Andrew at Pathetic Earthlings has a intriguing post about a database of all of the statements on Iraq that were made by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, and Rice. He claims that since searchs for "imminent" and "imminence" comes up empty, the criticism of the Administration is unfounded.
Hogwash, I say! With the help of some friendly synonyms, I set up to find the truth:
imperative
Cheney: As former Secretary of State Kissinger recently stated: "The imminence of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the huge dangers it involves, the rejection of a viable inspection system, and the demonstrated hostility of Saddam Hussein combine to produce an imperative for preemptive action."
Immediate
Rumsfeld: [N]o terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq. (September 2002)
urgent
Bush: On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . it has developed weapons of mass death. (October 2002)Bush: Today the world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq. A dictator who has used weapons of mass destruction on his own people must not be allowed to produce or possess those weapons. We will not permit Saddam Hussein to blackmail and/or terrorize nations which love freedom. (November 2002)
At 4:29 on March 17, 2004, Andrew wrote:
You are quite right about that sir, although I think Waxman's view of what those statements mean is -- by and large -- odd. For instance, he talks about the Rumsfeld statement that, a year or two down the road Iraq might have an atomic bomb, and uses that as his example that the Administration was talking about an imminent or urgent threat. I just find it a bit odd that after nearly a year of pounding on "imminence" itself as the talking point, someone finally went to the trouble of recognizing that the Administration was a damned sight more careful than that.