Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ty
lots of words, no substance

Ty, I actually looked up one of the quotes, out of my own curiousity. It is totally taken out of context, in that McClellan's statment regarding imminency is in regards to the threat posed to TURKEY, not the United States.

See http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030210-7.html

:QUESTION: What about NATO's role? Belgium now says it will veto any attempt to provide help to Turkey to defend itself. Is this something the administration can live with, or is it a major obstacle?

MR. McCLELLAN: Two points. We support the request under Article IV of Turkey. And I think it's important to note that the request from a country under Article IV that faces an imminent threat goes to the very core of the NATO alliance and its purpose.

QUESTION: What can you do about this veto threat?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, I think what's important to remind NATO members, remind the international community is that this type of request under Article IV goes to the core of the NATO alliance.

QUESTION: Is this some kind of ultimate test of the alliance?

MR. McCLELLAN: This is about an imminent threat.

Better find a new blog.

[ett]

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
These quotes are irrelevant to the argument at hand.

Originally posted by bilmore
No, you just proved his point, and he's likely grateful for your blog-copying capabilities.

You guys are incredible. Rumsfeld went on Face The Nation and said, "you and a few other critics are the only people I've heard use the phrase `immediate threat.' I didn't. The president didn't. And it's become kind of folklore...."

It's not folklore. Ari Fleischer said it in so many words, and that's only #5 on the list. It's a joke that you could contest it.

And don't thank me -- thank the Center for American Progress, it's their list. I'm just glad that someone is bothering to keep track of this stuff.

[Not Me]

Just curious.

I don't know any of you IRL. At least I don't think I know any of you. Maybe I do but I just don't know that you are who you are.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Could someone please restate the argument? Those seem pretty relevant to me, but I came late to the game.

OK, unless someone uses the exact phrase "Iraq is an immediate threat" or "Iraq is an imminent threat," nothing counts.

So saying that Iraq was the most dangerous threat of our time does not count. "Dangerous" and "imminent/immediate" are not the same thing -- something can be dangerous and still take a few months to get up and running.

Saying Iraq/Saddam were "a threat" does not count. No imminent, no immediate. If I read The Anarchist's Handbook, I could be a threat, but I'm neither imminent nor immediate.

Ari Fleisher's response didn't count either because he is no longer with the White House or because he just said "Absolutely" and didn't repeat the phrase "imminent/immediate threat" so he may have been responding to someone else.* OK, not sure how we get around this one. bilmore? club?

Living at the mercy of/under threat of lacks the imminency/immediacy thing.

"This is about imminent threat" doesn't refer specifically to Iraq. Maybe he was talking about a glass that has been filled to the brim with red wine being an imminent threat to the silk/linen tablecloth underneath it.

I think you get the drift.


*or to the voices in his head

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Ty, I actually looked up one of the quotes, out of my own curiousity. It is totally taken out of context, in that McClellan's statment regarding imminency is in regards to the threat posed to TURKEY, not the United States.

It sounds like there's one that list that shouldn't be there. Good catch. But do you deny that they repeatedly characterized Iraq as a threat to the United States?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
And don't thank me -- thank the Center for American Progress, it's their list.

You sure it is not MoveOn.orgs's list?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
It's not folklore. Ari Fleischer said it in so many words, and that's only #5 on the list. It's a joke that you could contest it.

In NATO parlance, "imminent threat" is a term of art that differs from the standard usage. It was invoked, using those words, by someone else who is Not Ari. (That's like Not Bob, but Notter.) Look it up.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
okay, here's my last question(s) for the night then -

assuming that the Bush administration didn't think that any terrorist state posed any sort of immediate threat to US/world safety (I find this frankly difficult to imagine, but anyway), why does Rumsfeld make statement number 2? what exactly does it gain him to mention that Iraq is the most immediate danger of any terrorist state if none of them pose any immediate danger?

Statement 1 specifically calls out nuclear threats. Statement 2 references threats in general. Also, he's making the case for war, so there is some selling going on.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
It sounds like there's one that list that shouldn't be there. Good catch. But do you deny that they repeatedly characterized Iraq as a threat to the United States?

Jesus, Ty, but not an immediate or imminent threat. It's not like we went in there preemptively or something.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
It sounds like there's one that list that shouldn't be there. Good catch. But do you deny that they repeatedly characterized Iraq as a threat to the United States?

I chose that one to look up because it said "imminent." I suspect certain of the others are also wrong. I do not challenge the characterization of Iraq as a threat - hell, we had troops in the no fly zone for 12 years, I fucking hope they were a threat.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
But do you deny that they repeatedly characterized Iraq as a threat to the United States?

They repeatedly characterize North Korea as a threat to the US. Ya know why? 'Cuz it is.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
OK, unless someone uses the exact phrase "Iraq is an immediate threat" or "Iraq is an imminent threat," nothing counts.

You guys are all fucking incredible. The only reason the right had to get into this word parsing to begin with is because the left began the "Bush Lied" campaign.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You guys are all fucking incredible. The only reason the right had to get into this word parsing to begin with is because the left began the "Bush Lied" campaign.

I think various members of the Administration misled. And, even if they believed it at the time, they are now trying to act like they didn't ever say what they said, which is just kind of annoying.

But it's good to see the black and white coming out front and center. "The left." But thanks for giving up the SFA "DEMS" phrase.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
Just curious.

I don't know any of you IRL. At least I don't think I know any of you. Maybe I do but I just don't know that you are who you are.

But I know you . . .

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
In NATO parlance, "imminent threat" is a term of art that differs from the standard usage. It was invoked, using those words, by someone else who is Not Ari. (That's like Not Bob, but Notter.) Look it up.

Maybe I don't understand what you're saying. But if you're saying that they said Iraq was an imminent threat, but that they said this because those words are a term of art under NATO agreements, my response is that (a) there's no reason to think the words don't have their ordinary meaning, and (b) look at the list -- Administration officials were describing Iraq as an imminent threat but using all sorts of different words. Look at all those quotes.

And here I thought you were telling Atticus that words have meaning.

Here's the link to that page.