"...a grave and gathering threat.."

[kentuck]

that is what Bush just called Saddam Hussein on MSNBC news conference.
How is that different from an "imminent" threat? Perhaps some fair-minded Republican reading this can make this distinction? He's responding to a question about David Kay's remarks about WMD...
Does it depend on what the definiton of "is" is?

[displacedtexan]

1. "Grave" pretty much seals the image deal, doesn't it?

Or do we let * get away with not knowing the definition of the word grave?

[afraid_of_the_dark]

2. I'd say that's a HUGE difference...

semantically speaking. "Imminent" implies that it will occur in the near future, whereas "grave and gathering" implies that while it's still serious, whatever happens will happen a little further in the future.

From here, it looks like he's backing down, tail between his legs.

[kentuck]

6. Interesting....

If I'm told that a threat is gathering and it is a grave threat, I'm not going bowling tonight, because it is "imminent"... how do we know how far in the future a threat is if it is "gathering"???

[GumboYaYa]

3. In the National Security Strategy of the United States

signed by BUsh and available at the White House website, Bush argues that the concept of "imminent threat" in international law must be extended to "gathering threats." In Bush's own words imminent threat and gathering threat are the same thing.

This whole "Bush never said imminent threat" is a strawman argument to cover their asses. Any reasonable person who paid attention to the news knows the administration painted the picture of iminenet threat. The good news for the Dems is that arguing otherwise now will not pass the smell test for many middle of the road voters. This argument is red-meat for the die-hards, but has little sway with the moderates out there.

[GumboYaYa]

5. Here's the quote and a link:

For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.

We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction—weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning.

The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian population, in direct violation of one of the principal norms of the law of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses on September 11, 2001, mass civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and these losses would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons of mass destruction.

The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction— and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.

The United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging threats, nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression. Yet in an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek the world’s most destructive technologies, the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html

[unblock]

4. a 'gathering' threat

is not as immediate as an 'imminent' threat. presumably, a threat must gather before it can become imminent, at which point it can become a threat that can be realized.

just talking linguistics, here. always a dangerous practice when the subject matter is shrub....

[Gin]

9. He threw in the 9-11 reference again....he has no grounds so the fear

factor has to be reinforced....The Polish President interrupted him and mentioned Hans Blix saying that "Saddam was going to have a program"...haha...shrub looked like the fool that he is.

[hatrack]

7. Shouldn't that be "Mass Grave & Imminent Threat"?

I mean, he hasn't worked a mass grave reference into his little chat yet, has he?

[TheWebHead]

8. I like this Kwasniewski guy

Putting Chimpy on the spot... Looked like that dialogue made * want to send him to Guantanamo for dare broaching his own opinion in front of the WH press..

[RBHam]

10. George W Bush is a lying son of a bitch

And the media won't call him on it.

[liberalitch]

11. Why my planter's wort is more threatening....

1) It hurts
2) It makes me cranky
3) When I'm cranky, I need a nap.
4) .... you can't just take a nap whenever you feel like it.... mostly.

[liberalitch]

12. Why my planter's wort is more threatening....

1) It hurts
2) It makes me cranky
3) When I'm cranky, I need a nap.
4) .... you can't just take a nap whenever you feel like it.... mostly.

[emulatorloo]

13. Thank Goodness - The people of Halliburton are happy and free! n/t

[Solomon]

14. The real grave and gathering threats

Liberals, democrats, and other american people.

[BigBigBear]

15. The "imminent" thing

is the sole rhetorical plushtoy that Bushbots cradle lovingly in this whole deceitful charade. Bush never said "...imminent threat..." evidently. (At least, no one I know has found those two words uttered in his cavalcade of warnings about Saddam.

Doesn't matter anymore. Their lies have been in substance, and the voters know that.

Three months ago, I feared that Bush would win. I no longer think that now.