Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
Let's read what he said:
Where does he say it was imminent?
|
I'm sure others have covered this -- but I'll hit the elevator button again.
OK, club. YOU WIN. In the first excerpt, he sez: "I'm not so certain that [the nuclear threat from Iraq] [is not imminent]."
In the second excerpt (same interview), he sez: "There is no more immediate threat to [our nation, etc.] in the world [than Iraq under Saddam Hussein].
No way anyone could take that as Rumsfeld saying -- apparently erroneously -- that Iraq was an "imminent"' danger to the U.S. You're right. Besides, who cares what Cheney or Rumsfeld said? It's not as if they were speaking for the Administration.
As to why he stumbled in explaining the answers -- it may be because Rummy was probably a bit taken aback. IIRC he had just said to the interviewers that he had _never_ referred to Iraq as an "immediate threat." It may also be because: (a) Rumsfeld is a straightforward man, not given to dissembling, and (b) only a lawyer could suggest that those two statements don't add to exactly what he was saying that the Administration hadn't said.
S_A_M
[ETA: Please club, do explain what the difference is between "imminent danger (or threat)" and "immediate danger (or threat)" in this context? If you need to turn to a dictionary, you lose. Most Americans don't have one handy when watching TV.
Of course: These statements don't mean that anyone lied. It also doesn't even mean that it could change anyone's mind about whether the Aministration was incorrect. It is, of course, also irrelevant to whether the U.S. was correct to invade Iraq. I do hope, however, no doubt in vain, that this will shut the GOP up about the : "We never _said_ Iraq was an imminent danger to the U.S."]
