Now, Bush says he never said Iraq was an imminent threat

[II_Gyan_II]

Indeed, watching the BBC series Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister is enlightening.

Some choice and applicable dialogues from the series here.

[Cerri]

Q Was the President misled? Did the President mislead the country in any way –

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, David, in terms of the Iraq Survey Group, that work is ongoing. We want them to finish their work. It’s important that they find the truth. That was what the President told the Iraq Survey Group to do: find the truth. And so they will gather all the facts that they can and they will come to – well, they will draw as complete a picture as possible. And then we can go back and compare what was known before with what we’ve learned since.

Read: I’m going to keep sidestepping the issue, because we can’t seem to come up with a plausible reason why we had to go to war with Iraq right this second that lasts longer than 5 min and doesn’t appear to have as many holes as Swiss cheese.

In the end, I don’t think it matters much at all whether it was the media or the government that used the term imminent threat, because even if it was the media that came up with the term, the government didn’t do much to discourage the illusion that they felt it WAS an imminent threat.
I think perception is at least a good portion of reality to alot of people, and the Administration did everything to maintain our 911 fears, did everything to make the American populace think Sadaam was right then, at that very moment, plotting to kill them in thier beds while they slept, dreaming the dreams of the blissfully ignorant.

For my money, I don’t see how it was worth the loss of our government’s credibility, on either a domestic or international level. The Boy Who Cried Wolf may just be a fable, but that doesn’t mean it’s still not a good lesson about the dangers of misleading people deliberately.

[Hammer]

I’m sorry but was there actually a link in this entire thread that points to G. W. Bush actually saying that Iraq was an imminent threat? I seemed to have missed it. After all the op reads:

Now, Bush says he never said Iraq was an imminent threat

[Ramanujan]

@Cerri

Read: I’m going to keep sidestepping the issue, because we can’t seem to come up with a plausible reason why we had to go to war with Iraq right this second that lasts longer than 5 min and doesn’t appear to have as many holes as Swiss cheese.

In the end, I don’t think it matters much at all whether it was the media or the government that used the term imminent threat, because even if it was the media that came up with the term, the government didn’t do much to discourage the illusion that they felt it WAS an imminent threat.
I think perception is at least a good portion of reality to alot of people, and the Administration did everything to maintain our 911 fears, did everything to make the American populace think Sadaam was right then, at that very moment, plotting to kill them in thier beds while they slept, dreaming the dreams of the blissfully ignorant.

For my money, I don’t see how it was worth the loss of our government’s credibility, on either a domestic or international level. The Boy Who Cried Wolf may just be a fable, but that doesn’t mean it’s still not a good lesson about the dangers of misleading people deliberately.

so far in my reading of yesterday’s briefing (i’m about halfway done), i couldn’t find a single answer to any of the questions asked. and he said “in a post-september 11th world” 5 times and started saying it a 6th.

so it seems when confronted with a tough question, the appropriate response is “well, in a post-september 11th world…” and i’m not going to answer your question, i’m just going to make sure we keep you sufficiently scared.

[urban1a]

I personally don’t care whether GWB, personnaly, ever used the term imminent. Apparently it was used by other administration officials, according to quotes, above, but the entire thrust of the administration pre-war rhetoric, was to indicate that the threat was imminent and that we could not wait to attack (for instance, as others have mentioned, that we couldn’t wait another couple of weeks for the inspectors to complete their job).

On the other hand, I don’t remember the term ‘grave and gathering threat’ being used until it became apparent that no WMD would be found.

It’s very clear to me that the administration is simply trying to cover it’s ass. Didn’t Bush one time try to blame the whole thing on ‘revisionist historians’? I haven’t heard that excuse for quite a while. Maybe they’ll being it up again, now.

Bob

[mack]

FWIW Spinsanity has a take on this exact issue:

As a factual matter, conservatives are largely correct and liberal critics and journalists are guilty of cheap shots or lazy reporting. However, the evidence is not completely clear and both sides are guilty of distorting this complex situation for political gain. Specifically, while there’s some evidence indicating the Bush administration did portray Iraq as an imminent threat, there’s much more that it did not. Those attempting to assert that the White House called Iraq an imminent threat are ignoring significant information to the contrary. Similarly, those who say the Bush administration never used the phrase or implied as much are ignoring important, though isolated, evidence.
<snip>
As we have pointed out before, many of the arguments for war made by the Bush administration were deceptive or false. However, critics who make it appear that the Bush administration’s case relied primarily on claims of an imminent threat distort a more complex argument that painted Iraq as an intolerable, but not imminent, threat. Those unfair attacks do not make it legitimate for Bush supporters to jump on any critic who uses the phrase, however, or claim that nobody in the administration ever suggested Iraq could pose an “imminent threat.” Complexity is not an excuse for cheap shots from either side.

[quixotic78]

@mack

FWIW Spinsanity has a take on this exact issue: "…Specifically, while there’s some evidence indicating the Bush administration did portray Iraq as an imminent threat, there’s much more that it did not. Those attempting to assert that the White House called Iraq an imminent threat are ignoring significant information to the contrary…’

This doesn’t make any sense to me whatsoever. It reminds me of a true or false statement from the Fourth Grade: “George Washington was the first president, was also a general, had a wife named Martha, and was nine feet tall – true or false?” It’s false, of course, because he wasn’t nine feet tall. It only takes one false phrase to make the whole statement false.

Similarly, if the Administration says, “SH is a grave threat. Big threat. Imminent threat. Looming threat. Grave threat. Gathering threat. Grave and gathering threat. Big threat,” isn’t it fair for me to say that they did call him an imminent threat?

Of course, this whole thing is silly anyway. This Administration is literal only when it suits them, and absurdly flexible with their language most of the time. Does anybody remember when Ari Fleischer (I think) said that the president meant “Weapons of Mass Destruction PROGRAMS” when he said “WMDs,” like they’re synonymous or something? I liked that one.

[ElvisL1ves]

Quick show of hands: How many people think it matters to public perception which specific words he used? The basic meaning was the same, the use as a basis for war was the same, and the lack of factual basis for either one is the same. Insisting on a verbal point that fine looks, to most people IMHO, and is IMHO, simple weaseling.

It doesn’t really matter that Ari Fleischer is gone. He left enough of an aura of Zieglerian slime to attach itself to this McClellan guy, too.

[John_Mace]

You guys are arguing about the wrong thing. Go back to the SotU quote, above. Bush clearly stated that he didn’t think we could wait until the threat was imminent. To paraphrase, imminent = too late. Maybe the threat was imminent, maybe it wasn’t. It doesn’t matter.

Argue with the pre-emtive doctrine if you want, but this “imminent threat” bru-ha-ha is just that-- much ado about nothing.

[OliverH]

@John Mace

You guys are arguing about the wrong thing. Go back to the SotU quote, above. Bush clearly stated that he didn’t think we could wait until the threat was imminent. To paraphrase, imminent = too late. Maybe the threat was imminent, maybe it wasn’t. It doesn’t matter.

Argue with the pre-emtive doctrine if you want, but this “imminent threat” bru-ha-ha is just that-- much ado about nothing.

The point is that that’s not what imminent means. If it’s too late, it is by definition not imminent. Imminent is right before ‘too late.’

[Ravenman]

@quixotic78

Similarly, if the Administration says, “SH is a grave threat. Big threat. Imminent threat. Looming threat. Grave threat. Gathering threat. Grave and gathering threat. Big threat,” isn’t it fair for me to say that they did call him an imminent threat?

Of course, this whole thing is silly anyway. This Administration is literal only when it suits them, and absurdly flexible with their language most of the time. Does anybody remember when Ari Fleischer (I think) said that the president meant “Weapons of Mass Destruction PROGRAMS” when he said “WMDs,” like they’re synonymous or something? I liked that one.

So, just come up with a cite for the bit where an Administration official uttered the words, “Iraq is an imminent threat” and we can all be set right. But in my book, a “grave, big, looming, grave, gathering, grave and gathering, big, silly, fat, mustachioed threat” is just that, espeically when it is clear that those words have been chosen very carefully. If I then choose to summarize those words by using the term “ultra-humongous threat,” that is not the fault of those who chose their own words.

But then, don’t confuse my position by thinking that it was a good thing to go to war against Iraq, no matter what words were used to describe the threat from Saddam. Leaving rhetoric for reality, I don’t see that Iraq in recent years was any more of a threat than, say, Libya in the late '80s – a “threat” in the sense that the leaders of both countries were pretty much well-armed irritants and annoyances.

And cheers to mack for his link to an explanation of this whole tempest-in-teapot that is fair and honest.

If only Americans could maintain their outrage at American troops dying every day as some folks do about presidential semantics…

[quixotic78]

@Ravenman

So, just come up with a cite for the bit where an Administration official uttered the words, “Iraq is an imminent threat” and we can all be set right.

Is this close enough? (Linked from the link in the OP)

Q Well, we went to war, didn’t we, to find these – because we said that these weapons [of mass destruction – q78] were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn’t that true?

MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely. One of the reasons that we went to war was because of their possession of weapons of mass destruction. And nothing has changed on that front at all.

If you want to quibble that Ari Fleischer only said that the weapons themselves were an imminent threat and not the country itself, be my guest. Or if you want to quibble that it was a reporter who said it and Ari only agreed with it (but didn’t say it), then good luck with that. Me? This is the drop of falseness that makes the whole shebang utter, demonstrable shit.

[Sofa_King]

I believe I’ve thought of a term for the concept which might be worthy of the President himself:

Pre-imminent.

I would also remind all of you that this concept is exactly what a lot of us have been bitching about all this time. It is an aggressive, highly subjective policy which, because it is based upon the premise of acting upon incomplete information, is bound to eventually cause us to war against an enemy when we did not need to act in such an aggressive way.

Looks to me like we came up all cherries on the first pull.

[OliverH]

@Ravenman

So, just come up with a cite for the bit where an Administration official uttered the words, “Iraq is an imminent threat” and we can all be set right. But in my book, a “grave, big, looming, grave, gathering, grave and gathering, big, silly, fat, mustachioed threat” is just that, espeically when it is clear that those words have been chosen very carefully. If I then choose to summarize those words by using the term “ultra-humongous threat,” that is not the fault of those who chose their own words.

Where precisely do you see the difference between a “clear and present danger” and an imminent threat?

[elucidator]

well, to this country semanticist, “clear and present” means even more immediate than does “imminent”, since “imminent” has the quality of pending, soon to be “present” but not “present” as yet.

When your sweetie says “I’m on my way home, and we have to talk the relationship/I’ve rented a serious chick-flick” the danger is “imminent”, when the car door slams, it is “clear and present”.

[OliverH]

@elucidator

well, to this country semanticist, “clear and present” means even more immediate than does “imminent”, since “imminent” has the quality of pending, soon to be “present” but not “present” as yet.

When your sweetie says “I’m on my way home, and we have to talk the relationship/I’ve rented a serious chick-flick” the danger is “imminent”, when the car door slams, it is “clear and present”.

Well, see, there’s this statement by the US Ambassador to the Bahamas I stumbled upon, which is even headlined “Iraq: A Clear and Present Danger” and he also states “As President Bush so clearly said, Saddam Hussein represents a clear and present danger for not just the United States, but for the entire world.”

So, if ‘clear and present’ is more close than imminent, then what are we to make of this?

(BTW, the site is http://usembassy.state.gov/nassau/wwwhiraq.html )

And the Ambassador to Japan said on Japanese TV:
"This is a war - or it’s a potential war ? against a regime that has gassed its own people, that has a ruthless dictatorship, that threatens the world with weapons of mass destruction, is a clear and present danger to civilization - not only in that region but throughout the world. These are proven facts. "
( http://usembassy.state.gov/tokyo/wwwh20030303c3.html )

So he says it’s a proven fact that Iraq has WMDs and is a clear and present danger to civilization. Funny.

Likewise, Condi Rice referred to Iraq as a clear and present threat "Bush’s State of the Union message focused attention on WMD and turned up the heat on certain countries which National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said “are a clear and present danger” to the United States and the rest of the civilized world. Why? “Because the Iranians, who spread and support terror around the world, the North Koreans, who proliferate these weapons, and the Iraqis, who make a region of great importance to us unstable, clearly are a clear and present threat to America, America’s interests, and America’s allies.” " (from http://usembassy-australia.state.gov/hyper/2002/0312/epf206.htm )

[TWDuke]

@Ravenman

If only Americans could maintain their outrage at American troops dying every day as some folks do about presidential semantics…

What about when the two are inextricably linked, such as when American troops are dying every day because the country believed it was imminently threatened, and the very people who fostered that belief are quibbling over semantics? Would it be OK to be outraged?

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@ElvisL1ves

How many people think it matters to public perception which specific words he used? The basic meaning was the same, the use as a basis for war was the same, and the lack of factual basis for either one is the same. Insisting on a verbal point that fine looks, to most people IMHO, and is IMHO, simple weaseling.

So if they mean the same thing, then why not use the words he actually used? Why give the Republicans plausible deniability?

If you persist in misrepresenting what was actually said, but you attempt to explain it away because the words are sufficiently close in meaning, that is to most people IMHO, and IMHO, simple weaseling.

@elucidator

I remain suspicious of foreign policy conducted by clairovoyance.

[imagining elucidator’s campaign for President]“A vote for elucidator is a vote for foreign policy that doesn’t act – it reacts!”

“A vote for elucidator is a vote for foreign policy that requires 100% certainty and verification by two independent sources before taking any action!”

“A vote for elucidator is a vote against trying to discern what the future will bring! Bring on the present!”

“A vote for eludicator is a vote against that ‘Vision’ thing!”[/imagining elucidator’s campaign for President]

Hmmm. I think John Kerry’s Democratic nomination is safe.

@TWDuke

What about when the two are inextricably linked, such as when American troops are dying every day because the country believed it was imminently threatened, and the very people who fostered that belief are quibbling over semantics?

Who is quibbling over semantics?

On the one hand, we’ve got the Bush Admin saying, “We never used the word ‘imminent.’”

On the other hand, we’ve got the group that opposed the Iraqi invasion saying that the US couldn’t invade Iraq unless the evidence showed – not just a “threat” from Iraq – but an “imminent” threat.

I’d say both sides are playing that game.

[Ramanujan]

@Age Quod Agis

If you persist in misrepresenting what was actually said, but you attempt to explain it away because the words are sufficiently close in meaning, that is to most people IMHO, and IMHO, simple weaseling.

so, if i hear someone say “iraq has a large stockpile of WMDs”, and i say “iraq has a big pile of WMDs”, is that weaseling? it is by your definition.

or maybe it isn’t, because that isn’t misrepresenting what was said. but how many people feel like “imminent threat” is misrepresenting “grave and gathering threat”?

i guess the real answer is: it doesn’t matter. iraq was neither.

On the one hand, we’ve got the Bush Admin saying, “We never used the word ‘imminent.’”

On the other hand, we’ve got the group that opposed the Iraqi invasion saying that the US couldn’t invade Iraq unless the evidence showed – not just a “threat” from Iraq – but an “imminent” threat.

I’d say both sides are playing that game.

one side (the media and the american people) took what was said and paraphrased it. the word ‘imminent’ may or may not have been in their paraphrasing, but the intension and extension of the word were. the word may not have been used by mr mcclellan or the president himself, but the idea was very clearly conveyed.

now they wish to say the never used the word. wow! that happens to be quite true. it still doesn’t change their story. it doesn’t change the facts that they fed us lies to get us to buy into the toppling of a regime that many agreed needed to be toppled, but few would’ve agreed that it needed to be toppled in this manner, given the evidence they see today.

the evidence they had when it started was the collection of falsehoods they were told. if it was taken at face-value, who wouldn’t support the war? i hope the american people believe the president has some questions to answer before they reelect him.

if i said the american president again and again fed the nation false information and expected them to take it at face value, would you be at least slightly annoyed if i later said “i never said he lied.”?

[Soup_du_jour]

From the White House Press briefing May 7, 2003.

Q Well, we went to war, didn’t we, to find these – **because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn’t that true?

MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely. **One of the reasons that we went to war was because of their possession of weapons of mass destruction. And nothing has changed on that front at all. We said what we said because we meant it. We had the intelligence to report it. Secretary Powell said it. And I may point out to you, as you may know, there is a news conference at Department of Defense today at 2:00 p.m. to discuss one element in this.

(Bolding mine.)

The question was, did we go to war because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the US? Fleischer replied “Absolutely.”

Judge for yourselves.