Word Parsing to Rival the Masters: On Immanent Threat

[Selwynn]

I put togther some of the great sources presented here, along with my comments and put out out there on the blog. I want to keep these resources handy to counter this latest round of lies and half truths:

Word Parsing to Rival the Masters
by Selwynn
In an amazing feat of linguistic acrobatic word parsing to rival the great is-definer Bill Clinton himself, the White House has been on a feverish campaign to back away from its sole justifications for going to war in Iraq: the actual, current, physical possession of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction which were ready to deploy at a moments notice, and the claim that Saddam Hussein posed a grave, clear and - here it comes - immanent thread to the national security of the United States.

Nowadays it seems that the White House would desperately like to pretend that virtually any other pretext was the real pretext for going to war, but it just aint so. Now the attention is focused on denying that George Bush ever made the case that Hussein posed an imminent threat, by denying that he ever used that particular word. The mainstream press is aiding in this effort, criticizing people like Ret. General Wesley Clark for accusing Bush of falsely making that very case by saying Bush never used the “I” word.

Let’s take a look at what Bush, Cheney, Powel and Rumsfeld did say, in their own words:



And then, let’s examine to points raised http://whoslying.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=30|here >by Who’s Lying.org, the non-profit media watchdog group.

Yet more evidence it may in fact be those who say Bush never claimed Iraq was an "imminent" threat are the actual fibbers here: Let’s start by looking at what the president’s spokesmen said about the 'imminent threat' claim before things in Iraq started going sour.

Last October, a reporter put this to Ari Fleischer: 'Ari, the president has been saying that the threat from Iraq is imminent, that we have to act now to disarm the country of its weapons of mass destruction, and that it has to allow the U.N. inspectors in, unfettered, no conditions, so forth.'

"Fleischer’s answer? 'Yes.'

"In January, Wolf Blitzer asked Dan Bartlett: 'Is an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home.'

"Bartlett’s answer? 'Well, of course he is.'

"A month after the war, another reporter asked Fleischer, 'Well, we went to war, didn’t we, to find these — because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn’t that true?'

"Fleischer’s answer? 'Absolutely.'

And finally, perhaps John Marshal best puts the nail in the coffin in his http://www.hillnews.com/marshall/110503.aspx|recent article:>

It’s true that administration officials avoided the phrase “imminent threat.” But in making their argument, Sullivan and others are relying on a crafty verbal dodge — sort of like “I didn’t accuse you of eating the cake. All I said was that you sliced it up and put it in your mouth.”

The issue is not the precise words the president and his deputies used but what arguments they made. And on that count, the record is devastatingly clear.

To call something an imminent threat means that the blow could come at any moment and that any delay in confronting it risks disaster. Webster’s defines “imminent” as “ready to take place; especially: hanging threateningly over one’s head.” That gets it just about right. The White House described the Iraqi threat as a sword over our heads, a threat we had to confront now.

You can peddle your Clinton-equse backpedaling and word-parsing all you want, George. No one is buying it.

[Nlighten1]

1. The URLs are all goofed up.

the look like http://http: