The President Just Implied 'Imminent Threat'(Newspaper Correction)

Cleveland Plain Dealer ^ | Oct 19, 2003 | Tom Brazaitis

[Republican Red]

I found this posted on Neal Boortz's website. As Boortz writes, "sooner or later the truth comes out".

I was surprised that this guy was admitting his "mistake" and publically correcting it. He did, and I do give him credit for that, but, the rest of the article is more of the same old Bush is a liar garbage.

I am amazed that this guy seemd to buy the assertion that the President said "imminent threat" as fact without any research. Only when challenged did he bother to check his facts.

It is truly a sad state journalism is in today.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

I read this as a non-correction correction:

..."Only now are we realizing that Saddam not only posed no "imminent threat" to us, he posed no threat at all."...

[Old Sarge]

Fact is, this Socialist made the claim, and got caught. That is the ONLY reason for any retraction.

Okay, Jackass, how about we went to war because the UNITED NATIONS said so? (Multiple violations of UN Res. 1441) Or, isn't the world community good enough for you?

[oust the louse]

There is a thread going on today about toilet paper...I am certain many of the Cleveland Plain Dealer political forum writers are so FULL of it that they are scanning that thread very intently. I quit buying this paper 6 months ago.

[prairiebreeze]

Only now are we realizing that Saddam not only posed no "imminent threat" to us, he posed no threat at all.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Another illustration of liberal racism. The author seems to care only about his own behind and not one bit about those of the Iraqi's whom we released from under Saddam's boot. Another hypocrite.

Prairie

[Mr. Bird]

Seventy percent of the American people are under the impression that Saddam Hussein played a principal role in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, although there is no credible evidence to support that

Maybe it's because the media has lost credibility with a majority of Americans, and even the true stories are looked at with a skeptic's eye. As far as I'm concerned, this column is just an unapologetic non-retraction.

[freeangel]

Let me guess. The charity of choice for the plain dealer was the clinton foundation....

[flutters]

Tom Brazaitis lied and he got caught.

To those in Cleveland that nailed him, Good Work!

[IncPen]

In an interview on the CBS "60 Minutes II" program, Greg Thielmann, former director of the strategic, proliferation and military affairs office in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, said Bush and his aides employed "faith-based intelligence" to dramatize the threat from Hussein.

It never ceases to amaze me that when the media interviews an 'expert' in a given field, more attention isn't given to the fact that this person is a former employee, and that that indeed might have some bearing on the person's (always) negative opinion of what the 'current' administration is doing.

And, fer chrissakes, the guy is from the State Department.

[Pete]

Generous as they are, my editors are not about to put their money where my mouth is, especially since they, and presumably Mr. Batista, have access to the same on-line newspaper database

Ha! They were busted because the public has access to the same information and was able to expose their lie. I bet they long for the days where they could print unfettered by accountability.

[mewzilla]

I've got a question for Mr. Brazaitis: At exactly what point in time were the 9-11 attacks imminent?

The answer to that question should open up a nice can of worms.

[grumple]

even if Bush employed every other scare tactic imaginable, including the prospect of a mushroom cloud from a nuclear explosion to scare the bejabbers out of the American people.

Oh....does this guy mean like something similar to throwing a five pound bag of sugar on a podium and claiming that an equivalent amount of anthrax can incapacitate the city of Manhatten?

Which administration was that?

[Coop]

And then followed up his correction with more idiocy:

Only now are we realizing that Saddam not only posed no "imminent threat" to us, he posed no threat at all.

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP

[BigWaveBetty]

an "imminent threat" pales next to the administration's manipulation of intelligence reports so that they bore little resemblance to the actual facts

I wonder who it was that was manipulating the intelligence reports in 1999 when clinton bombed Iraq because Saddam kicked out the UN inspectors. Clinton had to bomb because Saddam had nuclear, bio and chemical weapons, at least that's what he told us.

In Feb. 2001 when Colin Powell argued that sanctions should not be lifted because Saddam was still a threat, why weren't we told that there was no threat from those countries (France being one)?

Blix was so sure there was something going on in Iraq that he wanted inspections to go on and on. He wouldn't have manipulated the intelligence just to keep his job, would he?

And why, oh why do none of these leftist pukes never address these questions?

[dirtboy]

This is like the non-apology apology issued by the St. Petersburg Times columnists who said that Clinton's women victims wanted him. She turned it into a diatribe against all those nasty right-wingers who called her to task.

It has been interesting to see how quickly the imminence front has retreated and regrouped. Almost like new talking points went out...

[BillM]

"In a radio address last September, for instance, he warned that Iraq could wage "a chemical or biological attack in as little as 45 minutes," which might strike some people as imminent if you happened to be 46 minutes away from shelter."

Is this accurate or taken out of context?

[Steve_Seattle]

I'd like to ask Brazaitis what threat to the USA - imminent or otherwise - was posed by Milosovic, and which UN resolution authorized our military actions in Kosovo, and whether the talk of "genocide" in Kosovo was significantly exaggerated, and whether the bombing there created a refugee crisis.

[syriacus]

To all Bush-hating liberals:

Quit creating tempests in teapots.

What's the big deal if Bush had said "immanent threat."

"Immanent threat" does not mean "immanent attack."