# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2004, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/81 "2004-01-09T03:02:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Mace \* > [Wrong again](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107775,00.html). OK, John, you win. It seems Fox’s search function doesn’t work worth a damn for me. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2004, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/82 "2004-01-09T03:11:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SimonX \* > Has the Bush Admin said anything re their presentation of the relative imminence of the threat to the US from Iraq? Or has this been entirely a pundit thing? In his december interview with Diane Sawyer, the president had this to say: > [@](#): > > SAWYER: But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction, as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still – > > BUSH: So what’s the difference? > > (Smile’s gone.) > > SAWYER: Well – > > BUSH: The possibility that he could acquire weapons. If he were acquire weapons [sic], he would be the danger. That’s the – that’s what I’m trying to explain to you. [here](http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/121403.htm) So weapons and weapons programs are officially indistinguishable. I expect that soon a highly placed administration official will inform us all that weapons programs, and doodles on scratchpads are _also_ officially indistinguishable. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2004, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/83 "2004-01-09T03:14:22Z")
Actually, I was in church today. I went to a memorial for a fella who has/had one of those names that’s like Mike Hunt. It sounds funnny when you say it. Have you checked anywhere for an instances of the Bush Admin doing any of these things? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2004, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/84 "2004-01-09T03:29:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by squeegee \* > \*\*OK, John, you win. It seems Fox’s search function doesn’t work worth a damn for me. \*\* Not to beat a dead horse, but I hope that now you will at least **question** the received wisdom in some quarters that FOX News is hopelessly biased in favor or Bush, even if you don’t fully divest yourself of that idea.🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Ace\_Face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/858c86/32.png) [@Ace\_Face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ace_Face)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2004, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/85 "2004-01-09T03:58:12Z")
So if Bush **didn’t** present Iraq as an imminent threat, the war was somehow justified? Huh-wa? ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2004, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/86 "2004-01-09T04:00:44Z")
Me? I was poking fun. Not the insect-sized font face I posted in – it always denotes humor. 🙂 But, honestly – I was curious how the Fox spin might differ from others’, and I was darned if I could find hide-nor-hair of the story on [FoxNews.com](http://FoxNews.com). As I said, thier search function sucks. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2004, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/87 "2004-01-09T04:02:01Z")
Previous post was directed at **John Mace**. Ahem - “ **note** the insect-sized font etcetc.” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2004, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/88 "2004-01-09T04:05:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by squeegee \* > \*\*Me? I was poking fun. Not the insect-sized font face I posted in – it always denotes humor. 🙂 > > But, honestly – I was curious how the Fox spin might differ from others’, and I was darned if I could find hide-nor-hair of the story on [FoxNews.com](http://FoxNews.com). As I said, thier search function sucks. \*\* Sorry I missed the humor aspect. BTW, I never used the search function. I just went right to their home page and followed the links. It took me 3 seconds. Your computer must be one them thar liberal biased ones, that screws up right-thinking web sites.🙂 ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2004, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/89 "2004-01-09T05:12:19Z")
😃 ---
**Author:** ![spanna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a6a055/32.png) [@spanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spanna)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2004, 8:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/90 "2004-01-09T08:41:02Z")
**Adaher** > [@](#): > > 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. That is probably the scariest thing I have read on this site ---
**Author:** ![spanna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a6a055/32.png) [@spanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spanna)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2004, 8:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/91 "2004-01-09T08:42:29Z")
Damn should have previewed that should have read * * * 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:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2004, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/92 "2004-01-09T14:09:39Z")
Article worth noting: [http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040109/1/3h5er.html](http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040109/1/3h5er.html) Warmongering right-wingers. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2004, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/93 "2004-01-09T15:53:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by furt \* > \*\*Article worth noting: > > [http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040109/1/3h5er.html](http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040109/1/3h5er.html) > > Warmongering right-wingers. \*\* Clinton was the president when we launched this invasion? Well, blow me down. All this time, I thought that GWB was the prez in 2003. Derned, sneaky Clinton. :rolleyes: I thought that Hussein had banned weapons too. Still doesn’t mean taht we should’ve mounted a huge invasion the way that we did. Paraphrased from another board: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by simonX, posted February 23, 2003: > \* > I’m not denying that Hussein is an evil, dangerous, homicidal, lying dictator in violation of UNSC resolutions. > **All of this is given**. > > My argument goes like this: > > 1. The stated reasons for the necessity of US invasion of Iraq is that Iraq is a threat to the national security of the US and our allies and our interests and that Iraq is in material breach of UN Security Council resolutions. > > a) The reasons given that Iraq is a threat to our national security are: > Iraq is actively pursuing weapons of WMD. > Iraq has ties to international terrorist groups. > There is a possibility that Iraq will make WMD available to these terrorist groups. > > b) The reason Iraq is seen as being in material breach of UNSC resolutions are: > There has been a lack of evidence about the destruction of known quantities of chemical and biological agents. > There have been various intelligences strongly suggesting that there are ongoing programs to continue developing WMD. > > 1. There are other countries that represent even larger threats to the national security of the US and our allies and our interests and are in material breach of UN Security Council resolutions. > > a) Other countries are actively pursuing weapons of WMD with greater successes. > Other countries have ties to international terrorist groups that are more clear, more current, more substantial. > There are greater possibilities that other countries will make WMD available to these terrorist groups. > b) Other countries are in breach of UNSC resolutions and international treaties by their own admission as well as independent inteligence report. > > Therefore, since all of the stated reasons for the necessity of an US invasion of Iraq are fulfilled by other nations and since these conditions are more thoroughly fulfilled by some of these other nations there must be unstated reasons for the necessity of an US invasion of Iraq. > > **What these reasons are are open to speculation.** I’ve not done enough research to come to a conclusion. And the assessment of the CIA that Hussein was very unlikely to give any NBC weapons to terrorists UNLESS we invaded. Invading Iraq increased the likelihood of Hussein giving whatever banned weapons he may’ve had to terrorists. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2004, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/94 "2004-01-09T19:04:58Z")
With gratitude from Tom Tomorrow, by way of Kos: NOW “I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection” between Iraq and al Qaida. - Secretary of State Colin Powell, 1/9/04 THEN “I want to bring to your attention today [to] the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network…al-Qaida affiliates based in Baghdad now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for Saddam’s network, and they have now been operating freely in [Baghdad].” - Secretary of State Colin Powell, 2/5/03 If he hasn’t seen any by now, necessarily, that means he hadn’t seen any at the time he made these remarks. There is most likely a more diplomatic term, but I’m too lazy for a theasaurus right now, I’ll just stick with “lying”. Mr. Secretary, it is with considerable regret and disappointment that I come to this conclusion: you are a whore, sir. I am not sure by which coin you were corrupted, if I had to guess, I’d guess “ambition”. You have disgraced yourself and the nation you were sworn to serve. And in so doing, cooperated in the death and injury of unknown thousands of innocents. Resign. Today. Pass the document across the appropriate desk, and then pick up the phone. _60 Minutes_, perhaps. (They will open up thier schedule, I have no doubt…) Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but. “Hero” is forever beyond your reach. But by this time next week, you could once again claim “honorable”. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2004, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/95 "2004-01-09T19:11:43Z")
Fair enough, and a reasonable position. What I find unreasonable are the assertions made by many that this administration knew Saddam did not have active weapons systems and knowingly lied. In order to believe _that_, one must also conclude that Clinton and all his top people were in on the lie, as well as most Democratic members of Congress and most leaders of other countries. That _everyone_ seems to have been wrong is an indictment of how weak our “human intelligence” gathering has gotten over the last 20+ years. But of course phrasing it that way makes it the fault of both parties and several presidents, and we can’t have that. **’Luci** , stop playing dumb. You are NOT so bereft of cognitive skills that you actually think that those two statements logically contradict. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2004, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/96 "2004-01-09T19:11:56Z")
_lowers the Powell honor flag to half-staff_ ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2004, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/97 "2004-01-09T19:24:16Z")
> [@](#): > > _originally posted by **furt** :_ > > **’Luci** , stop playing dumb. You are NOT so bereft of cognitive skills that you actually think that those two statements logically contradict. Wha? I guess I _am_ that dumb… could you explain please how the second statement does not discredit the earlier statement? And btw, the common assertion I’ve seen (and made) is that the Bush administration knowingly lied when they said the had _positive proof_ of active weapons and terrorist connections. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2004, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/98 "2004-01-09T19:25:38Z")
**furt** , I think the point is that Clinton recognized just how fuzzy the intelligence on Saddam’s weapons systems was and because of that declined to take it to war, whereas the Bush administration was apparently so champing at the bit to get Saddam that they were perfectly willing to ignore the fuzz factor. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2004, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/99 "2004-01-09T19:37:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by furt \* > \*\*Fair enough, and a reasonable position. > > What I find unreasonable are the assertions made by many that this administration knew Saddam did not have active weapons systems and knowingly lied.\*\* The lie was not in stating something they knew to be false, the lie was in stating a certainty they did not have. They said they “knew”, in no uncertain terms. They did not. They lied. > [@](#): > > \*\*…But of course phrasing it that way makes it the fault of both parties and several presidents, and we can’t have that… \*\* I certainly can. I haven’t the least qualm about it. If Clinton deserves a share of the blame, so be it. But the Commander in Chief’s signature on the order is not his. > [@](#): > > \*\*…stop playing dumb. You are NOT so bereft of cognitive skills that you actually think that those two statements logically contradict. \*\* At the risk of losing your generous regard, I must insist that I do think so. The first statement denies solid, concrete evidence. The second statement asserts certainty. There are no qualifiers, no “trap-door” prevarications, he stated the connection between Iraq and al-Queda baldly and flatly. If you think you can demonstrate otherwise, you are entirely a liberty to do so. Beyond suggesting that your humble **e.** displays willful ignorance, you have made no such effort. ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2004, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124/100 "2004-01-09T20:00:16Z")
For a refresher as to what Secty Powell presented to the UN: [http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/17300.htm](http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/17300.htm) He certainly seems convinced of the al-Queda/Iraq connection in the body of the presentation. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-bush-admin-make-the-case-that-iraq-presented-an-imminent-threat/209124.md?page=6)