Joseph Kent (director of the National Counterterrorism Center) resigns

[protectionist]

“There’s no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States.”
• White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03

“We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.”
• President Bush, 7/17/03

Iraq was “the most dangerous threat of our time.”
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

“Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat…He was a threat. He’s not a threat now.”
• President Bush, 7/2/03

“Absolutely.”
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an “imminent threat,” 5/7/03

“We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended.”
• President Bush 4/24/03

“The threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction will be removed.”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

“It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended.”
• Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03

“The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.”
• President Bush, 3/19/03

“The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations.”
• President Bush, 3/16/03

“This is about imminent threat.”
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Iraq is “a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies.”
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses “terrible threats to the civilized world.”
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq “threatens the United States of America.”
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

“Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

“Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03

“Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It’s a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It’s a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction.”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

“The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. … Iraq is a threat, a real threat.”
• President Bush, 1/3/03

“The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands.”
• President Bush, 11/23/02

“I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month…So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

“Saddam Hussein is a threat to America.”
• President Bush, 11/3/02

“I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq.”
• President Bush, 11/1/02

“There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein.”
• President Bush, 10/28/02

“The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace.”
• President Bush, 10/16/02

“There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists.”
• President Bush, 10/7/02

“The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency.”
• President Bush, 10/2/02

“There’s a grave threat in Iraq. There just is.”
• President Bush, 10/2/02

“This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined.”
• President Bush, 9/26/02

“No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

“Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent – that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons.”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

“Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness.”
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02

This is about Iran in 2026, not Iraq 25 years ago.

 

[protectionist]

Director of the National Counterterrorism Center has had enough. He's understanding what a LOT of MAGA are saying, that this war isn't for American safety. That it's only fighting for Israel. I just wonder how much more Tulsi Gabbard can stomach.

Top Trump counterterrorism official Joe Kent resigns over Iran, saying it "posed no imminent threat to our nation"​

President Trump's director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Joe Kent, announced his immediate resignation Tuesday, citing the decision to begin a war against Iran when "Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation."



View attachment 1231876

What is "imminent" ?

And if imminent means next week, or next month, so should we wait until somebody is just about ready to blow us to bits, before we take action ?
Shouldn't matter if the time frame is one month, or 6 months, or one year.

When it comes to the matter of nuclear destruction of the whole world, and the massive slaughter of 6.3 Billion non-Muslims, no time is too soon. And those who keep yakking about "imminent", don't really know what the situation is exactly.

Thank goodness Trump & Netenyahu are smart enough to comprehend all this.

 

[protectionist]

There isn't any. Trumpers want this topic buried as quick as possible.

What is there to bury ? Some damn fool yammering about "imminent" threat, when it doesn't mean a hill of beans, whether the threat is imminent or not.

Waiting to take action, until someone is just about to kill you, is just about the stupidist thing anybody could ever do.

 

[Lesh]

This is about Iran in 2026, not Iraq 25 years ago.

The similarities are there

 

[Lesh]

What is "imminent" ?

And if imminent means next week, or next month, so should we wait until somebody is just about ready to blow us to bits, before we take action ?
Shouldn't matter if the time frame is one month, or 6 months, or one year.

When it comes to the matter of nuclear destruction of the whole world, and the massive slaughter of 6.3 Billion non-Muslims, no time is too soon. And those who keep yakking about "imminent", don't really know what the situation is exactly.

Thank goodness Trump & Netenyahu are smart enough to comprehend all this.

When you stretch out the timeline , the word “imminent “ loses all meaning

 

[YoursTruly]

What is "imminent" ?

And if imminent means next week, or next month, so should we wait until somebody is just about ready to blow us to bits, before we take action ?
Shouldn't matter if the time frame is one month, or 6 months, or one year.

When it comes to the matter of nuclear destruction of the whole world, and the massive slaughter of 6.3 Billion non-Muslims, no time is too soon. And those who keep yakking about "imminent", don't really know what the situation is exactly.

Thank goodness Trump & Netenyahu are smart enough to comprehend all this.

If Bi Bi hasn't been using that word, imminent, about Iran getting a nuke since the 90's, his lies about Irans nuclear capabilities might be more credible. Apparently his definition is decades.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Director of the National Counterterrorism Center has had enough. He's understanding what a LOT of MAGA are saying, that this war isn't for American safety. That it's only fighting for Israel. I just wonder how much more Tulsi Gabbard can stomach.

Top Trump counterterrorism official Joe Kent resigns over Iran, saying it "posed no imminent threat to our nation"​

President Trump's director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Joe Kent, announced his immediate resignation Tuesday, citing the decision to begin a war against Iran when "Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation."



View attachment 1231876

It's fun to see all the Trump people get asked questions like "Was Iran an imminent threat?" and they're like "Only Trump can make that decision", which is nonsense.

 

[protectionist]

The similarities are there

yes - Al Zarqawi & his Al Qaeda in Iraq were world conquest jihadist lunatics, somewhat similar to the nutjobs in Iran. Both killing Americans et al.

 

[Delldude]

It's fun to see all the Trump people get asked questions like "Was Iran an imminent threat?" and they're like "Only Trump can make that decision", which is nonsense.

It would be even more fun to see your face after the conclusion of a nuclear event on US soil by Iran.

 

[protectionist]

It's fun to see all the Trump people get asked questions like "Was Iran an imminent threat?" and they're like "Only Trump can make that decision", which is nonsense.

Some damn fool yammering about "imminent" threat, when it doesn't mean a hill of beans, whether the threat is imminent or not.

Waiting to take action, until someone is just about to kill you, is just about the stupidist thing anybody could ever do.

 

[protectionist]

If Bi Bi hasn't been using that word, imminent, about Iran getting a nuke since the 90's, his lies about Irans nuclear capabilities might be more credible. Apparently his definition is decades.

"imminent" is meaningless.

 

[protectionist]

When you stretch out the timeline , the word “imminent “ loses all meaning

It has little or no meaning, stretched or not. Do you wait until someone is just about to kill you, before you take preventive action ? Only fools do that.

 

[protectionist]

Those in the National Counterterrorism Center, and in all of the US govt, should realize that even regime change to a peaceful govt in Iran, may not erase away the threat of nuclear catastrophes here in the US.

What is there to say that private groups (or groups) in Iran, completely separate from its govt, could not develop nuclear bombs on their own, in their private laboratories, and annihilate US cities with them ? This is a lot tougher task than first meets the eye.

What Trump & Netenhahu are doing now, could be just scratching the surface of this complex problem.

 

[Delldude]

When you stretch out the timeline , the word “imminent “ loses all meaning

What was that flash?

 

[protectionist]

I REALLY want to see the Kent supporters and the Trump/Netenhahu opponents answer the question asked in Post # 373.

 

[YoursTruly]

It has little or no meaning, stretched or not. Do you wait until someone is just about to kill you, before you take preventive action ? Only fools do that.

There's only so many times one can cry wolf, until people just stop believing there is one.
Especially when they claim it for decades, then Trump say's he's killed the wolf. And a couple months later claim they some imminent threat again.

It's one lie after another with this administration.

 

[Lesh]

yes - Al Zarqawi & his Al Qaeda in Iraq were world conquest jihadist lunatics, somewhat similar to the nutjobs in Iran. Both killing Americans et al.

Al Queda had virtually no power in Iraq until we invaded

That may end up similarly in Iran

 

[protectionist]

There's only so many times one can cry wolf, until people just stop believing there is one.
Especially when they claim it for decades, then Trump say's he's killed the wolf. And a couple months later claim they some imminent threat again.

It's one lie after another with this administration.

1 Doesnt matter is the threat is "imminent" (whatever that means) or not.

2. So you are idiot enough to think Iran is not developing nukes. Your just dumb, and wasting posting space.

 

[protectionist]

Al Queda had virtually no power in Iraq until we invaded

That may end up similarly in Iran

False! Al Zarqawi was a real threat. His al Qaeda in Iraq morphed into ISIS, a major opponent. You don't know history.

 

[protectionist]

Al Queda had virtually no power in Iraq until we invaded

That may end up similarly in Iran

What's your answer to the question in Post # 373 ?

And when it comes to nuclear annihilation, "may" isn't good enough.