Reply #27: Bushit in SOTU implied that the threat was COVERTLY imminent...

[TruthIsAll]

in an unforseen attack.

He is implying that Saddam could attack at any time...
Is this not another way of saying that he was an imminent threat?

And even if he wasn't, was the war justified? Remember, the Bush pre-emption policy said he could attack any country at any time.


"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. "