Basically, Rumsfeld said reporters and others were making up the immediate threat line, and said to give him a citation of someone in the administration using it.
Rumsfeld's testimony to Congress in September 2002: "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people"
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Isn't that true? More immediate doesn't mean the same thing as immediate.
Example: A porcupine is more fluffy than cement. Doesn't mean the porcupine is particularly fluffy.
[ March 15, 2004, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Although I do think Rumsfeld's response was a complete crack-up.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think more immediate threat does imply an immediate threat. Consider "nothing is more harmful", which does imply harmful.
Also, if you take a look at the complete transcipt of his letter, it is quite clear he did mean immediate threat:
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)