WMD *is* an imminent threat for the Bush administration according to the NSS. The rest of the dictionary/thesaurus splitting seems completely irrelevant.

After that, you might understand why I posted quotations about WMD in response to your assertion about imminent threat.

Finally: if you want to get all steamed up about others quoting you, you need to be a lot more careful yourself. Your latest post twice accuses me of having claimed Bush said something he didn't. Never happened. What I *did* do, was post actual quotations from speeches by "the Bush administration" since that is what you actually said. I also posted some links that I thought were interesting as international perspectives and/or relevant to your copious assertions.