I remember I watched the clip. That's why this contradiction, from a site I visit fairly frequently and believe is not biased, was a surprise.

Here are the relevant text of the paragraphs Freidman quotes more in context (note the speech is answering questions raised by critics which are shown in italics in the original document I've bolded the quote Meet the Press used):

"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. Before Operation Desert Storm in 1991, the best intelligence estimates were that Iraq was at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. The experts were flat wrong. When the U.S. got on the ground, it found the Iraqi's were probably six months to a year away from having a nuclear weapon – not 5 to 7 years.

We do not know today precisely how close he is to having a deliverable nuclear weapon. What we do know is that he has a sizable appetite for them, that he has been actively and persistently pursuing them for more than 20 years, and that we allow him to get them at our peril. Moreover, let's say he is 5-7 years from a deliverable nuclear weapon. That raises the question: 5-7 years from when? From today? From 1998, when he kicked out the inspectors? Or from earlier, when inspectors were still in country? There is no way of knowing except from the ground, unless one believes what Saddam Hussein says."

"There are a number of terrorist states pursuing weapons of mass destruction—Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, to name but a few. But no terrorist state poses a greater and more immediate threat to the security of our people, and the stability of the world, than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq...

Some argue that North Korea and Iran are more immediate threats than Iraq. North Korea almost certainly has nuclear weapons, and is developing missiles that will be able to reach most of the continental United States. Iran has stockpiles of chemical weapons, is developing ballistic missiles of increasing range, and is aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons. The question is asked: why not deal with them first?"

The context is clear. Not that Iraq was an imminent threat per se, but that it's threat was more imminent than North Korea and Iran as some claim. That was perfectly true true at the time.

I don't see that the statement from SpinSanity I quoted is contradicted by this in the least (my quote above looses their links to the full text of Rumsfeld's speech - you can see the whole text there if you're interested). The quotes Meet the Press used ARE out of context. Given what was said over all by the Administration, I've got to believe the whole "imminent threat" debate is crap.