Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Well, sure. That distinction, coupled with the subsequent quote of Rumsfeld's ....



... is easily made by saying "look, assclam -- that's not the same thing as 'imminent.' It's completely different. Any fool would know that. I never said that word, and words have meaning."

Given that startling difference -- about which most everyone will agree is mainly correct -- I can't imagine why Rumsfeld didn't just say it on Face the Nation, and put Messrs. Scheiffer and Friedman in their place.

Can you?

I'm being serious here. There is clearly a distinction, if words do in fact have meanings.

[bilmore]

Naw. Never mind.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm being serious here. There is clearly a distinction, if words do in fact have meanings.

Here's a whole transcript: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_031404.pdf

It's unhelpful; obviously all this is resulting in is people digging in their heels and saying "black black black!!!" "white white white!!!!" and I'm sorry I participated at all.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
Naw. Never mind.

I happened to see what b. had written originally. if you send me $1 I'll PM you it.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

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."]

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
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

Whoa, check it out! They did ask him about the phrase "immediate threat" and he said the Admin never said that, and then they quoted him as saying that Iraq was the most immediate threat facing the US. So, even if words have meaning, he denied immediate threat.

But maybe he heard imminent and had been properly coached by the lawyer to say "no no no!!!! We never used the phrase "there is an imminent threat""

because, you know, words have meaning.

you can go to the transcript and search for immediate to see where he denies it (the phrase "immediate threat" being used) and then is quoted as saying it. maybe those evil liberals on Meet the Press manufactured the Sept. 18, 2002 quote. Probably. Fucking commie terrorists.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
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

Sounds pretty nuanced. Too bad he isn't for sale. He may find more support among the French.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
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.

This is a waste of time, but fun nonetheless.

No dictionary necessary:

Statement 1:

some have argued that the the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent, that Saddam is at least five to seven years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain.'

The "I would not be so certain" refers to the time frame (of 5 to 7 years) before Saddam would have nuclear weapons, meaning that he thinks that Saddam could have them before that time. There is another, weaker argument here, but I won't go into that.

Statement 2:

No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq

This is a statement of relativity. He is not saying the threat posed by Iraq or any other country is immediate. He is saying that if he had to rank all countries in order of the most pressing threat, Iraq would be at the top of the list.

Questions/comments?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is a statement of relativity. He is not saying the threat posed by Iraq or any other country is immediate. He is saying that if he had to rank all countries in order of the most pressing threat, Iraq would be at the top of the list.

Questions/comments?

Comment: That is fucking ludicrous, in light of what we knew at the time was going on in N. Korea. Did al Quaeda not pose a greater or more immediate threat than Iraq? Or does that not count as a terrorist "state"? We surely are parsing words to the limit here.

Not that you care, but losing respect. A lot. And your posts aren't even funny if read as if one is in backwards world.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is a waste of time, but fun nonetheless.

No dictionary necessary:

Statement 1:



The "I would not be so certain" refers to the time frame (of 5 to 7 years) before Saddam would have nuclear weapons, meaning that he thinks that Saddam could have them before that time. There is another, weaker argument here, but I won't go into that.

Statement 2:



This is a statement of relativity. He is not saying the threat posed by Iraq or any other country is immediate. He is saying that if he had to rank all countries in order of the most pressing threat, Iraq would be at the top of the list.

Questions/comments?

By inference if you follow this course of reasoning out, are you implying that the Bush administration does not think that there are "terrorist states" that pose an immediate danger to the US? Sure all he said was that Hussein/Iraq was most immediate, but I thought that the administration line was that the dems were soft on terrorists, not the Bushies.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is a waste of time, but fun nonetheless.

No dictionary necessary:

Statement 1:



The "I would not be so certain" refers to the time frame (of 5 to 7 years) before Saddam would have nuclear weapons, meaning that he thinks that Saddam could have them before that time. There is another, weaker argument here, but I won't go into that.

Statement 2:



This is a statement of relativity. He is not saying the threat posed by Iraq or any other country is immediate. He is saying that if he had to rank all countries in order of the most pressing threat, Iraq would be at the top of the list.

Questions/comments?

So, what IS your definition of IS?

It didn't convince the judge in the Paula Jones case, and your argument is roughly on par. Oh, how the standards have fallen since those first, heady days of 2001 when GOP operatives falsely accused Clinton staffers of doing extensive damage ("vandalism") to WH offices as they left. Or, have they?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Comment: That is fucking ludicrous, in light of what we knew at the time was going on in N. Korea. Did al Quaeda not pose a greater or more immediate threat than Iraq? Or does that not count as a terrorist "state"? We surely are parsing words to the limit here.

Not that you care, but losing respect. A lot. And your posts aren't even funny if read as if one is in backwards world.

Lose all the respect you want, but until you can point me to a map that outlines the geographic borders of "terrorist state" I don't see how this is ludicrous. You may not agree, but I prefaced this whole stupid discussion with a qualification that words have meanings. Rumsfeld says essentially the same thing in the interview - he is careful with the words he uses.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
By inference if you follow this course of reasoning out, are you implying that the Bush administration does not think that there are "terrorist states" that pose an immediate danger to the US? Sure all he said was that Hussein/Iraq was most immediate, but I thought that the administration line was that the dems were soft on terrorists, not the Bushies.

I don't understand exactly what you mean.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
So, what IS your definition of IS?

It didn't convince the judge in the Paula Jones case, and your argument is roughly on par. Oh, how the standards have fallen since those first, heady days of 2001 when GOP operatives falsely accused Clinton staffers of doing extensive damage ("vandalism") to WH offices as they left. Or, have they?

If you read the words as they appear, not as you want them to appear, and if you believe Rumsfeld when he says that he chooses his words carefully, you should see that this is an legitimate and reasonable interpretation.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't understand exactly what you mean.

here is what I mean:

1. You said Rumsfeld's line re: most immediate threat of any terrorist state could be read as merely being comparitive among all terrorist states.

2. In order for Iraq to be the most immediate threat but not to be an immediate (or imminent, whatever) threat, it would have to be the case that none of the threats against the US from terrorist states are immediate/imminent. Otherwise "most immediate" would also mean "immediate", thus negating Rumsfeld's ability to argue otherwise.

It seems to me that post-9/11 most of the US (including the Bush admin) has believed that there are terrorist states that pose an immediate/imminent threat. But if you have some knowledge that the Bush admin doesn't think this is the case, please elaborate.