'...The term "combat" is highly deceptive. Iraq has virtually no air force and no modern air defences. Thus, "combat" means dropping bombs or firing missiles at infrastructure that has been laid to waste by a 12-year-old embargo.
The Wall Street Journal, the authentic voice of the American establishment, described this eloquently when it reported that the US faced "a genuine dilemma" in Iraq. After eight years of enforcing a no fly zone in northern (and southern) Iraq, few targets remain. "We're down to the last outhouse," one US official protested.
I have seen the result of these attacks. When I drove from the northern city of Mosul three years ago, I saw the remains of an agricultural water tanker and truck, riddled with bullet holes, shrapnel from a missile, a shoe and the wool and skeletons of about 150 sheep.
A family of six, a shepherd, his father and his wife and four children, were blown to pieces here. It was treeless, open country: a moonscape. The shepherd, his family and his sheep would have been clearly visible from the air...'
yea yea yea, thats all you people ever fall back on is this south America nonsense. take that asshole Chavez out of the mix, South America is doing just fine. well I guess you can blame Columbia's problems partly on us due to our huge coke demand. but that has nothing to do with the US government.
the fact that youve singled out chavez shows just how ignorant you are to what is actually going on in south america at the moment.
hi, who the fuck are you? please tell me, what is "going on in south america at the moment" Chavez is the only asshole on the continent that is causing problems.
hi, i ask myself that question every morning when i wake up.
you speak of chavez as if he is the only revolutionary in south america. that he is the only one 'causing problems'. can you clarify what these problems are chavez is causing? do you also consider,say, evo morales and rafael correa arseholes too??? do you see ALBA as a threat to other supposed free trade agreements and if so is that a good thing or a bad thing and for whom??
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
so... seeings how it would seem you are including yourself in those americans that are informed, i would expect you to already know what it is your government has gotten up to around the world. id expect you to know that not everyone shares washingtons enlightened view of freedom and democracy and how that is achieved. and id expect you to not only know why that is so, but also to at least understand why that is so. therefore id also expect you to know what it is your government has been reaping for their people all these years.
doesnt matter what I know or dont know. I'm asking you a direct question based on your comment. so whenever your ready let me know.
you are becoming worse then Byzine at dodging questions.
actually i thought i was doing a fairly good impression of your dodge ball.
the overthrowing of governments, the supporting of dictators, the starting of wars under the guise of democracy that turned out to be nothing more than trojan wars usually to maintain access to resources and trade for the US. the training of death and terror squads. the continued attempted assassination of foreign presidents.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
so... seeings how it would seem you are including yourself in those americans that are informed, i would expect you to already know what it is your government has gotten up to around the world. id expect you to know that not everyone shares washingtons enlightened view of freedom and democracy and how that is achieved. and id expect you to not only know why that is so, but also to at least understand why that is so. therefore id also expect you to know what it is your government has been reaping for their people all these years.
doesnt matter what I know or dont know. I'm asking you a direct question based on your comment. so whenever your ready let me know.
you are becoming worse then Byzine at dodging questions.
actually i thought i was doing a fairly good impression of your dodge ball.
the overthrowing of governments, the supporting of dictators, the starting of wars under the guise of democracy that turned out to be nothing more than trojan wars usually to maintain access to resources and trade for the US. the training of death and terror squads. the continued attempted assassination of foreign presidents.
nice vagueness. so these are reasons why we deserved to be attacked on 9/11? lovely.
nice vagueness. so these are reasons why we deserved to be attacked on 9/11? lovely.
Of course not. Only citizens of other countries are fair game. Americans are special and deserve to live unmolested whilst their government terrorizes and murders with impunity in their name.
nice vagueness. so these are reasons why we deserved to be attacked on 9/11? lovely.
Of course not. Only citizens of other countries are fair game. Americans are special and deserve to live unmolested whilst their government terrorizes and murders with impunity in their name.
you are the only one on this board who actually cherishes the fact that America was attacked on 9/11. even cate, in her clouds of confusion, mourn the innocent Americans who were killed.
doesnt matter what I know or dont know. I'm asking you a direct question based on your comment. so whenever your ready let me know.
you are becoming worse then Byzine at dodging questions.
actually i thought i was doing a fairly good impression of your dodge ball.
the overthrowing of governments, the supporting of dictators, the starting of wars under the guise of democracy that turned out to be nothing more than trojan wars usually to maintain access to resources and trade for the US. the training of death and terror squads. the continued attempted assassination of foreign presidents.
nice vagueness. so these are reasons why we deserved to be attacked on 9/11? lovely.
jesus allah buddha... where did i say that???
im talking cause and effect that is all. do you think everything just slides right off americas fat comfortable arse and will continue to do so? is that how arrogant the united states of america has allowed its people to become? ois this what patriotism looks like??? your government knows why there is hatred towards your country. they know because they are the cause. does that equate to innocents being murdered?? no it doesnt. you americans who do so, shit me when you try to tell us we are of the opinion that the US deserved the events of 9/11 when we are trying to explain our pov. but hey dont get me wrong i am sure there are people who do believe america got what she deserved that day. i however am not one them. no country deserved such an act. but then again no country deserves to be able to act with apparent impunity either.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
nice vagueness. so these are reasons why we deserved to be attacked on 9/11? lovely.
Of course not. Only citizens of other countries are fair game. Americans are special and deserve to live unmolested whilst their government terrorizes and murders with impunity in their name.
you are the only one on this board who actually cherishes the fact that America was attacked on 9/11. even cate, in her clouds of confusion, mourn the innocent Americans who were killed.
there are no clouds of confusion with me. dont be so patronising. and its not only innocent americans i mourn.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
im talking cause and effect that is all. do you think everything just slides right off americas fat comfortable arse and will continue to do so? is that how arrogant the united states of america has allowed its people to become? ois this what patriotism looks like??? your government knows why there is hatred towards your country. they know because they are the cause. does that equate to innocents being murdered?? no it doesnt. you americans who do so, shit me when you try to tell us we are of the opinion that the US deserved the events of 9/11 when we are trying to explain our pov. but hey dont get me wrong i am sure there are people who do believe america got what she deserved that day. i however am not one them. no country deserved such an act. but then again no country deserves to be able to act with apparent impunity either.
backup to September 2001. America was in a relatively peaceful time. I think Islamic extremists have more of a case today then back then to attack us because of Iraq. but back then why? all you did was brush broad strokes about America's injustices in the world from who knows when about who knows what.
im talking cause and effect that is all. do you think everything just slides right off americas fat comfortable arse and will continue to do so? is that how arrogant the united states of america has allowed its people to become? ois this what patriotism looks like??? your government knows why there is hatred towards your country. they know because they are the cause. does that equate to innocents being murdered?? no it doesnt. you americans who do so, shit me when you try to tell us we are of the opinion that the US deserved the events of 9/11 when we are trying to explain our pov. but hey dont get me wrong i am sure there are people who do believe america got what she deserved that day. i however am not one them. no country deserved such an act. but then again no country deserves to be able to act with apparent impunity either.
backup to September 2001. America was in a relatively peaceful time. I think Islamic extremists have more of a case today then back then to attack us because of Iraq. but back then why? all you did was brush broad strokes about America's injustices in the world from who knows when about who knows what.
you seem to be under the impression theres a statute of limitations on feeling outrage.
yet again if you think 'islamic extremists' have more of a case today than in 2001, then you do not know your history. stop thinking that history began on september 11th 2001.
what do you call relatively peaceful???
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I think Islamic extremists have more of a case today then back then to attack us because of Iraq. but back then why?
Let's see...10 years of U.S sanctions against Iraq which were directly responsible for killing approx half a million children...10 years of daily bombing raids over Iraq which left thousands of civilians dead...100% unconditional support for Israeli terrorism...the bombing of the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan [It is estimated that 10,000 African children will die from easily treatable diseases like malaria because of the bombing and U.S.-inspired sanctions on Sudan.
Over 16 Tomahawk cruise missiles destroyed that country's primary means for fighting malaria and other life- threatening diseases, while also directly killing and burning several people at the plant site - http://www.iacenter.org/bosnia/sudan.htm]...the fact that the U.S issued an arms embargo on Bosnia thereby leaving the Bosnian Muslims to be slaughtered...the fact that the U.S authorities were making it known that they were planning an imminent attack upon Afghanistan...e.t.c, e.t.c.
im talking cause and effect that is all. do you think everything just slides right off americas fat comfortable arse and will continue to do so? is that how arrogant the united states of america has allowed its people to become? ois this what patriotism looks like??? your government knows why there is hatred towards your country. they know because they are the cause. does that equate to innocents being murdered?? no it doesnt. you americans who do so, shit me when you try to tell us we are of the opinion that the US deserved the events of 9/11 when we are trying to explain our pov. but hey dont get me wrong i am sure there are people who do believe america got what she deserved that day. i however am not one them. no country deserved such an act. but then again no country deserves to be able to act with apparent impunity either.
backup to September 2001. America was in a relatively peaceful time. I think Islamic extremists have more of a case today then back then to attack us because of Iraq. but back then why? all you did was brush broad strokes about America's injustices in the world from who knows when about who knows what.
you seem to be under the impression theres a statute of limitations on feeling outrage.
yet again if you think 'islamic extremists' have more of a case today than in 2001, then you do not know your history. stop thinking that history began on september 11th 2001.
what do you call relatively peaceful???
again dodging the question and making vague statements. well done. back in Sept 01 we were in a relatively peaceful time. the US was not engaged in any wars. Bin Laden didn't attack us because of our involvement in south America in the 1950s.
what case did they have back then compared to now?
I think Islamic extremists have more of a case today then back then to attack us because of Iraq. but back then why?
Let's see...10 years of U.S sanctions against Iraq which were directly responsible for killing approx half a million children...10 years of daily bombing raids over Iraq which left thousands of civilians dead...100% unconditional support for Israeli terrorism...the bombing of the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan [It is estimated that 10,000 African children will die from easily treatable diseases like malaria because of the bombing and U.S.-inspired sanctions on Sudan.
Over 16 Tomahawk cruise missiles destroyed that country's primary means for fighting malaria and other life- threatening diseases, while also directly killing and burning several people at the plant site - http://www.iacenter.org/bosnia/sudan.htm]...the fact that the U.S issued an arms embargo on Bosnia thereby leaving the Bosnian Muslims to be slaughtered...the fact that the U.S authorities were making it known that they were planning an imminent attack upon Afghanistan...e.t.c, e.t.c.
again, the sanctions were done by the UN in a DIRECT result of Saddam's breaking of your beloved international law and UN Resolutions. apparently those are only relevant when Israel breaks them eh?
OBL never mentioned anything about Bosnia. you are only creating your own justification for why we were attacked. you realize that right?
backup to September 2001. America was in a relatively peaceful time. I think Islamic extremists have more of a case today then back then to attack us because of Iraq. but back then why? all you did was brush broad strokes about America's injustices in the world from who knows when about who knows what.
you seem to be under the impression theres a statute of limitations on feeling outrage.
yet again if you think 'islamic extremists' have more of a case today than in 2001, then you do not know your history. stop thinking that history began on september 11th 2001.
what do you call relatively peaceful???
again dodging the question and making vague statements. well done. back in Sept 01 we were in a relatively peaceful time. the US was not engaged in any wars. Bin Laden didn't attack us because of our involvement in south America in the 1950s.
what case did they have back then compared to now?
no one said he did. well... i know i didnt anyways.
may i suggest, if you havent already, that you read some middle eastern and central asian history just to get up to speed. and if you have, then i apologise cause if thats the case then we have no common ground.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
no one said he did. well... i know i didnt anyways.
may i suggest, if you havent already, that you read some middle eastern and central asian history just to get up to speed. and if you have, then i apologise cause if thats the case then we have no common ground.
I have, what are you referring to specifically? our involvement in Iran during the 50s? our support for Israel? trust me, you are no authority on US history. I can hold my own. you still havent given any indication why America reaped what it sowed on 9/11....in comparison to today thanks to the Iraq war quagmire.
again, the sanctions were done by the UN in a DIRECT result of Saddam's breaking of your beloved international law and UN Resolutions. apparently those are only relevant when Israel breaks them eh?
There's a difference between punishing a terrorist state like Israel that's engaged in ethnic cleansing, and in directly causing the deaths of half a million Iraqi children, along with countless other civilians in Iraq, simply because they happen to be Iraqi. The sanctions were imposed largely due to pressure by the U.S. Many other people at the U.N were disgusted by the effect they had on the Iraqi people and resigned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions
'...Denis Halliday was appointed United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Baghdad, Iraq as of 1 September 1997, at the Assistant Secretary-General level. In October 1998 he resigned after a 34 year career with the UN in order to have the freedom to criticise the sanctions regime, saying "I don't want to administer a programme that satisfies the definition of genocide"[27]...
Halliday's successor, Hans von Sponeck, subsequently also resigned in protest, calling the effects of the sanctions a "true human tragedy".[29] Jutta Burghardt, head of the World Food Program in Iraq, followed them.
again, the sanctions were done by the UN in a DIRECT result of Saddam's breaking of your beloved international law and UN Resolutions. apparently those are only relevant when Israel breaks them eh?
There's a difference between punishing a terrorist state like Israel that's engaged in ethnic cleansing, and in directly causing the deaths of half a million Iraqi children, along with countless other civilians in Iraq, simply because they happen to be Iraqi. The sanctions were imposed largely due to pressure by the U.S. Many other people at the U.N were disgusted by the effect they had on the Iraqi people and resigned.
actually there is no difference. Iraq violated international law and UN resolutions. the penalty was sanations. you seem to only think those should apply to Israel and the US. and would certainly support every possible sanction Israel can get, even if it caused genocide. anyone else who violates them, you have a mountain of excuses. thats called hypocrisy in case you were wondering.
my guess is you know little to nothing about the Clinton years and the Monika Lewinsky scandal. no surprise there
Sure Jlew. I know nothing, except that war with Afghanistan was delayed over an act of fellatio.
no, war wasn't delayed. Clinton and his admin didn't feel war wasn't necessary at the time of the attacks in 93, 95, and 98. which in hindsight was a mistake because el queda grew in size and power...enough to attack us again. meanwhile, the biggest thing on Clinton's agenda was trying to not get impeached for lying about getting a blowjob in the oval office.
do you really not know any of this? see, to Americans this is common knowledge. now if you need bolded colorful links, I'll be happy to provide them. if not, do some fucking research before embarrass yourself. opps too late.
I think the biggest thing on Clinton's agenda was not letting the fact that he sold military secrets to the chinese blow up larger than it did. The blow job was just a very convenient cover for that.
I think the biggest thing on Clinton's agenda was not letting the fact that he sold military secrets to the chinese blow up larger than it did. The blow job was just a very convenient cover for that.
I'm not gonna lie, thats one part of the Clinton years I never really investigated myself. although I certainly heard alot about it in the media. I just never got to the bottom of it. but I agree, that also was something that caused him to look past the growing Islamic extremist problem.
So, OBL's attempt to blow up the WTC in 1993, along with the attack on the U.S.S Cole, and the hotel bombings in Africa weren't deemed important enough at the time to warrant an invasion of Afghanistan?
Also, what was the distraction which we can use to excuse Bush looking past 'the growing Islamic extremist problem' prior to 9/11 - despite the F.B.I presenting detailed evidence to the Bush Administration that an attack by Al Queda on U.S soil using commercial airliners was imminent?
So, OBL's attempt to blow up the WTC in 1993, along with the attack on the U.S.S Cole, and the hotel bombings in Africa weren't deemed important enough at the time to warrant an invasion of Afghanistan?
no. is this a serious question? what are you failing to understand here?
S
Also, what was the distraction which we can use to excuse Bush looking past 'the growing Islamic extremist problem' prior to 9/11 - despite the F.B.I presenting detailed evidence to the Bush Administration that an attack by Al Queda on U.S soil using commercial airliners was imminent?
I dont know if Bush looked past it or not. but given he was only in office all of 6 months when we were attacked, I dont think he intended to start off his presidency by invading a country that hadn't attacked us in some time. he would have never gotten Congress approval for one.
...I dont think he intended to start off his presidency by invading a country that hadn't attacked us in some time. he would have never gotten Congress approval for one.
Then how do you account for his instigating a massive bombing raid over Baghdad within two weeks of taking office?
Edit: Come to think of it, when did Iraq, or Afghanistan, ever attack America?
...I dont think he intended to start off his presidency by invading a country that hadn't attacked us in some time. he would have never gotten Congress approval for one.
Then how do you account for his instigating a massive bombing raid over Baghdad within two weeks of taking office?
because his entire administration, as well as his father, have had a hard on for Saddam since 91. and he had full UN approval to act within Iraq, short of invasion.
Comments
no I dont. they were never American targets
And you have your finger on the pulse of America?[/quote]
much more then you, yes, absolutely.
No, of course they weren't:
http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=354
'...The term "combat" is highly deceptive. Iraq has virtually no air force and no modern air defences. Thus, "combat" means dropping bombs or firing missiles at infrastructure that has been laid to waste by a 12-year-old embargo.
The Wall Street Journal, the authentic voice of the American establishment, described this eloquently when it reported that the US faced "a genuine dilemma" in Iraq. After eight years of enforcing a no fly zone in northern (and southern) Iraq, few targets remain. "We're down to the last outhouse," one US official protested.
I have seen the result of these attacks. When I drove from the northern city of Mosul three years ago, I saw the remains of an agricultural water tanker and truck, riddled with bullet holes, shrapnel from a missile, a shoe and the wool and skeletons of about 150 sheep.
A family of six, a shepherd, his father and his wife and four children, were blown to pieces here. It was treeless, open country: a moonscape. The shepherd, his family and his sheep would have been clearly visible from the air...'
hi, i ask myself that question every morning when i wake up.
you speak of chavez as if he is the only revolutionary in south america. that he is the only one 'causing problems'. can you clarify what these problems are chavez is causing? do you also consider,say, evo morales and rafael correa arseholes too??? do you see ALBA as a threat to other supposed free trade agreements and if so is that a good thing or a bad thing and for whom??
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
actually i thought i was doing a fairly good impression of your dodge ball.
the overthrowing of governments, the supporting of dictators, the starting of wars under the guise of democracy that turned out to be nothing more than trojan wars usually to maintain access to resources and trade for the US. the training of death and terror squads. the continued attempted assassination of foreign presidents.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
nice vagueness. so these are reasons why we deserved to be attacked on 9/11? lovely.
Of course not. Only citizens of other countries are fair game. Americans are special and deserve to live unmolested whilst their government terrorizes and murders with impunity in their name.
you are the only one on this board who actually cherishes the fact that America was attacked on 9/11. even cate, in her clouds of confusion, mourn the innocent Americans who were killed.
jesus allah buddha... where did i say that???
im talking cause and effect that is all. do you think everything just slides right off americas fat comfortable arse and will continue to do so? is that how arrogant the united states of america has allowed its people to become? ois this what patriotism looks like??? your government knows why there is hatred towards your country. they know because they are the cause. does that equate to innocents being murdered?? no it doesnt. you americans who do so, shit me when you try to tell us we are of the opinion that the US deserved the events of 9/11 when we are trying to explain our pov. but hey dont get me wrong i am sure there are people who do believe america got what she deserved that day. i however am not one them. no country deserved such an act. but then again no country deserves to be able to act with apparent impunity either.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
there are no clouds of confusion with me. dont be so patronising. and its not only innocent americans i mourn.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
backup to September 2001. America was in a relatively peaceful time. I think Islamic extremists have more of a case today then back then to attack us because of Iraq. but back then why? all you did was brush broad strokes about America's injustices in the world from who knows when about who knows what.
you are very confused. I'll do my best to educate you, but its highly unlikely.
And it goes on...and on... :roll:
you seem to be under the impression theres a statute of limitations on feeling outrage.
yet again if you think 'islamic extremists' have more of a case today than in 2001, then you do not know your history. stop thinking that history began on september 11th 2001.
what do you call relatively peaceful???
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Let's see...10 years of U.S sanctions against Iraq which were directly responsible for killing approx half a million children...10 years of daily bombing raids over Iraq which left thousands of civilians dead...100% unconditional support for Israeli terrorism...the bombing of the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan [It is estimated that 10,000 African children will die from easily treatable diseases like malaria because of the bombing and U.S.-inspired sanctions on Sudan.
Over 16 Tomahawk cruise missiles destroyed that country's primary means for fighting malaria and other life- threatening diseases, while also directly killing and burning several people at the plant site - http://www.iacenter.org/bosnia/sudan.htm]...the fact that the U.S issued an arms embargo on Bosnia thereby leaving the Bosnian Muslims to be slaughtered...the fact that the U.S authorities were making it known that they were planning an imminent attack upon Afghanistan...e.t.c, e.t.c.
again dodging the question and making vague statements. well done. back in Sept 01 we were in a relatively peaceful time. the US was not engaged in any wars. Bin Laden didn't attack us because of our involvement in south America in the 1950s.
what case did they have back then compared to now?
again, the sanctions were done by the UN in a DIRECT result of Saddam's breaking of your beloved international law and UN Resolutions. apparently those are only relevant when Israel breaks them eh?
OBL never mentioned anything about Bosnia. you are only creating your own justification for why we were attacked. you realize that right?
no one said he did. well... i know i didnt anyways.
may i suggest, if you havent already, that you read some middle eastern and central asian history just to get up to speed. and if you have, then i apologise cause if thats the case then we have no common ground.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I have, what are you referring to specifically? our involvement in Iran during the 50s? our support for Israel? trust me, you are no authority on US history. I can hold my own. you still havent given any indication why America reaped what it sowed on 9/11....in comparison to today thanks to the Iraq war quagmire.
There's a difference between punishing a terrorist state like Israel that's engaged in ethnic cleansing, and in directly causing the deaths of half a million Iraqi children, along with countless other civilians in Iraq, simply because they happen to be Iraqi. The sanctions were imposed largely due to pressure by the U.S. Many other people at the U.N were disgusted by the effect they had on the Iraqi people and resigned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions
'...Denis Halliday was appointed United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Baghdad, Iraq as of 1 September 1997, at the Assistant Secretary-General level. In October 1998 he resigned after a 34 year career with the UN in order to have the freedom to criticise the sanctions regime, saying "I don't want to administer a programme that satisfies the definition of genocide"[27]...
Halliday's successor, Hans von Sponeck, subsequently also resigned in protest, calling the effects of the sanctions a "true human tragedy".[29] Jutta Burghardt, head of the World Food Program in Iraq, followed them.
You asked what reasons anyone may have had for attacking America prior to 9/11. I gave you a list.
actually there is no difference. Iraq violated international law and UN resolutions. the penalty was sanations. you seem to only think those should apply to Israel and the US. and would certainly support every possible sanction Israel can get, even if it caused genocide. anyone else who violates them, you have a mountain of excuses. thats called hypocrisy in case you were wondering.
You asked what reasons anyone may have had for attacking America prior to 9/11. I gave you a list.[/quote]
but that was never a reason el queda used for attacking us. thats YOUR reason and justification. get it?
Sure Jlew. Whatever you say.
I didnt think you'd have much else to say. bye bye
Not sure who said that but they were dead on.
I think the biggest thing on Clinton's agenda was not letting the fact that he sold military secrets to the chinese blow up larger than it did. The blow job was just a very convenient cover for that.
I'm not gonna lie, thats one part of the Clinton years I never really investigated myself. although I certainly heard alot about it in the media. I just never got to the bottom of it. but I agree, that also was something that caused him to look past the growing Islamic extremist problem.
Also, what was the distraction which we can use to excuse Bush looking past 'the growing Islamic extremist problem' prior to 9/11 - despite the F.B.I presenting detailed evidence to the Bush Administration that an attack by Al Queda on U.S soil using commercial airliners was imminent?
no. is this a serious question? what are you failing to understand here?
I dont know if Bush looked past it or not. but given he was only in office all of 6 months when we were attacked, I dont think he intended to start off his presidency by invading a country that hadn't attacked us in some time. he would have never gotten Congress approval for one.
anything else?
Then how do you account for his instigating a massive bombing raid over Baghdad within two weeks of taking office?
Edit: Come to think of it, when did Iraq, or Afghanistan, ever attack America?
because his entire administration, as well as his father, have had a hard on for Saddam since 91. and he had full UN approval to act within Iraq, short of invasion.