Did the Bush Admin Make the Case that Iraq Presented an Imminent Threat?

[PatriotX]

That’s pretty much it.

There’s been noise that it did and that it didn’t.
If it did, when, how and where?
If it didn’t. Whence the urgency to invade Iraq?

I’m eager to see some Doper discourse.

[Rashak_Mani]

Blair did… those reports about 45 minute WMD. False… but he did. Dont remember Bush.

[PatriotX]

If it didn’t. Whence the urgency to invade Iraq?

[Aro]

Well, there were these
[quotes:]
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A39500-2003Aug9&notFound=true)

No one knows when Iraq will have its weapon, the story said, but "the first sign of a ‘smoking gun,’ they argue, may be a mushroom cloud."

Top officials made the rounds of Sunday talk shows that morning. Rice’s remarks echoed the newspaper story. She said on CNN’s “Late Edition” that Hussein was “actively pursuing a nuclear weapon” and that the tubes – described repeatedly in U.S. intelligence reports as “dual-use” items – were “only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs.”

“There will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons,” Rice added, "but we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

Anna Perez, a communications adviser to Rice, said Rice did not come looking for an opportunity to say that. "There was nothing in her mind that said, ‘I have to push the nuclear issue,’ " Perez said, “but Wolf [Blitzer] asked the question.”

Powell, a confidant said, found it “disquieting when people say things like mushroom clouds.” But he contributed in other ways to the message. When asked about biological and chemical arms on Fox News, he brought up nuclear weapons and cited the “specialized aluminum tubing” that “we saw in reporting just this morning.”

Cheney, on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” also mentioned the tubes and said "increasingly, we believe the United States will become the target" of an Iraqi nuclear weapon.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” asked listeners to “imagine a September 11th with weapons of mass destruction,” which would kill "tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children."

Bush evoked the mushroom cloud on Oct. 7, and on Nov. 12 Gen. Tommy R. Franks, chief of U.S. Central Command, said inaction might bring **“the sight of the first mushroom cloud on one of the major population centers on this planet.” **

I think threatening the US public with the idea that inaction=mushroom cloud would qualify as suggesting “imminent threat”.

[telesis2001]

BRAVO Aro!! Bravo.

[PatriotX]

Aro,interesting, but these don’t necessarily address a time issue that is imminent.

I’ll look for a legalese defintion of ‘imminent’ as in ‘imminent threat’.

As a sidebar of some import, were the acts of war that engaged in over the cuba missile crisis justified by imminent threat, or something other?

[Aro]

Simon X, perhaps not, depending on specific definitions as you say. But certainly went some ways towards stoking the flames of fear and garnering strong support for the war with the masses.

IMMINENT
1:-Threatening to occur immediately; near at hand; impending
2:2. Full of danger; threatening; menacing; perilous.

‘Immediately’ is a word you can take to represent any length of time depending on specific context, so I guess the definition is a little open.

BUSH CALLS IRAQ IMMINENT THREAT
More personal analysis rather than actual news reorting, but

*Bush argued that use of force is not only justified but necessary, and that the threat is not only real but imminent.

“If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late,” Bush said. “Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.”*

On this side of the pond, our own Mr Blair said Iraq posed a **“serious and current threat” **, along with signing his approval of the September dossier which said that Iraqi chemical and biological weapons would be “ready” within 45 minutes of an order to deploy them. But then, that wasn’t your question, was it?

[ElvisL1ves]

Is there any way to construe those comments as meaning that the threat was not imminent? No?

Remember, too, that “imminence” applies not only to the threat, but for the need for action. Even if Bush & Co. weaseled out on the time scale of the threat itself, their argument was that the war had to be fought right then. No, I don’t see a distinction that matters, not in effect.

[ElvisL1ves]

Oh yeah, your other question: Missiles that can reach you in a matter of minutes constitute an “imminent threat” by any reasonable definition. There may have been other agendas at play in the Cuban crisis, but that was clearly the center of it.

[Aro]

…reorting…

I need a P.

[kwildcat]

Not even the Head Cowboy himself believes the threat posed by Saddam Hussein was “imminent”. Here’s a quote from the speech he just delivered to the Australian parlaiment yesterday (or was it tomorrow? - I still have trouble with the whole International Date Line thing):

America, Australia and other nations acted in Iraq to remove a grave and gathering danger, instead of wishing and waiting while tragedy drew closer.

Even further back, the 2003 State of the Union address, he says

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

I urge everyone to read the actual transcript of his Jan. 2003 address, the one which most people credit with “making the case” for the Iraq war. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html “Could”, “might”, “may”, “gathering danger”, etc., etc., etc. Enough qualifying non-declarations to make Orwell proud. Christ, he’s even saying the threat is not imminent, but he’s going to do it anyway.

Let’s be brutally honest here - all you folks who believed the justifications (which have changed daily, mind you) the administration fabricated…YOU WERE DUPED!! The reason the rest of the world didn’t back up the “Coalition of the Willing” <guffaw> was because they apparently have superior critical listening and reading skills. Meanwhile the U.S. public was stampeded by the blatant fear-mongering Aro compiled.

Oxford English Dictionary definition: imminent: adj., "about to happen; overhanging; impending."

Dumb, stupid, short-sighted, f#$kwit neo-conservative pre-emptive foreign policy. All this dough spent on Iraq could have been going towards the real fight against terrorism, while biding our time on Iraq until sufficient international political will was generated to back up military action. Not to mention the diplomatic capitial that has been squandered on Iraq could have been used against N. Korea, Israel-Palestine, and hammering out more favorable trade terms with Japan & China.

[PatriotX]

Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

At least since October 7, 2002

President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
“The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda’s plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein’s actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities.”

But is this realy a declaration of imminent threat?

[Dinsdale]

I’m not sure exactly what you are asking.

I’m pretty sure the admin was very careful in their use of words, such that they did not positively allege definite knowledge that Iraq HAD certain weapons or capabilities. In large part, their strongest argument concerning chemical weapons was that Iraq had previously had them, and had not satisfactorily proven that they no longer had them.

So if you are looking for a cite to an admin quote that Iraq IS an imminent threat…, I fear you will not find it. Which means they were successful in creating some room for plausible deniability.

But, I feel very strongly that they chose their words with the aim of creating the impression that Iraq presentlyy had or would shortly acquire significant WMD capability and, therefore, was an imminent danger. Same sort of way they seemed to intentionally conflate Saddam with 9/11.

My impression was that their justification was primarily innuendo. I never saw the reason why at that particular time we had to take the extreme measure of pre-emptively invading a sovereign county. Why the existing sanctions were ineffective. It was not until Bush took the unilateral and expensive step of mobilizing that, IMO, it became too expensive, both in terms of $ and political capital, to recall them without some significant gain.

And I’d like SOMEONE to suggest why Iraq was a greater threat to the US or the international community than - say - N Korea.

In this lawyer’s mind, the admin carefully used words in a manner designed to convey one impression, yet leaving themselves a technical out. Very similar, IMO, to Clinton’s defining “is,” etc. Each person must decide whether they consider such - uh - creative word choice and definition the equivalent of dishonesty.

Or have I completely missed your point? Are you asking something subtly different than what has been discussed at length here before?

[Squink]

Global Message
• The security of our country is the commitment of both political parties, and the responsibility of both elected branches of government.
• Elected officials are working for a strong Congressional resolution that sends a clear message: UN Security Council demands must be followed and the Iraqi dictator must be disarmed. These requirements will be met, or they will be enforced.
• The danger is grave and growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons and is rebuilding facilities to make more. It could launch a biological or chemical attack 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime is seeking a nuclear bomb – and, with fissile material, could build one within a year.
• Iraq’s regime has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups – there are al-Qaida terrorists inside Iraq. The regime also practices the rape of women and the torture of dissenters and their children as methods of intimidation.
• The President has made it clear: we refuse to live in a future of fear. We are determined to build a future of security and peace for the world.

The White House: Sep 26, 2002

How much more of a clain if imminent threat do you want ?

[Squink]

:smack: -claim of

[PatriotX]

Of course, maybe Hussein wasn’t ‘polite’ about putting us on notice.

[PatriotX]

What bearing does the The National Security Strategy of the United States of America have on this issue?

**Prevent Our Enemies from Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends with Weapons of Mass Destruction**

For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.

We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction—weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning.

[Aro]

Minor hi-jack:

If the Bush Admin when out of their way to avoid a direct quote mentioning “Iraq is an imminent threat”, how else did they hope to sell the war to the International community?

Not that I have seen many signs of a US Administration (any one, not just the current one) refusing to do something that it was in their interest to do due to the disapproval of the international community, but doesn’t it follow that any wish for a pre-emptive war would have to be sold under the guise of “imminent threat” to qualify as legal? The UN Charter forbids member countries from committing acts of aggression or attacking another sovereign nation except in self-defence or if facing an imminent threat.

The former was definitely not proven, so…

[Aro]

‘when’ = ‘went’ in the first line. But you knew that already. :smack:

[plnnr]

I’m guessing that the question is the result of this editorial by George Will:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3436-2003Oct22.html

Which seems to take the stance of “Yes, we (the Adminstration) told you that the sky was falling, we just didn’t tell you when, exactly, the sky was falling.” aka The Chicken Little School of Foreign Policy.