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

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

[Timesink]

Schadenfreude

This is the New York Times Cleveland Plain Dealer Schadenfreude Ping List. Freepmail me to be added or dropped.

---

This is the Mainstream Media Shenanigans ping list. Please freepmail me to be added or dropped.
Please note this is a medium- to high-volume list.
Please feel free to ping me if you come across a thread you would think worthy of this ping list. I can't catch them all!

[Steve_Seattle]

"chemical or biological attack within 45 minutes"

Keep in mind that before the war, some OPPONENTS of the war cited the threat of Saddam's chemical or biological weapons as a reason for NOT sending in our troops. The argument before the war was not so much about whether Saddam had WMD's, but rather how to go about finding them. The belief in Saddam's WMD programs was widely expressed during the Clinton administration - and long after - by prominent Democrats. We can't let liberals get away with the absurd claim that it was only Bush who ever said Saddam possessed WMD's.

[Pietro]

"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."

Yeah? so where's the money?

or is he just like bj; he'll take responsibility so long as there are no consequences.

[Fracas]

Did you know he's married to Eleanor Clift?

[syriacus]

And immanent doesn't mean imminent. Which word did Bush mean?

Immanent means "Restricted entirely to the mind"

[Question_Assumptions]

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

Uh, huh. And Hitler posed no threat to Europe and Stalin was a teddy bear who wouldn't harm a fly. I suppose he thinks we should appease the "harmless" North Koreans, as well.

[Teacher317]

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

Rather like this reporter's original story, manipulating a story with little regard for actual facts!

[Mr.Atos]

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.

I'm not amazed at all. These guys provide multiple layers of editorial 'chaff' for one another. They eject it continuously and then 'fly' with its protection through the ongoing process of their reporting as a sort of cover for their journalistic credibility. Then print and TV media pick it up as fact and run with it to. They don't bother to verify the facts, because they really don't care. They want it to be true. It corresponds to their myopic view They can find multiple sources saying the same thing (ino...spreading the same lie). Therefore, it is a legitimate 'fact[oid]' with a misinformation trail too deep for most to verify. God bless the blogosphere. Media editors must be building kidney stones the size of their Hugos from all the antacid their ingesting these days. Hewitt was pointing this out yesterday in reference to the Gen. Boykin story. The screeching Leftists pundits are throwing mud to one another to spread, but no one is bothering to verify and analyze the original assertion that Boykin is a fundamentalist extremist radical.

In short, facts be damned. Misinformation with multiple references is food for the rabid idiot... Mr. Brazaitis.

[randog]

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

How can this guy make that claim? Is he privvy to Saddam's inner thoughts? Part of Saddam's inner circle?

Sounds like that moron that 'lived with the bears' in Alaska--you know, the one that just died from a bear mauling.

[lepton]

It's out of context. The statement referred to launching on his neighbors, and that Iraq possessed weapon systems that were capable of being loaded and launched within 45 minutes of the order being given - which is true. The U.N. found some such missile systems in the run-up to the war.

[smith288]

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

So Bush mad it clear that Saddam wasnt an "imminent threat" in his SOTU speech... but this guy seems to still be hanging on the lie even AFTER he admited he was wrong.

It was known all along that Saddam wasnt a button away from destroying the USA, but it was known that Saddam cant be given the oppurtunity...thus the military action...

THis guy is a toad.

[syriacus]

Question from Tom Brazaitis:
So, what are we left with here?

Answer:
We are left with

an immanent* imminent threat.

That would be the threat of a possible threat, that only exists in the minds of Bush-bashers.

*Immanent means subjective, or only existing in the mind.

[ravingnutter]

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.

Here is the exact quote from the President:

The danger to our country is grave and it is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given.

Source

[syriacus]

I'm not amazed at all. These guys provide multiple layers of editorial 'chaff' for one another.

On top of that, they provide "cover" for politicians who enter these articles, that are filled with misinformation, into the Congressional Record.

The politicians know they can indirectly make outlandish statements by prefacing them with phrases such as, "I want to take a moment to read something to you from today's New York Times."

[syriacus]

I'm not amazed at all. These guys provide multiple layers of editorial 'chaff' for one another.

On top of that, they provide "cover" for politicians who enter these articles, that are filled with misinformation, into the Congressional Record.

The politicians know they can indirectly make outlandish statements by prefacing them with phrases such as, "I want to take a moment to read something to you from today's New York Times."

[katana]

Excellent point and something the press refuses to touch. When I point out to foreigners that the Kosovo operation was unapproved by the UN (the Russians would have vetoed it in a heartbeat) they seem genuinely surprised.

The best that can be said about the Cleveland Plain Dealer is that it is less of an over-the-top leftist rag than the paper which is its main northeast Ohio competitor, the Akron Beacon Journal (or as it's referred to at my house, the Akron Reekin' Urinal). I occasionally still get calls to subscribe and my stock answer is that there's no need since Pravda and the North Korean News Agency are both now available on the internet.

[Mr.Atos]

... would that be an immanent imminent emanating threat?

[ravingnutter]

Interesting related story:

The origin of the disputed 45-minute claim on Iraqi weapons came from a secret intelligence report dated August 30, the Hutton inquiry heard today.

The claim that Iraq could deploy "chemical and biological munitions" within 45 minutes was made in a classified email issued by a member of the joint intelligence committee (JIC) - but with both sender and recipient blacked out for security reasons.

It was distributed to Downing Street and Whitehall staff six days later on September 5 as new drafts of the September 24 dossier were being prepared.

The email stated that "forward deployed storage sites of chemical and biological munitions could be with military units and ready for firing within 45 minutes".

That revelation, presented on day nine of the inquiry by Sir John Scarlett, the chairman of the JIC, appears to blow out of the water the original suggestion by BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan that the claim was made up.

Mr Scarlett also denied that it was inserted at the behest of Number 10. Asked if he had sensed any "attitude of pressure" to include specific information in his drafting of the September dossier, Mr Scarlett replied: "That is not a fair analysis."

Mr Scarlett also denied that there had been any worries from more junior intelligence officers over the contents of the dossier or No 10's role in helping with the "presentational side" of it. Mr Scarlett said: "No worries of any kind were expressed to me at any stage about the propriety of this arrangement."

He also took issue with the description of the 45-minute intelligence assessment coming from "a single source". Although admitting it came solely from a "senior Iraqi official", Mr Scarlett called this a "misunderstanding of the assessment process", because the information was cross-checked and put in context with other assessments.

Source

[Mr.Atos]

On top of that, they provide "cover" for politicians who enter these articles, that are filled with misinformation, into the Congressional Record.

Absolutely! Great point.

This is not an incedental accidental oversight on the part of some biased media personality. These are calculated acts of coordinated propaganda.

[ravingnutter]

LONDON (AP) — A senior officer within Saddam Hussein's army was the source for a British intelligence claim that Iraq could deploy some weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes, a British newspaper reported Thursday. Prime Minister Tony Blair is under fire from lawmakers because of the failure to find Iraq's alleged chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, which were his main justification for war.

The controversy has focused in particular on claims that Blair's office redrafted an intelligence dossier, published in September, to emphasize a single-source report that Saddam could fire chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes of the Iraqi leader giving an order to do so.

The Financial Times, basing its report on unnamed "senior" civil servants, said that information came from a "senior Iraqi officer on active service within the country's military." The paper said British officials in two central government departments described the Iraqi source as having a record for providing reliable data over years.

USA Today