Flutterby™! : Imminent Threat

Next unread comment / Catchup all unread comments User Account Info | Logout | XML/Pilot/etc versions | Long version (with comments) | Weblog archives | Site Map | | Browse Topics

Imminent Threat

2004-03-18 23:39:12.100041+00 by Dan Lyke 1 comments

Yeehaw! Lyn over at Medley has an entry which discusses this text version of this CBS transcript of Donald Rumsfeld caught lying. Remember when certain apologists were getting by with the "they never actually said 'imminent threat'"? Well, if the phrase isn't exactly contained in:

some have argued that 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.


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.

You'd have to be the worst sort of postmodernist weasel to assert that the semantic meaning wasn't the same.

Something else that strikes me here... I've tried to stay away from the comparisons with Weimar Berlin, because I think that's a little outlandish. After all, Hitler waited for several years to unnecessarily open up a second front.

(Now, shall we go into all of the conservatives praising the Taliban in the late '90s? The cites are out there...)

[ related topics: Politics moron War Dictators ]

comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):

#Comment Re: made: 2004-03-19 19:33:43.603763+00 by: ziffle

"You'd have to be the worst sort of postmodernist weasel to assert that the semantic meaning wasn't the same."[Wiki]

I suppose you could say that about me, but I would prefer to say his statements were accurate to me.

I believe the Weimar republic voted Hitler in not the other way around. Anyway when you invoke Hitler you break Godwins Law[Wiki] http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html and I hereby terminate the thread, having had the last word <g>