# Did the Bush Admin Make the Case that Iraq Presented an Imminent Threat? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 23, 2003, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124 "2003-10-23T14:59:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/41 "2003-10-24T08:16:19Z")
**adaher** is quite right. The quotation in question refers to _Africa_, not _Niger_. Thankfully, GeeDubya was not called upon to pronounce “Niger”, which might have had truly dreadful political consequences. We must also thank **adaher** for demonstrating, yet again, that shamelessly disingenuous parsing and obfuscatory nit-picking have been raised to an art form by the Bushiviks. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/42 "2003-10-24T08:52:45Z")
It is Bush’s opposition that is parsing words and intentionally twisting whatever he said. Bush said quite clearly in the SOTU that the threat from Iraq was not imminent. In other speeches he said the threat was “growing”. The only ammunition the Bush-haters have is off-the-cuff remarks, which tend to be a very poor way to judge actual administration policy. Using such unprepared remarks, you can pretty much make a case for anything. Witness Wesley Clark or John Kerry’s position on the war. You can alternately say they supported it or opposed it, depending on which unprepared answer to a question you use. The greatest danger, that BUsh haters don’t realize, is that the impossibly high standards they set for Bush only make his opposition look worse when held to the same standards. THey also forget that the Clintons, who know better than anyone what kind of threat Saddam posed, have backed him up from the beginning and have not changed their position on the war and the intelligence that led up to it. So if you want to call Bush a liar, be prepared to call half of the Democrats in Congress liars. ---
**Author:** ![Aro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b3f665/32.png) [@Aro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aro)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 9:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/43 "2003-10-24T09:04:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by adaher \* > \*\*Bush said quite clearly in the SOTU that the threat from Iraq was not imminent. \*\* Perhaps then, you will be so kind as to explain to us all the enormous rush to war? Why was it so impossible to allow the inspectors a further 6 weeks\* to complete their work? - or whatever the remaining timescale was for completion of inspections. Can you also then explain the legal authority the decision to go to war had, in international law, if the threat was indeed classed and recognised as _“not imminent”_? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 9:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/44 "2003-10-24T09:12:16Z")
\*_Perhaps then, you will be so kind as to explain to us all the enormous rush to war? Why was it so impossible to allow the inspectors a further 6 weeks_ to complete their work? \*\* I don’t see how you can call almost a year a “rush”. Perhaps you want to know why we had to go to war in March 2003? Because if we were going to do it, it had to be done by then or else wait until next year. Keeping 200,000 troops in the Gulf for another year with Saddam still in power just wasn’t a realistic option. We either had to go in March 2003 or withdraw the troops. **Can you also then explain the legal authority the decision to go to war had, in international law, if the threat was indeed classed and recognised as “not imminent”?** There wasn’t any. And I could care less. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/45 "2003-10-24T11:30:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by adaher \* > \*\* > The only ammunition the Bush-haters have is off-the-cuff remarks, which tend to be a very poor way to judge actual administration policy. > \*\* Actually, and in truth, the Oct 7, 2002 quopte where Bush said, > [@](#): > > **[President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html)** > “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.” was a **_prepared_ speech**. So, your assertion that the only evidence is “off-the-cuff remarks” is an obvious falsehood. I’m surprised that you didn’t realize it. If you did realize it then the statement isn’t a mistake, but a lie. As far a “way to judge actual administration policy” there is the actual policy document \*\*[The National Security Strategy of the United States of America\*\*](http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html) that contains this in regards to “adapting” the definition of ‘imminent threat’: > [@](#): > > **[/url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss5.html] > 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. Do you have a better idea of how to judge policy other than by official policy? I’d hoped for much better rebuttal than that. I hope that you try again. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by adaher \* > \*\* > The greatest danger, that BUsh haters don’t realize, is that the impossibly high standards they set for Bush only make his opposition look worse when held to the same standards. > \*\* Those of us who are merely patriots concerned abut the strange and dangerous new direction our natl sec policy has taken would be incredibly delighted if the bar for constitutes honesty was raised for all politicians. There’re actually more than two side to issues in American politics. I hope that you grasp that. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by adaher \* > \*\* > THey also forget that the Clintons, who know better than anyone what kind of threat Saddam posed, have backed him up from the beginning and have not changed their position on the war and the intelligence that led up to it. So if you want to call Bush a liar, be prepared to call half of the Democrats in Congress liars. > \*\* As a rule, I believe that ALL politicians are liars until proven otherwise. It’s just a fact of life. But, just because they all lie doesn’t mean that lies have the ability to excuse one another. So, if you don’t mind, can we stick to the debate at hand? If you want to talk about Clinton’s lies, please open your own thread. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/46 "2003-10-24T11:38:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by adaher \* > \*\* > Perhaps you want to know why we had to go to war in March 2003? Because if we were going to do it, it had to be done by then or else wait until next year. Keeping 200,000 troops in the Gulf for another year with Saddam still in power just wasn’t a realistic option. We either had to go in March 2003 or withdraw the troops. > \*\* So we had to go to war when we did because we had the troops deployed. I’ll bite. Why’d we have to deploy the troops when we did? Why couldn’t we wait til next year? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/47 "2003-10-24T11:45:54Z")
What difference would it have made except to postpone the problem for one more year? Without deploying the troops, there would be no inspections at all. Since Saddam did not comply either fully or immediately, the decision was made to go to war. And your Bush quote, along with national security quote, in no way makes your case. THe Bush quote never refers to an imminent threat, and the national security policy was never invoked against Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/48 "2003-10-24T12:26:10Z")
No nukes. No vast stockpiles of VX nerve agents. No mobile bio-terror labs. No intercontinental drone aircraft. No connection to Al Queda. D for diddly squat. If a threat is non-existent, as this “threat” is revealed to have been, why should anyone care whether or not the non-existent threat might have been described as “imminent”? The man who sells you the Brooklyn Bridge with the prospect of an enormous profit has lied to you. Whether he promised that the profit would materialize next year or two days from now, is immaterial. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/49 "2003-10-24T13:16:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by adaher \* > \*\* > What difference would it have made except to postpone the problem for one more year? > \*\* Yeah, that’s the question I asked. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by adaher \* > \*\* > … national security policy was never invoked against Iraq. > \*\* So you’re saying that it was never said of Iraq that it was a rogue state inleague w/ terrorists, who would not seek to attack us using conventional means, who would instead 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? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/50 "2003-10-24T13:27:09Z")
**adaher** , please expound upon this: “Keeping 200,000 troops in the Gulf for another year with Saddam still in power just wasn’t a realistic option. We either had to go in March 2003 or withdraw the troops.” Why is that? Troops have been maintained in forward garrisons for extended periods since the time of the Romans. Or are you arguing that we had to go to war _to give the troops something to do?_ ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/51 "2003-10-24T13:35:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by adaher \* > \*\*THe Bush quote never refers to an imminent threat… > \*\* What _does_ he mean by “put on notice”? He was outlining the Iraqi threat. he compared it to our knwoledge of al Qaeda’s plans and designs of which “we had only hints” by saying “…in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined… Saddam Hussein’s actions have put us on notice.” So what does it mean to be "put on notice? In this quote, he seems to be equating “put on notice” with imminent threat. **"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 he’s not, what _is_ he saying? What on earth does ‘put on notice’ mean when the president uses it in these contexts? ---
**Author:** ![Chicago\_Faucet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chicago_faucet/32/13910_2.png) [@Chicago\_Faucet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chicago_Faucet)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/52 "2003-10-24T14:20:38Z")
Maybe I am the only one who has this point of view, but I feel that the war in Iraq was primarily media driven. I haven’t yet figured out the cause and effect in this relationship, but I distinctly remember our troops barely being in Afghanistan, when the media started pounding the Administration about plans to go into Iraq. It is my firm belief that the Administration had no plans to go into Iraq at that time, and simply started looking into it at the request of the media to get an answer about Iraq. Iraq wasn’t a new thing, and there was no shortage of information on Iraq. We had been flying dozens of daily sorties patrolling over Iraq, including from my squadron, all during the 1990s. All of the above quotes from Condi Rice, George Bush, et al. were made after these barrages of questions by the press. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/53 "2003-10-24T16:38:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chicago Faucet \* > Maybe I am the only one who has this point of view, but I feel that the war in Iraq was primarily media driven. The media made him do it? Well, you _are_ the first person I’ve heard express this idea, yes. Bush identified them as part of the Axis of Evil in January, 2002. If you check the link to PBS, he was making statements about Iraq in March and June of 2002. He reportedly mentioned Iraq to his staff immediately after 9/11. And my recollection is exactly the opposite of yours; when Bush began talking up Iraq, as I noticed in August, I thought he was crazy and I laughed out loud because nobody else was talking about Iraq. I thought there was no way he would be able to generate support for attacking Iraq at that point. > [@](#): > > I haven’t yet figured out the cause and effect in this relationship, but I distinctly remember our troops barely being in Afghanistan, when the media started pounding the Administration about plans to go into Iraq. It is my firm belief that the Administration had no plans to go into Iraq at that time, and simply started looking into it at the request of the media to get an answer about Iraq. > > Iraq wasn’t a new thing, and there was no shortage of information on Iraq. We had been flying dozens of daily sorties patrolling over Iraq, including from my squadron, all during the 1990s. > > All of the above quotes from Condi Rice, George Bush, et al. were made after these barrages of questions by the press. I’d love to see anything remotely resembling support for this. Any news analysis, public awareness polls, anything that would suggest that Bush was responding to rather than leading the increased sentiment that Iraq was dangerous and should be attacked. Frankly, this is beyond the backpeddling I thought we would see from conservatives on the matter. First, it was Weapons Will be Found! Then, It Wasn’t Because of Weapons! Then it was Other People Said Iraq Was Dangerous Too! Then, He Never Said Imminent Threat. The Senate is now going to say Tenet Made Him Do It. But you **Chicago Faucet** are the vanguard of The Media Made Him Do It! As a fellow Pittsburgher, I am proud of you! Hoorah! ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/54 "2003-10-24T17:41:20Z")
> [@](#): > > Frankly, this is beyond the backpeddling I thought we would see from conservatives on the matter. First, it was Weapons Will be Found! Then, It Wasn’t Because of Weapons! Then it was Other People Said Iraq Was Dangerous Too! Then, He Never Said Imminent Threat. The Senate is now going to say Tenet Made Him Do It. But you **Chicago Faucet** are the vanguard of The Media Made Him Do It! Don’t forget **adaher** and the school of He Didn’t Use Those Exact Specific Words So That’s Not What He Said, either. :rolleyes: (And people wonder why I call Bushistas sheep. Go and graze, kids…) ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2003, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/55 "2003-10-24T19:24:04Z")
And here I thought it was those [practical jokers at the CIA](http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact): > [@](#): > > Another explanation was provided by a former senior C.I.A. officer. He had begun talking to me about the Niger papers in March, when I first wrote about the forgery, and said, “Somebody deliberately let something false get in there.” He became more forthcoming in subsequent months, eventually saying that a small group of disgruntled retired C.I.A. clandestine operators had banded together in the late summer of last year and drafted the fraudulent documents themselves. > > “The agency guys were so pissed at Cheney,” the former officer said. “They said, ‘O.K, we’re going to put the bite on these guys.’”… :smack: ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2003, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/56 "2003-10-25T07:07:53Z")
So did Wesley Clark support the war or didn’t he? I can prove that he did. And then you can prove that he didn’t. Same goes for imminence. They said some things that indicated yes, some things that indicated no. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2003, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/57 "2003-10-25T11:50:24Z")
Isn’t moral relativism GRAND ! I’ll bet you can also use it to prove that duck quacks don’t echo. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2003, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/58 "2003-10-25T12:22:39Z")
I’m not trying to make moral relativism. I’m just pointing out that for every Bush quote that seems to indicate an imminent threat I can find one that specifically says there is no imminent threat. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2003, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/59 "2003-10-25T16:57:12Z")
Well, that’s splendid, **adaher** , truly splendid! The threat that did not exist was not necessarily depicted as being an _imminent_ threat! That certainly clears that up! We weren’t sold a one hundred pound bag of pure, unadulterted horseshit! There are nuggets scattered throughout which, in the right light and if you squint, might bear a vague resemblance to truth! Gasp! Boy, we “Bush haters” are sure put in our place now, huh? ---
**Author:** ![telesis2001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ce73a5/32.png) [@telesis2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/telesis2001)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2003, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/60 "2003-10-26T01:03:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by adaher \* > \*\*I’m not trying to make moral relativism. I’m just pointing out that for every Bush quote that seems to indicate an imminent threat I can find one that specifically says there is no imminent threat. \*\* Please find one, just one, statement made by Bush _before_ the invasion, stating _ **specifically** _ that Iraq “is no imminent threat” to America. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124.md?page=4)