>Well, at least it is more interesting than 'Skogen' (my maidenname) which means 'forest' only... well it can mean 'dense forest' I'm told - so at least it doesn't mean just 'dense.' :o)

LOL!


>
>
>>Chris;
>>
>>You misspelled my last name. It is Whiteley! :)
>>
>>Misspelling and mispronouncing my last name is an on going joke with all my relatives with my last name. Would you believe only two people have pronounced my last name correctly that have addressed me. The list of different spellings is very large.
>>
>>By the way just to change the subject a bit further, my last name means some one from the White Forest (around the NE part of England, and SE corner of Scotland).
>>
>>White (a color)
>>
>>Ley - Old English for Forest (pronounced lee)
>>Leigh – Middle English for Forest (also pronounced lee)
>>Forest – Forest :)
>>
>>
>>Tom
>>
>>
>>
>>>>I must correct you again that your various accusations that I misquoted Bush, are without merit. I posted quotations from actual speeches, plus snips whose sources I clearly identified, posted to provide alternative viewpoints and/or an international perspective to an assertion you made. Just a reminder so we can all be clear.
>>>
>>>My point remains the same. Many in the media tried to portray the Bush administration as claiming Iraq was an imminent threat, which it did not. I am not sure what the point is of providing alternative viewpoints if they don't have any merit.
>>>
>>>>As for the article you post: it contains some excellent points, but also some rather contrived coverage of incidents where admin staff agreed or stated using similes that the threat was imminent. I do agree with the article that "nuance" is important and that one might argue that despite having said once or twice that the threat was imminent, the intended thrust from the President and his administration might have been something different. We'd have to poll those on the receiving end to comment further.
>>>
>>>What contrived coverage?
>>>
>>>>But does it really matter? Why the focus on this semantic topic when the real issue is that many conservatives, including you, were completely certain that WMD existed in Iraq and that this justified an attack? Well, no WMD. The "imminent threat" does seem to be a canard to distract, perhaps?
>>>
>>>This all started with message from someone, perhaps Jim Nelson, writing that the administration repeatedly called Iraq and imminent threat. I pointed out the fact that although this is what the media headlines read, it wasn't what the administration said.
>>>
>>>So no, it wasn't a canard to distract. I didn't bring it up, someone else did. I am the one who posted the original message in this thread about the Frontline program on PBS. The Frontline program was not about the "imminent threat" debate, it was about the search from WMDs.
>>>
>>>As I wrote Thomas Whitely earlier in this thread:
>>>
>>>I think what I wrote some months ago was that I was going to be extremely disappointed in the administration if WMDs were not found. They practically guaranteed they would be found. I am becoming increasing skeptical.
>>>
>>>As far a many conservatives (which I am not) believing that WMDs existed in Iraq: practically everyone did, and not just in the United States. The Clinton administration believed Iraq had WMDs, and I am pretty sure the Clinton administration was not perveived by many as being conservative.
>>>
>>>>Finally: did you read the whole article you posted? Here is the last paragraph:
>>>>
>>>>>>Those unfair attacks do not make it legitimate for Bush supporters to jump on any critic who uses the phrase, however, or claim that nobody in the administration ever suggested Iraq could pose an "imminent threat." Complexity is not an excuse for cheap shots from either side.
>>>>
>>>>But according to you:
>>>>
>>>>>>I think the article gives the most sound argument that the Bush administration did not claim that Iraq was an imminent threat. I have little doubt you will disagree.
>>>>
>>>>Well, since even your own "supportive" article seems to call your position "illegitimate" and/or a "cheap shot", I don't need to comment further at all. Except to repeat that the "unfair attacks" did not come from me; all I did was quote directly from speeches and post links and snips whose sources were clearly attributed, provided in the interests of balance.
>>>
>>>I apologize for jumping down your throat.
>>>
>>>Speaking of cheap shots:
>>>
>>>"The "imminent threat" does seem to be a canard to distract, perhaps?"