It should not be terribly surprising or newsworthy even that the CIA never deemed Iraq an imminent threat. If agency analysts had ever concluded that an attack from Iraq was "about to occur" or "impending," to use the dictionary definition of imminent, it's fair to assume that they would have told the president forthwith, rather than holding the information for inclusion in a periodic assessment of threats. And the president would not have taken 18 months to act to protect the nation.In fact, the case for war was built largely on the opposite assumption: that waiting until Iraq presented an imminent threat was too risky. The president himself made this argument in his 2003 State of the Union address:
"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans--this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.
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."
It didn't take long for the media to get it wrong. One day after Bush said we must not wait until the threat is imminent, the Los Angeles Times reported on its front page that Bush had promised "new evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime poses an imminent danger to the world." Also, "Bush argued that use of force is not only justified but necessary, and that the threat is not only real but imminent." Exactly backwards...
Senator Ted Kennedy, for one, objected. The day after the 2003 State of the Union address, he introduced a short-lived bill that would have required the administration to show that Iraq posed an imminent threat. It was the administration's willingness to go to war even while conceding that the threat was not imminent that provoked opponents of the war. Inspections could continue, the critics urged, because there was no imminent danger.
But in the present politically charged season, positions have shifted. Many of the same people who criticized the Bush administration before the war for moving against a threat that was not imminent are today blaming the administration for supposedly having claimed that Iraq posed an imminent threat.
This is an interesting article, because it shows that some of the common judgements are not accurate, but also because it very carefully ignores an important element. While I''m surprised to find that the imminence argument is not entirely true, it''s not entirely false either. I believe after looking at some of Bush''s speeches and statements of his administration that they actually made both the claim that we cannot wait until Iraq attacks or is ready to attack, but also that Iraq was a current threat. Not literally an imminent threat, but an urgent one, a grave one - superlatives that are very close in meaning to imminent. The interesting thing is that the qualifiers usually refer to his *possession* of WMD and delivery mechanisms in the speeches and statements. Given that that has not yet turned out to be accurate, if one can wave hands and refocus that part of the discussion on literal imminence, it''s dismissal removes any concern about the missing WMD''s. I think that that is spin at it''s best.
Let''s look at Bush''s speech on October 7, 2002 at the Cincinnati Museum Center. It''s here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...
It''s pretty typical of what I found looking over some of the speeches and statements in context.
This is the opening of the speech. Already, it''s obvious that there are at least two arguments here. Iraq has a history of use of WMD (and thus a future) - that''s the one that the article posted refers to. But note also that the possession argument is used to make the danger current. It means that no one can say ""but that''s 5 years out, why worry about it?"" Worry because they could actually attack now, it says to me. Imminence? Not in so many words...but the inference is there. A country with a leader as bizarre as Saddam, in possession of biological and chemical weapons, is indeed a current threat, an imminent threat.
This is another interesting bit. It immediately follows the first quote, and the natural association is that of Iraq and 9/11. If not in action, then in intent. The picture created in the mind is that of Iraq attacking suddenly, with it''s existing biological and chemical weapons, in a way that might not even be traceable to it (ie, through terrorists. This, again, highlights a current threat, an imminent one - not in those words, but usefully so.
Continuing on, we come to an interestingly ambiguous phrase. Did the Iraqis threaten us? Are they threatening now, or is that a reference to a future threat? We can''t tell. It could be read as a current threat - or as a future one. I''m going to take the mention of nukes and say this falls in the future camp. But it''s not a clear statement, time-wise.
Interesting. ""Why be concerned now?"" Let''s see what he has to say as we move along.
This section identifies Hussein as aggressive, dangerous to us and those around him, unpredictable and - note the last paragraph - both a current and a future threat.
That''s not what the thrust of the Weekly Standard article concludes. A current threat is also an imminent threat. And Mr. Bush has made that argument here, with the statement that he already has these dangerous weapons,a nd if we wait, the *weapons* will get worse and worse.
This is both a list of the current weapons, and a reaffirming of the current, or imminent, nature of the threat. It also cites the future threat (from UAVs) - both arguments are made, and not in opposition, as the Weekly Standard would have it. But this section goes down mostly on the current threat side.
Now we get more methods and motives for attack. Terrorists are brought into the argument, and with the war on terror just over a year old, this is a direct, frightening, current image for Americans. And look at the next paragraph.
""...On any given day"". That''s not a long-term future threat. That''s a current, and an imminent threat. There is no doubt there that we could even at the time of the speech be coming under attack. We could listen to the speech, and read about the attack tomorrow. ""on any given day"". Weakly future, strongly current.
The speech moves on to areas that are not directly related to either future or current threats, or those that amplify earlier statements. I''ll skip ahead to the next to last paragraph.
We''ve been put on notice. That''s decidely a statement of current threat, not a far or middle future one. That''s something we have to deal with now.
The Weekly Standard article is correct literally, but materially wrong. Even in just this one speech, the administration mixed both the arguments, future and current threats, together, to create a compelling reason for moving now to avoid even worse possibilities in the future. But there are several statements about current threats that just don''t fit the WS analysis. We should not forget or brush aside the actual arguments that were made, for the sake of what is clearly a straw man, the use of the term imminent by the Administration.
Imminent means ""threatening to occur immediately"" - certainly that applies to the ""any given day"" arguments Bush made in this speech. It means ""near at hand"" - that''s clear too. It also means ""impending"", and I believe that''s implied as well.
While the WS article puts the lie to the liberal literalists, a careful reading of it shows that it''s designed more to shift the stage than to directly refute. This is not an argument that should free the Administration from it''s responsibility for not finding the current, imminent part of the threat - existing WMD''s in Iraq, ready to be used on any given day against Americans.
Robear
The two sides to every story are true and false, not yours and theirs. Facts are not political; lies are. - Deven Green (Mrs. Betty Bowers)