Saddam was only a "nuisance"? Not a threat?

[life_long_dem]

I found several websites that claim Saddam was only a "nuisance", why did bush say he was an imminent threat? Here are several paragraphs.I thought we could spin this nuisance thing around, any thoughts? I didn't write down who the author was, so you'll have to go to the website. Is it even worth the trouble? Thanks...

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2002/cyb20021010.asp
Sciutto to Aziz: “Do you think the Bush administration has made the case for war in Iraq?”
Sciutto related his answer: “'I wish him well,’ he says. 'But I think President Bush should think carefully about what he’s about to do.’”
Sciutto outlined the Saudi position: “Before the Gulf War, many Saudis genuinely feared Iraq. They thought that after Kuwait, Saudi Arabia could be next. But today they see Saddam Hussein and his military as much weaker, more of a nuisance than a real threat. 'Economic sanctions have kept Saddam in check,’ this man says. 'Another war would be bad for the whole region.’

http://www.cissm.umd.edu/documents/lastchance.htm
The United States is more likely to gain broad support for military action against Iraq if it makes clear that Mr. Hussein has been given a final chance to allow meaningful inspections. Without weapons and under permanent international monitoring, Saddam Hussein would be a major nuisance, but not the threat he is today. That is why if he agrees, the United States should be willing to take yes for an answer.

http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue2/stein.pdf
Saddam Hussein continued to be a nuisance
but no more than he was during the last months
of the Clinton Administration. During its early
days, the Bush Administration shared its
predecessor’s reluctance to wage a large attack
to topple the Iraqi leader.


http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:RWaFLcB9ZJUJ:www.washingtoninstitute.org/pubs/pdf/soref2001panel1.pdf+colin+powell+%2B+nuisance&hl=en
Saddam is a problem; he is frustrating, and everybody hates him. Yet so far, our policy has worked; we are keeping him contained. He is a nuisance, and we have more forces deployed there than we would like,but right now he is not a threat to the region.

on edit> spelling correction

[life_long_dem]

1. I don't normally reply to my own post,

but this one faded fast. I can't stand the fact that bush is spinning this nuisance thing. Kerry want's to get back to a time when terror isn't in our foremost thoughts, but only a nuisance.

Well, wouldn't that be when we invaded Iraq when Saddam was only a nuisance? Am I worrying to much about this? I just thought Kerry shouldn't have worded it quite that way. Thanks...

[omnithrope]

2. thank you

good stuff.
thanks!

-omni

[donco6]

3. Kerry was correct in his original statement.

Sadly, right now, it's politically deadly to call Saddam a nuisance. Voters just won't accept it. They equate that with saying our soldiers are dying in vain - which is a cardinal sin to many.

Personally, I think the whole thing is a waste. But then, I'm not running for office.