I’m not exactly asking " for a cite to an admin quote that Iraq IS an imminent threat…," so much as i’m asking, did they make that case? It’s entirely possible, IMHO, to make a case for something w/o actually coming out and saying it.
I have seen this question debated ad naseum elsewhere. I am not sure of the point of the effort. Is it to say that Bush wasn’t wrong about Iraq because he never said it was an “imminent threat”? This gets at your second question: if he did not, why the urgency for war. The real question becomes: If the justification was not at the level of “imminent threat,” it must have been somewhat down the putative threat-severity scale. What was that point, in Bush’s mind or in his words?
Clearly, we were in haste to go to war, and the reasoning employed was erroneous. So what is to be gained by those who wish to argue that the words “imminent threat” did not escape his lips?
What would the threat category label be that would apply to this:
From “Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation, The Cross Hall,” March 17. (Where he gave Saddam 48 hours to get out of town. Even though he was the Ace of Spades, apparently.)
Clearly, he indicates that Iraq is a threat to the US, even in our own country. He does not use the word “imminent.” does it matter?
Here is an interesting collection of quotes from the administration, assembled by PBS.
Yeah, I was pretty certain they never said it in as many words. It was pretty obvious even as the speeches were being made. The weasel words were all over the place. Yet, an overwhelming percentage of the gullible public and both parties in both houses seemed to consider it convincing.
Same way the admin never came out and flatly said Saddam was behind 9/11. But gee whiz. What could have possibly caused the public to draw that conclusion?
I’m a little unclear on your terminology. When you ask if they “made the case,” are you asking if they TRIED TO ARGUE that Iraq was an imminent threat?
Or are you asking if they succeeded in PROVING that Iraq was an imminent threat?
I think they definitely TRIED to create the impression that something had to be done about Iraq RIGHT NOW. All the photos of the supposed chemical lab trucks, the supposed attempts to get materal from Niger, etc. At the same time, however, by choosing their words carefully, they left themselves wiggle room.
I also think they woefully failed to PROVE such a case. My thoughts, after hearing of Powell’s evidence presented before the UN was - “That’s it?”
Also, I feel the word imminent is key, because I believe the admin avoided using that specific word because it did not have such proof, and that word has specific meanings and implications in various contexts.
If Iraq “has weapons of mass destruction”, hasn’t the administration put the nuclear boogeyman under every person’s bed? It was left up to the gullible general public to decide whether or not Iraq having WMD constituted an imminent threat.
Dinsdale,
I’d have to say, “TRIED TO ARGUE that Iraq was an imminent threat,” is closest to what I was asking. IOW, is is fair to charge them w/ having sold the invasion on the premise of an imminent threat?
Whence the urgency? The window of opportunity was there but finite, following 9/11 and with public acceptance readily obtainable.
Why do it at all? PNAC had as members, or at least inspirees, the key decisionmakers. Toss in th’awl bidness and Saddam’s being an ass and you’re there.
Splendid idea for a thread, Simon. Granted, I think the issue of whether or not the Bushiviks ever claimed an “imminent” threat is little more than an interesting excercise, I do like the idea of the Boards as a place for Google-hounds to gather and get the scent before loping off into cyberspace
(One almost pictures The Smoking Cite, stumbling in panic and desperation through the quagmire while the hounds baying draws ever nearer…)
Same thing is happening at Media Whores and Talking Points Memo, though prob the Horse is a reflection of TP. They have a contest going for the best cite on this point. Winner gets a T-shirt or something!
Let’s win this one, Leering Lefties! The SDMB has some of the best Google athletes and Nexis geeks in the world! Think of the fame! The smug lording it over! The gloating!
May I assume there would be no objection if I forwarded such a winner onward? With due credit, of course.
A scurrillous, cantankerous, and entirely partisan Leftist assault on…well, you know. Not at all reputable, of course. They specialize in harpooning Bushivik apologists in the Media.
Critiques: Minty, yours speaks to the avalanche of horseshit as regards the existence of WMD’s. While this is a splendid example of bald-faced mendacity, it doesn’t really speak to the imminent threat of the use of non-existent weapons.
Simon: You don’t catch a slippery critter like Ol’ Ari that easy, nosireeBob. His response could be massaged to represent a sort of non-response: while his questioner was engaged with the issue of immediacy of the threat, Ari responded with the presumed consequences of the threat. Would the Bushiviks stoop to such shameless niggling and parsing? Bet me.
What those quotes say is basically, “We don’t know”.
And Bush’s SOTU speech debunks anything that might have been said off the cuff before.
I don’t know about you, but I would consider a SOTU statement more significant as a statement of administration policy than an off-the-cuff remark in an interview.