I'm really interested to see where this goes, and I don't wanna be a complainer, but do you have to italicize their arguments? It's pretty difficult to read . . .

Fixed!

Thanks, that helps.

I don't want to get in Jonathan Schwarz's way or to suggest that Sebastian Holsclaw will have other arguments in his bag, but I'm not sure how one speech made by just the president clears everyone in the administration of the charge that they claimed Iraq was a clear and present danger to the United States or even its allies.

Sorry, that should have read:

. . . that Sebastian Holsclaw WON'T have other arguments in his bag . . .

Futility. Pure futility. The planet knows that Bushco hyped the world to make war on Iraq. Parsing the application of the word "imminent" is futile.

Let's talk about something with substance, such as the pdf files provided to USNews with
the text of a briefing by analyst Sam Gardiner that suggests the White House and Pentagon made up or distorted more than 50 war stories. The pdf files lay out evidence of a massive propaganda effort, where the shaping of a story and its usefulness in advancing the WH's agenda became more important than the truth.

I urge all to read the pdf files at http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/031020/whispers/20whisplead.htm

What I objected to at the time Bush gave his speech was the very thing quoted here. It is true he rejects the idea that an imminent threat was required before action against Iraq could be taken. But he doesn't put anything in its place, besides the argument that Saddam is a bad guy. He doesn't address the issue of why gassing his own people did not put Saddam in our crosshairs after his army was expelled from Kuwait in 1991 but must now, or the question of why sanctions could not be continued indefinitely.

My personal belief is that there was a good response to the second of these objections, though not the first. In the post-9/11 world, a leader with Saddam's history of reckless conduct, defiance of the world community on disarmament and friendlier relations with terror gangs than he had with us was not a risk we were prepared to run any longer.

Perhaps this is what Bush, in his usual hapless way, was trying to say. But in failing to relate his planned course of action with respect to Iraq to a comprehensive idea of American interests he invited misunderstanding. An iron law of politics everywhere is that vacuums will be filled. No administration unable to articulate clearly the reasons for what it does should be surprised when the resulting vacuums are filled in ways and by people it finds unhelpful.

In the SoTU address, President Bush says that the Iraq threat isn't imminent...

He just says that rogue and terror regimes are the biggest threat facing the US, and then says Iraq is pursuing chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.

-He accuses Iraq of deceiving the weapons inspectors because Iraq didn't lay out its banned weapons for the world to see and destroy them.

-He implies that Iraq is in possession of materials to produce 25000 liters of anthrax, 38000 liters of botulinum toxin, and 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent capable of killing millions of people.

-He implies that Iraq possess 29,984 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents.

-He accuses Iraq of pursuing an advanced nuclear weapons program, even recently buying aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.

-He implies that Saddam personally aids and protects members (more than one) of Al Qaeda, and implies that Saddam will give them weapons or assist in their procurement of weapons.

While Bush does not call Iraq an imminent threat, he does say that Iraq IS a threat to the United States.

1. "The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country..."

2. "If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."

3. "And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own."

4. "Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq."

While Bush may not have come out and said that Iraq is an imminent threat, it certainly seems implied. This speech, especially the talk about Iraq's nuclear/chemical/biological current weapons programs, changed the tone of the national debate. Several commentators who were still on the fence began to take a harder stance on Iraq than before. If Bush wasn't trying to make the case that Iraq was an imminent threat, he was at least trying to label it as a very serious and dangerous threat. That would be more than enough for most Americans to go to war.

The question isn't about whether Bush actually said whether the threat is "immenent". The question is whether the Bush administration was ignoring the intelligence community's caveats about Iraq's WMD capability IMO.

Look, folks, you're avoiding the question. Here it is:

"It is a complete fabrication that the Bush administration argued in the runup to the war that there was an imminent threat from Iraq."

It's not whether someone else says there was another fabrication, it's whether the use of the word "imminent" applied to what Bush and his administration said is correct, or a fabrication. MRP, you're assuming the conclusion -- clearly you don't have any interest in the question, your mind is made up, you don't care how the actual facts lay out. That's why they didn't ask you to moderate, I assume.

The Bush administration wants to pretend that "imminent" means "sometime in the next week." It doesn't. It just means the threat is impending, coming, arriving soon. If a threat is "grave and gathering," "serious and mounting," then it is imminent.

Plus, Ari Fleischer told me it was imininent and I believe him.

Q Ari, the President has been saying that the threat from Iraq is imminent, that we have to act now to disarm the country of its weapons of mass destruction, and that it has to allow the U.N. inspectors in, unfettered, no conditions, so forth.

MR. FLEISCHER: Yes.

and again on 5/7/03
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.

Plus the Official Bush Blog told me so, too.
http://www.georgewbush.com/blog/archives/2003_10.html#000023

Next week: "Isn't it possible to threaten somebody without being able to back up that threat? So how can liberals deny that Iraq was threatening America with nuclear destruction? How can anyone deny that?"

replace "Bush Administration" with "Bush supporters." stupid knee-jerk anti-Bushism.

I'm going to address a bunch of stuff at once:

"but I'm not sure how one speech made by just the president clears everyone in the administration of the charge that they claimed Iraq was a clear and present danger to the United States or even its allies."

Here is the heart of the problem. Who said 'clear and present danger'? The president said 'grave and gathering danger', as in, not imminent but growingly so. Add together the covert programs outlined in the Kay report, Hussein's undeniable track record of chaos and evil, and the French and Russian unrelenting drive in the last decade to have the sanctions lifted, and what do you get? Grave and gathering danger I'd say.

"The planet knows that Bushco hyped the world to make war on Iraq. Parsing the application of the word "imminent" is futile. "

Document.

"But he doesn't put anything in its place, besides the argument that Saddam is a bad guy. He doesn't address the issue of why gassing his own people did not put Saddam in our crosshairs after his army was expelled from Kuwait in 1991 but must now, or the question of why sanctions could not be continued indefinitely"

Demonstrably false. Bush very well documents Hussein's very public and obious record of foriegn aggression and support of terrorist organizations (Hamas? Jihad? dont Jewish childrens' bodies count?).
Also, you may recall that Bush II wasnt president in 91. He had zero power to stop Iraq. If, as you seem to imply, the US was wrong to stop Hussein then, how is stopping him _now_ wrong? If we didnt fufill our moral obligations at the time, how is fufilling them now _more wrong_? Two wrongs, as they say, dont make a right.

"If Bush wasn't trying to make the case that Iraq was an imminent threat, he was at least trying to label it as a very serious and dangerous threat. "

Iraq was a serious and dangerous threat. The Kay report proves that. Would allowing Hussein to continue research into Congo Crimean hemorrhagic fever have enhanced our security? Further development of illegal UAV and SCUD technology?

We are asking the wrong questions. All of these arguments are presupposing that Bush knew in the spring of last year what we know know. This is _not the case_. Every intelligence agency in the world agreed that Hussein almost certainly had an active WMD program. WHICH HE DID. In direct violation of numerous UN mandates. Would you expect our leader, after 9/11 mind you, to assume that Hussein was at the low end or high end of the WMD risk? What kind of leader would he be, knowing everything we know about Hussein's track record of pure (forgive me my Sophist friends) EVIL, had he taken the man at his word WHICH THE KAY REPORT PROVES WAS A LIE (if not the extent of lying we anticipated). Take Hussein at face value? Wait until somehow we infiltrated his Stalinist police state enough to bring back actual anthrax spores? Madness. Forgive me, friends, but you are politicising this in retro. I dont recall many voices last spring claiming Hussein has no WMD and calling for proof. It was a given then. AS PRUDENCE DEMANDED.

>>>>I dont recall many voices last spring claiming Hussein has no WMD and calling for proof.

You weren't listening. Millions of citizens of this country and the world demonstrated in the streets, asking for more time for continued U.N. investigations. 133 United States Representatives and 23 United States Senators voted against the Iraq resolution, urging more proof and more time. There might not have been much coverage of this on FOX news and hate radio, granted.

>>>>It was a given then. AS PRUDENCE DEMANDED.

You mean "as prudence demanded in the judgment of the neo-cons advising Bush." Prudence doesn't demand anything by itself. It isn't a force like "Mother Nature." A human must demand prudence. And, as is so readily apparent, millions of humans thought the prudent path in Iraq was in the hands of the United Nations, not Bushco.

This is doublespeak the likes of which makes Orwell turn over in his grave.

Bush: it wasn't imminent. Bush: the threat is so outrageously evil, we can't wait until it becomes imminent.

Inigo Montoya: this word imminent, I don't think it means what you think it means.

Is this Zeno all over again, or do we accept that the limit of the Bush statements of Husseini threats is the conclusion that Bush is in fact saying the threat is imminent?

Mark,

It is perhaps true that many people that Hussein had all these weapons and weapons programs. But who should've had the best intel? Clinton and his officials out of office for two years? And who was spinning his intel madly?

Many people, most people wanted sanctions then. Enforced sanctions. Bush cried imminent on his own bogus evidence, and moved forward.

If Bush had leveled with us, would enforced sanctions have kept the weapons programs at bay? Obviously yes. Would it have cost much less than $200B? Obviously yes. Would it have cost many many fewer lives than the hundreds of coalition deaths, thousands of Iraqi soldier deaths and thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths? Obviously yes.

If Bush had leveled with us, and we had an enforced sanctions program, would we be worried now about burnout and troop levels in the Guard and the Army? Would we be bogged down and unable to react to another crisis in the world? Would we be losing Afghanistan to the Taliban threat?

GC is on the right track. I'd like to incorporate by reference the last four comments in this thread, where "Mick McMick" and I are arguing this very question. Unfortunately, there's no $100, and Mick is the type of jerk who calls his opponents Saddam appeasers. Better I should move here.

Besides GC's quotes, more are available here. Only one uses "imminent" but others use "immediate". Unfortunately, both GC and the aforementioned link include only half of Ari Fleisher's apparent affirmation of "imminence". The other half doesn't seem to me to improve Bush's case, but Mick was angry that I had taken it out of context. Here is the full exchange taken from the White House web site (my emphases added).

Q Ari, the President has been saying that the threat from Iraq is imminent, that we have to act now to disarm the country of its weapons of mass destruction, and that it has to allow the U.N. inspectors in, unfettered, no conditions, so forth.
MR. FLEISCHER: Yes. [Mick insists that this was not an affirmation, but just an "I'm listening; go on" yes—A.L.]
Q The chief U.N. inspector, however, is saying that, even under those conditions, it would be as much as a year before he could actually make a definitive report to the U.N. that Iraq is complying with the resolutions and allowing the inspections to take place. Isn't there a kind of a dichotomy? Can we wait a year, if it's so imminent we have to act now?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, that's why the President has gone to the United Nations to make certain that the conditions by which the inspectors would go back would be very different from the current terms that inspectors have been traveling around Iraq in as they've been thwarted in their attempt to find out what weapons Saddam Hussein has. But it's also important to hold Saddam Hussein accountable to make certain he no longer violates the will of the United Nations.

Although I intend to participate in this thread without expectation of compensation, it's late and I would like to make only two more points here. Nonpundit has hit the nail on the head that much of Bush's "denial" of the imminent threat has the flavor of Octavian's "And Brutus is an honorable man." That is, as a rhetorical matter he begins by denying that the threat is imminent, but then goes on to show that it is. And in this respect, as the second point, for purposes of the bet I think Bush is on the hook for any statements made by our British ally that he did not controvert. And in September, 2002, Blair released his now-infamous dossier asserting that Saddam could execute a WMD attack on 45 minutes' notice. This is not a statement that an attack is imminent, but surely Saddam's terrifying (fortunately, apocryphal) capability to launch an immediate attack against which there would be no effective defense constitutes an imminent threat.

Interesting concept, thanks dan.

Considering what we now know about our intelligence activity in Iraq, that proposition looks even more ridiculous now than it did then. Considering the failure of our intelligence services in discovering the North Korean nuclear capability before it was active, it was silly even then.

Aye there's the rub. Intelligence: Useful idiots, but lately, mostly just idiots, huh Sebastion? Screw it, somebody looks at you sideways, whack em. No time to discover their intentions, and even if they disclose said intent, would we be able to trust our ears? Kill em all, let Jeebus sort em out.

One speech -- versus a mountain of Meet the Press transcripts, minus the spooky organ music: "We don't want the smoking gun to be in the form of the mushroom cloud."

If, in a SOTU, I hear: the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons you've got my attention. If you alternate sentence subjects between "nukes" and "Iraq" and "threats" and inspections and an altogether uncooperative and malevolent dictator while giving that speech, though perhaps not explicitly linking them, I'm still tingly. If I'm being told by "the smart guys" there's "a bear in the woods" hurriedly working on a tactical nuclear device maybe just for a town like mine, well "imminence" stretches as far as my supply of Depends™.

Sebastian is parsing words, while this administration is traficking in paranoia and wiggle room. Hey, if I glare long and hard in your direction, I may not have said "I don't like you right now", but the inference is taken. Now, prove the inference.

The evidence of the hype continues to ooze out. Wednesday's 60 minutes will feature Colin Powell's former aide Greg Thielman, who will say that Powell misled the United Nations (and by extension Americans) regarding the WMD. Other comments on the program:

Steve Allinson and a dozen other U.N. inspectors in Iraq also watched Powell’s speech. “Various people would laugh at various times [during Powell’s speech] because the information he was presenting was just, you know, didn't mean anything -- had no meaning,” says Allinson.

Pelley (CBS) asks, “When the Secretary finished the speech, you and the other inspectors turned to each other and said what?” Allinson responds, “’They have nothing.’”

What are the OED synonyms for "imminent"?

They include the following:

alarming,
anticipated,
approaching,
at hand,
brewing,
close,
coming,
emergent,
forthcoming,
gathering,
going to happen,
immediate,
impending,
likely,
looming,
menacing,
ominous,
possible,
predicted,
sinister,
threatening

among others.

If this argument is going to be based on word parsing and "did he use the specific phrase?"... then it is already over.

"Grave and Gathering" IS imminent, as is "threatening" as is "looming" as is "alarming" or "emergent" or whatever.

Given the testimony of Thielmann, Wislon, Wilkie, the Hutton commission, and numerous others...it is pretty clear what happened and who did it.

mph. brmp. bwahahahaha!

First of all, let's clarify the meaning of the verb 'to argue.' For ordinary purposes the question of whether a particular entity 'argues' a particular position is intimately bound to intent. When an entity attempts to promote or defend a particular position X with arguments which ultimately support the opposite position Y we do not say that the entity is arguing position Y, regardless of how incompetent the arguer may be. As a consequence of this aspect of the word, inferences about the intent and motivation of the Bush administration are entirely relevant.

And is there is any indication that the Bush administration would have been in some way motivated to argue the presence of an imminent threat? Why yes, as a matter of fact. It turns out that per the UN Charter and absent explicit UNSC authorization otherwise*, an imminent threat is one of the absolute legal requirements for the United States to engage in an act of war

So... modulo some truly mind-boggling incompetence on the part of the Bush administration, Sebastian is arguing [heh] that they at least conspired (since they did not argue that the threat was imminent), and perhaps followed through in committing (depending on your interpretation of UNSCR 1441) a war crime.

oops.

* Careful now! I've argued 1441 with other people and I assure you that it's a tar baby for Bush apologists. There's basically no way that it can be interpreted as a legal grounding for unilateral action.

Holsclaw will argue that the administration never used the exact words "imminent threat". Schwarz will argue that the semantic content of administration claims is identical to that of the phrase "imminant threat". Both claims are true. Drezner will side with Holsclaw.

Now, what about the lies that got us into this mess?

you mean the lies outlined here and here (pay attention to the PDF files!!!??

Yowza.

Radish, you all over that like a bad leisure suit!!!

1441 = no trigger.

No imminent (gathering, nearing, impending, looming, likely, menacing) danger (threat, evil, harm) = No cause for unilateral or pre-emptive war...

War entered into absent imminent threat, and absent UNSC approval = Crime against the Peace, as per Nuremberg...

Just ask Alfred Jodl!

Mark Buehner,

The Kay report documents exactly NOTHING, and IMPLIES via the use of extremely conditional and future possible language like:

"could have potentially been used"

and

"may have enabled"

and

"might have been turned to the possible production of"

With reference to just about any industrial, chemical, manufacturing, bio-lab, hospital, prison in existence.

The Kay report is NOT what you want to be talking about right now.

Under the language used by the Kay report, we are justified in bombing the crap out of every nation that does not agree with our policies if that nation possesses a hospital, a university, a fertilizer factory, or a heavy industrial machine plant.

Furthermore, the Kay report SPECIFICALLY says that the WMD programs IMPUTED to exist in the language of the report ARE NOT ACTIVE, and HAVE NOT BEEN since at least 1998, if not 1995 or 1991.

Furthermore, with respect to your "we could not have known that then, and the only way to be sure was to invade argument"...the fact is that we DID know that then...as did Powell, as did any NUMBER of administration, CIA, NSC, DIA, and other government officials, operatives, analysts and policy makers.

Scott Ritter was RIGHT...and we knew it then...check the links I provided above.

Ahh, the Clinton years are back, and once again we're arguing over the meaning of is.

Yes Bush lied to hype the threat. The Washington Times told me so.

But more importantly, as the great cynic said: this is worse than a crime; it's a blunder.

Saddam was the best enemy we ever had, and I'd much rather have an incompetent enemy than a duplicitous ally (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia). When we get out of Iraq it will be far more of a threat to us than when we went in.

"...that there was an imminent threat from Iraq."

It all depends on what the meaning of "was" is.

Glad to see everyone came to this one with an open mind. Next time, Dan, you shuld turn off the comments until the debate is over. Otherwise the stupid crowd gets in the way, just like in the Cubs game last night.

The debate over whether Bush or his associates said the "I" word or not is rather beside the point, don't you think? The real debate here is not the use of a word, but the impression left by the administration that a failure to dispatch Saddam would mean that some day, not terribly far away, we or one of our allies would be threatened by WMDs.

The angry left would do itself a favor by concentrating on that issue. Because there seems a good argument that either the intelligence was wrong, or a lot of people were spinning it and flat out lying about it.

And Bush defenders may win the I word battle -- but who really cares? The Bush folks owe this country an explanation of why the $%^% there aren't piles and piles of WMDs. Because that IS what they implied was there. And they need to explain the intelligence they had, and why they used it the way they did.

Go Sebastian

The fact is Bush never said it was imminent. The thing about implications is that it often depends on the person hearing the statement to infer their desired meaning. Because now the left continues with this Bush Lied garbage, they can't argue that he lied unless he actually said the threat was imminent. So we are now down to Bush lied through his implications from his statements that Iraq was an imminent threat.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17424-2003Jul19?language=printer
The White House, in the run-up to war in Iraq, did not seek CIA approval before charging that Saddam Hussein could launch a biological or chemical attack within 45 minutes, administration officials now say.

The claim, which has since been discredited, was made twice by President Bush, in a September Rose Garden appearance after meeting with lawmakers and in a Saturday radio address the same week. Bush attributed the claim to the British government, but in a "Global Message" issued Sept. 26 and still on the White House Web site, the White House claimed, without attribution, that Iraq "could launch a biological or chemical attack 45 minutes after the order is given."

Again, you people are making assumptions in reverse. Bush didnt know six months ago what we know now. Neither did the majority of congress (including democrats, including many presidential nominees) who voted for war, nor the majority of the American people. Congressional leaders, for one, had access to the _identical_ raw intelligence the president had. And, if you look at their quotes over the last year, they reached the identical conclussion as the president based on the knowledge they had _at the time_. They also supported the same course of action, as they voted for it. The fact that in hindsight they are trying to parse this fact proves that they either didnt believe the intelligence and voted out of political cowardice of the highest order, or did believe it and now are engaged in an amazing show of raw partisan smear.

As far as the Kay report goes, Dan I suggest you bother to read it. Quite simply, Kay documents numerous UN violations proving that Hussein had all the facilities and intentions of instantly restarting his programs the moment the coast was clear. Any other reason his scientists were studying Ebolas evil twin? Looking for a cure perhaps?

Finally, this debate over semantics is tiresome. And notwithstanding Jerry's argument about how much better the world would be with Saddam Hussein still in charge of his torture chambers and mass graves, lets take a realistic look at how the world would have reacted had you guys had your wish. Happilly, we have a 12 year track record of recalcitrance on the Iraq issue as an example. So long as we held troops in sufficient strength in Kuwait, Hussein would have complied, grudgingly and partially, with UN inspectors demands. The second logistics forced us to remove those troops (6 months, a year, 5 years) Hussein would stop cooperating. Syria, along with their French and Russian partners would continue violating sanctions at will, as well as selling Iraqi oil illegally. France and Russia at some point would begin rallying to have the sanctions lifted again, with help from their cohorts in the peacemovment decrying the toll the sanctions were taking on the civilians Hussein intentionally starved. Another dozen or so resolutions get passed and ignored. Hussein gets bolder, knowing full well that the US isnt going to go through another fruitless troop buildup when his French/Russian/Peace activist allies can pull the rug out from under them. The sanctions eventually get lifted, or de facto ignored because no-one enforces them. Now, this might be 5, even ten years down the road. You people are asking the world to accept this probable outcome while Hussein maintains the same infastructure for his WMD, eventually will have no oversight, and a river of black gold to fund his revenge. Oh, and he is one of the most murderous, unpredictable tyrants of the last century, which is saying something. That is the logical conclussion of your argument. Wishful thinking about what the world _might_ do next time is not a viable policy. Look to what they did last time.

The 2003 SOTU was before the war resolution. Extra weight should be given to evidence presented before the Iraq war resolution was successfully passed. Rhetorical changes after the fact (the resolution vote) are not as substantial as Bush's allegations of an imminent threat in the build up to the Iraq war resolution.

It seems pretty clear to me that the Bush Administration's goals was to have the press actually say that there was an imminent threat, thus simultaneously making the case for war and maintaining plausible deniability.

I heartily recommend anonymousblogger

Mark,

Try not to be a dishonest putz. I never made the argument that Iraq was better off with Hussein in charge, and you know that.

Saying that the American People would not have wanted to go to war if the true evidence and true costs were known is not saying that Iraq is not a better place without Hussein.

Is your reading comprehension always this poor or are you being purposefully disingenuous?

The anti-war side debated itself over the "imminent" question.

Truly, if the administration thought that Iraq was an imminent threat, then letting more than a few months pass between the fall of the Taliban and the invasion of Iraq would have been dereliction of duty.

You don't deal with an imminent threat by launching the most telegraphed war in human history.

Personally, I do not understand certain elements of the left's obsession with proving that Bush lied about everything. Those kind of debates invaraibly lead to the unpersuasive "Ari agreed to the use of the I word in a daily news briefing so therefore Bush is a liar" arguments that populate this thread. You really want to base your argument on the answer to a question made by the Prez's flack, when it's possible under the circumstances the flack may not have heard the question? Hmm...makes me long for the days when all we had to worry about was what the meaning of "is" was.

I do understand why the right is so anxious to address these questions. It gets us all away from the basic question of, well, where are the WMDs? How could the information on which we are making basic decisions about peace and war be so wrong? Did Bush lie, exaggerate or spin? Or did the CIA (and MI5 and a whole lot of other intelligence agencies) screw up?

These questions actually are important, even if the answers don't give the partisan advantage one side or the other seeks. Because, the next time a president gets before the nation,and says that we are facing a threat, I'd sure like to believe him (or her). And I know that I would not be able to himnow.

Jerry said: "If Bush had leveled with us, would enforced sanctions have kept the weapons programs at bay? Obviously yes. Would it have cost much less than $200B? Obviously yes. Would it have cost many many fewer lives than the hundreds of coalition deaths, thousands of Iraqi soldier deaths and thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths? Obviously yes."

Forgive me, but perhaps your concern for Iraqi deaths caused by US forces confused me. I dont see such a level of concern for the thousands of victims Saddam murdered every year. The simple assumption I made was that you only seem to give a rats ass about Iraqi deaths when the US is causing them. The thousands of deaths the US invasion prevented doesnt enter your equation, and hence its a logical assumption that you view Iraq as worse off without Hussein.

Just a note on 1441: It's a U.N. resolution. It directs actions within the U.N. Find the place in 1441 that authorizes any individual member to act on its own. (It ain't there.)

Here's the specific language:

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;
5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;. . .

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;
11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;
12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security..."

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/1441.pdf

Please note specifically that Iraq is held in breach of U.N. resolutions. It seems fairly reasonable that, if this is true, the only body authorized to determine how this breach would be adjudicated is the group that declares said breach - correct?

Additionally, the remedy for further determination of breaches or "failure by Iraq to comply" is reporting back to the Security Council - not rogue action by some individual member, who, by the way, were not authorized to carry out anything by the Security Council.

It seemed to me at the time, which I argued strenuously then, that we, on one hand, demanded said resolution 1441, and then, on the other hand, decided to ignore its very language when we went it alone.

If we wanted to go get Saddam for any reason (or no reason) we did not need the U.N.'s approval. Of course once we did this we might have to bear the weight of the U.N.'s disapproval, including sanctions.

The essential question in my mind, then and now, however, was this: Since we claimed that Iraq was in violation previous of U.N. resolutions (which 1441 spelled out), what was the logical basis for our own failure to follow the dictates of 1441? Did we want in on the game (i.e., the "U.N. vs. Iraq Resolutions" Board Game, which spelled out the terms and the resolution of disputes) or not? If the rules (specifically 1441) dictated that further evidence of breach required going back to the Security Council (much like getting a "Go to Jail" card in Monopoly requires going to the Jail space) just how did we reason that we were somehow "authorized" by 1441 to take own own action? (which, following my analogy, would be like simply seizing Boardwalk while we're in said jail - an action that, like attacking Iraq, anyone can do, particularly if the rest of the players are finishing that fifth of Jack Daniels and totally zoned out but otherwise would simply STOP THE GAME since I obviously didn't know or care about the damn rules!)

That was, by the way, the reason that Daddy Bush never entered Baghdad a decade earlier: U.N. resolutions at the time didn't authorize it. He apparently understood something rather essential that Junior still doesn't quite get.

This is probably one of the dumbest and ridiculous debates I have ever seen. Whether the threat from Saddam against the US was imminent, and whether who said what is completely immaterial at this stage of the game. The war was fought, the Iraqi people were freed, Saddam is not getting his toys back, and is history.

To some imminent means next week, or tomorrow morning, or in the next minute. To others it might mean next year, or 5 years down the road. Was Saddam a threat to the US, as well as his own folks? Geesh people, what do you want here, do you want Saddam back in power??????

Because that is what this argument is really about. Whether it was right to remove a murderous dictator who was developing WMDs and had ties to terrorists. Some of you wanted to wait until after the mushroom cloud, and some of you wanted to avoid that all together. Some of you want us to apologize to Saddam and return his country to him, and some of you want to help the Iraqis find their own leadership and voice, and govern themselves.

Playing word games like this is silly. Half of you out there should be ashamed of yourselves for even indulging in this kind of attempted revisionism. The war is far from over in Iraq, and there is still work to be done. Quibbling about the past is a futile gesture and wasted effort. It also indicates that some of you have no idea where to go from here, but only want to bitch and complain at the guys who actually did something about a potential threat.

This is a side and irrelevant issue, and is history. We got a future that is still uncertain, and you want to quibble about who said what.

Mark: You say:

The simple assumption I made was that you only seem to give a rats ass about Iraqi deaths when the US is causing them. The thousands of deaths the US invasion prevented doesnt enter your equation, and hence its a logical assumption that you view Iraq as worse off without Hussein.

Of course, this same issue must be raised about the Bushites who instigated this thing. On September 10, 2001 and before, when did they give ANY evidence of giving a rat's ass about the poor suffering Iraqi's? The answer is, of course, that they didn't. And if they didn't then their bringing it up subsequently is simply an effort to play the sympathy card for what are clearly other motives: "We're really attacking Iraq for (fill in the blank with your favorite reason) but since we won't tell the truth for this reason (fill in another blank) we'll sinply throw iin this fake concern for the fate of the poor Iraqi people (like calling this thing "Operation Iraqi Freedom) to distract you from our real reason for doing this - which is what again?

Whether any of us give or don't give a rat's ass about the Iraqi people is irrelevant. What matters is the motives of the decision makers - since they, by definition, make the decisions. What matters, further, is whether they told us the truth or not, since in the form of government we have we get the opportunity of throwing them out or keeping them every four years, unless we force impeachment. If they used the emotional ploy of claiming they (the decision-makers) care about their freedom and oppression, it is certainly appropriate to examine their own consistency in holding this position prior to this little boondoggle. What you and I feel or don't feel about the oppression of Iraqi's is irrelevent - unless the decisionmakers decide to use this emotional issue to manipulate us - which all evidence indicates is exactly what they did. It didn't work on those of us who knew we were being played.

Can an argument possibly be more tedious?

Bush argued that America should bear the cost of removing an odious, murderous tyrant. Most people agreed. I cannot see how anyone with a shred of intelligence was "misled" if they actually listened to his case. Then, as now, I agree with Bush on this matter simply because the larger geostrategic picture makes it, well, stupid to give in and play by the same rules as used before 9/11.

Absent war, Saddam would have sooner or later been freed of the restrictions under which he labored. *Sooner or later* he'd have cranked up the bio/chem/nuke factories because the world would have let him. Absent someone willing to take him out, tyranny wins. Absent the leadership Bush showed on this matter, sooner or later, Saddam has full WMD production going again. Whether it is sooner OR later, this is an absolutely unacceptable outcome.

All the arguments about whether the threat was "imminent" are simply verbal masturbation. After 12 years we either had the courage of our principles or we didn't. Bush did. The left doesn't. Simple as that.

Indeed, NO MATTER WHEN THE ATTACK CAME, THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST IT WOULD BE THE SAME.

The left, of which I am now proudly an EX-member, looks craven, sophist and cowardly for attacking the liberation of Iraq. It will be a *years* before it gets my vote again.

The debate misses the crucial point, which is that it is not licit to attack another country absent an imminent threat. To the extent that GWB and his supporters now disclaim making any claim of imminent threat, they are admitting launching a war of agresssion.

Jon, your argument only holds true in the childish realm where activities should only be undertakin based on a single motive. We either attacked Iraq because of WMD _or_ in order to overthrow a horrible mass murderer. Fortunately, we have leadership in place unwilling to play a silly game like that. We take actions base on the sum totals of competing interests and morals. Agression is wrong, but allowing childrens mass graves to be filled is wrong too. War is bad, but allowing a mass murderer the tools to kill tens of thousands more civilians is bad too. And the left accuses the right of seeing things in black and white. The bottom line is that Bush added up the security interests of the US, our ability to complete the mission successfully, the undebatable humanitarian good we could do, subtracted out the negatives (France doesnt like us, dead soldiers)and came to a decision. Like a grown up.
PS, you are wrong that Bush didnt address Husseins humanitarian record before the war. He referred to it constantly. This is another revisionist meme easilly rebutted by the facts.

Why all the confusion over the word IMMINENT?
Has anybody checked the authority on the meaning of imminent- Webster`s unabridged dictionary - my copy 1951 ed.
"1. hanging over, projecting fom above(obs)
2. appearing as if about to happen, fraught with danger,real or imaginary, threatening, ...
synonyms- impending, threatening,menacing:
a)imminent is the strongest, it denotes that something is ready to fall on the instant
b) impending denotes that something hangs suspended over us and may so remain indefinitely
c) threatening supposes some danger in prospect, but more remote."

Definition of SYNONYM ( I`ll paraphrae this a bit) Although TRUE SYNONYMS are identical in meaning..."the term is generally applied to words not identical but similar in meaning."

So if you noticed the various lists of synonyms in the previous comments none has the identical meaning for the word IMMINENT. Therefore, no matter how :
alarming,
anticipated,
approaching,
at hand,
brewing,
close,
coming,
emergent,
forthcoming,
gathering,
going to happen,
immediate,
impending,
likely,
looming,
menacing,
ominous,
possible,
predicted,
sinister,
threatening
It is , it is not neccessarily IMMINENT.

One thing that is being overlooked here and that perhaps Bush didn't explain adequately is that this isn't just a matter of semantics. Imminent threat isn't just a turn of phrase, it is a term of art used in international law.

A situation of imminent threat is a recognized situation where a premptive attack is justified. It is an exception to the usual rule against the use of force. But the threshold of imminent threat has always been considered to be fairly high.

To give an example: Tanks being massed on the border of a country might be an occasion where imminenent threat would justify a preemptive attack. For example, Israel attacked preemptively in the Six Day War because of an obvious imminent threat. But the mere fact that a hostile country has tanks isn't an imminent threat unless they are massed in a way that clearly threatens an imminent attack. This is, generally speaking, settled customary international law.

What is not so settled is the idea set forth in the Bush Doctrine that a threat posed by the combination of WMD, rogue regimes, and possible links to terrorism means that countries that would be liklely targets of a WMD attack are justified in acting preemptively. The reason, of course, is twofold. First, the destructive power of WMD is enormous. Secondly, unlike tanks, you can't see when WMD are being "massed on the border." Thus, there is no visible imminent threat threshold to cross. By the time you know that the imminent threat threshold is crossed, it is probably far too late. So insistance on the imminent threat standard means in practice that you are insisting that countries absorb a WMD blow before they are permitted to respond. That is what Bush is saying is unacceptable, I just wish he would say it more clearly!

The other thing he ought to point out is that there are precedents for this change in policy. One is the successful preeptive attack on Iraq by Israel where they took out the nuclear reactor before is came online. But another is President Kennedy's response to the construction of nuclear missiles by the Soviet Union in Cuba. At the outset of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy declared that the missile sites were unacceptable. As a result, he was prepared to act militarily and preeptively. But the missile sites alone did not constitute an imminent threat. What tipped the scales for Kennedy was the combination of the destructive power of nuclear weapons, with the short flight time of missiles from Cuba. In other words, it was the combination of destructive WMD and the impossibility of receiving warning in time to respond preemptively. This is the exact combination faced today and which justified acting preemptively in Iraq BEFORE the imminent threat threshold was reached.

Re 1441:

Who cares? The only legal authority the US needs to "declare" war is a vote of the Congress, which was obtained. UN resolutions are neither a legal nor, in my view, moral prerequisite to going to war.

As to the notion that only an imminent threat justifies an attack on another nation, this is utterly misguided.

Was Israel wrong to bomb Osirak years before it was capable of producing weapons? Of course not.

Was the US wrong to declare war on Germany after the attack on Pearl Harbor? At the time, Germany had zero ability to attack or even threaten the US, and could not be called an imminent threat to the US.

Was the US wrong to enter WWI when it did? Germany's ability to threaten the US was even less at the time.

Was the US wrong to go into the Balkans and bomb the Serbs? No imminent threat there.

Was the US wrong to liberate Kuwait in 1991? Iraq was not threatening the US at the time.

How totally silly some of these comments are! We had U.N. inpectors in Iraq up until - when - TWO DAYS BEFORE the bombing started on March 19?? As long as the U.N. kept its foot on Saddam's neck (which of course meant that NO ONE died from fighting combatants on either side) just how was Saddam going to crank up his Factories of Evil??

The evidence we've found since then clearly shows that, as he claimed, he had dismantled everything he had. Inspections worked as far as deterring a threat was concerned. Also, the guy offered up NO RESISTANCE at all when we attacked him! NO chemical, biological or nuclear attack when we were jumping his shit! Damn, he was such a BIG THREAT, wasn't he????

Like all good analysis of the past, (which we call "history," and which, by definition, demands that unique human ability to REFLECT upon the past) we can now conclude that our fears about Saddam's threat to us were baseless as far as his having anything of substance to actually attack us with. We normally refer to such fears as paranoia. It is treatable. It is not defendable as a reasonable response to the outside world.

If, on the other hand, we now intend to go after any and everyone who just doesn't like us (as in "Why oh why do they hate us???") we have all just entered the Twilight Zone. If someone would just alert us all some of us would appreciate it.

Ben,

Super -- couldn't agree more.

This argument is a waste of time -- anti-Bushees have thrown plates of @#$% against the wall and are waiting for something to stick. Now, they want to bash the leaders who took care of a problem.

It's history -- let's move on and get Iraq on its feet. (Although, FOXNews reports the economy is picking up pretty well.)

Mark,

Well I guess the debate has been won in another thread.

I consider our actions of omission bad, but our acts of commision worse (ot why is there on m in omission and two in commission?).

I have been arguing since 1991 that we should remove Hussein on humanitarian grounds. American political leaders and our people disgreed with me completely.

Regardless, the war wasn't sold to us on humanitarian grounds, and if it had been the American people would not have bought into it.

And if given two alternatives:

Sanctions, low cost, low deaths that we create

vs.

War, high cost, high deaths that we create,

I am confident I know what most people would choose.

Mark: What I said was that Bush never brought us Saddam's oppression of his people before 9/11. That isn't a meme. And it is relevant. My point is that the "oppression of the Iraqi people" ploy was brought up as a manipulative tool - not because the administration really cared about those folk. If they did really care about these folk, it would have come up prior to 9/11, which it didn't.

I have necessary problem with an effort by the people of this country working to free the oppressed folks in this world. I just don't think the Bushites have any concern for any of these folks. Hell, I don't think they care about oppressed folks HERE in the U.S.! So when the pay the "poor oppressed folks" card I see it as bullshit. I also am interesting in what their REAL MOTIVES are.

My point is that you were played.

George W. Bush: C’mon baby, you’ll love it.
Miss Columbia: I like you George, but I’m saving myself for marriage
George W. Bush: But I really love you
Miss Columbia: Really?
George W. Bush: Yeah babe, I want to spend the rest of my life with you
Miss Columbia: Do you mean that?
George W. Bush: Columbia, I want you to be the mother of my children.
Miss Columbia: Really? Gosh!
George W. Bush: I want you to share the wealth and power of the Bush family and live in a big house with hot and cold running servants.
Miss Columbia: I’m not all that materialistic, but your Mom sure has a nice house.
George W. Bush: I’m gonna buy you a diamond the size of a baseball!
Miss Columbia Oh George!

One minute and fourteen seconds later

Miss Columbia: George that was fantastic! I can’t wait till we’re married and we can do this every month!
George W. Bush: Married? I never said I’d marry you.

Jerry wrote "Sanctions, low cost, low deaths that we create
vs.
War, high cost, high deaths that we create,
I am confident I know what most people would choose."

You've given a false comparisson. Those two protocols provided entirely different results, how are they comparable? On humanitarian grounds: sanctions didnt prevent Hussein from committing atrocities. The Shiites were slaughtered post GW1 in the teeth of sanctions. Thousands were murdered and tortured since. Iraqs were dying under Hussein's sword up until the day our troops rolled into Baghdad. Sanctions would have done nothing to prevent that. War undeniably did. So on that scale,

Sanction= Low cost, low deaths we create, extremely high deaths we dont create, rampant intentional starvation, torture, fear ongoing and permanent for the forseeable future.

War= High cost, low deaths we create (3000? Hussein managed that in a good day at his worst), permanent end to murders, starvation, torture, fear.

Your argument is telling, and I have heard it before. That when we kill people through our actions, it is wrong. When many, many more people die through our inaction, it is preferrable to us getting our hands dirty. That is moral cowardice. How about pragmatism here for a minute? Is the world a better place today? Is Iraq? That is the bottom line. It is an evil in and of itself to allow such suffering in order to keep our own consciences clean.

"I have necessary problem with an effort by the people of this country working to free the oppressed folks in this world. I just don't think the Bushites have any concern for any of these folks. Hell, I don't think they care about oppressed folks HERE in the U.S.! So when the pay the "poor oppressed folks" card I see it as bullshit. I also am interesting in what their REAL MOTIVES are."

I know exactly what you are saying. It's that the ultimate results are less imporant than your perception of the motives involved. I find that revolting. Human lives by the millions are at stake and your contempt for Bush overrides that. Forive me if I doubt your humanitarian impulses.

I think this article from the Weekly Standard should help end this asinine debate about imminence.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/236jmcbd.asp

The same liberals who founded and/or support moveon.org (an organization dedicated to get the country to "move on" from the Clinton sex scandal) now can NOT "move on" from the word imminent.

And my liberal friends wonder why I've become a conservative.

Jon:

I suggest that Gulf War I, twelve years of sanctions and inspections---funded in large part by the US through its UN obligations, and the imposition by US and UK air power of no-fly zones across two thirds of the country---allowing the Kurdish north at least to build a Saddamless society, represent something of a commitment to the well-being of the Iraqi people.

My primary reason for posting, though, is to point out that your argument displays in an elementary logical fallacy. "We care about the Iraqi people, therefore we liberate them" does not imply "We don't liberate the Iraqi people, therefore we don't care about them."

Anti-war types have used this fallacy repeatedly, the other prevalent example being to suggest that "We care about Iraqi WMD, therefore we invade Iraq" implies "We do not invade North Korea, therefore we don't care about North Korean WMD." The inference is simply invalid in both cases. (A-->B)-->(~B-->~A)has a truth value of False.

Jerry,

In order for the "low cost" sanctions to remain "in effect" (which is a questionable assertion given all the cheating that went on over the last 12 years by Saddam) didn't we have to have a fairly sizable, continuing troop presence in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait?
How much did this cost each year? How much would it cost to maintain it for another, what? Decade?
How many troops would we have lost in Cole like attacks in the future? Or like the barracks attack in Lebanon?
Should we have withdrawn the troops? When? Under what circumstances? How many more Iraqi deaths at the hands of Saddam would be acceptible over the next decade? Are they not worth calculating?
Until Saddam was removed the future for the whole Middle East remained in constant jeopardy. Argue if you like that Bush was unable to artfully articulate his case for war (unlike Clinton did in Kosovo) and bemoan the fact that troops had to be deployed on the ground, at far greater risk and cost than in Kosovo where bombing was the choice.
But the choice was clear and has been for a decade; accept the continuing risk of disaster with a well armed tyrant or do something, conclusive, about it.
Bush and Blair risked their careers on doing the right thing here. Sad that the left can't imagine anyone has that kind of leadership ability anymore.

I'm implying here and now, and you can quote me on this, the election of a Democrat in 2004 is not imminent. Or looming, or gathering.

Not while losers fixate on such trivial nonsense like this. Especially such outrageously fictitious trivlal nonsense.

Bush has been quite consistent on the reasons for war, since day 1. Unlike the Kennedys and the Kerrys and the Deans out there, who have changed their battle cry from one bumper sticker lie to another.

These are the same jerks who claimed, quite seriously, that Bush plotted the entire 9/11 attack, and that the Pentagon wasn't hit by a plane at all, but by a missile.

I'm sure glad Gore lost in 2000. Otherwise my city would by now be missing a certain Empire State Building, a Brooklyn Bridge, and a Statue of Liberty.

Niggling detail (but, I think, important).

The Brits have said that their idea of the forty-five minutes from order to attack using chemical or biological weapons was looking at battlefield weapons. Shells with Bad Stuff in them.
BTW, it is what I had always thought they were talking about, it seeming to make the most sense.
It seems reasonable, if you think of specified artillery units having certain ammo trucks hanging around among all the other HE and WP and so forth.
If there are any verification arrangements in passing on the order, forty-five minutes might not be much time at all.
But it could be done, if you were well-enough organized, which may not mean SH's Iraq.
But theoretically, certainly.

"To the extent that GWB and his supporters now disclaim making any claim of imminent threat, they are admitting launching a war of agresssion."

This is deliberatly obtuse too. Either that or really stupid. Saddam launched a war of aggression against Kuwait. He signed a cease fire to end that war under which he agreed to certain conditions, conditions he did not meet, the defensive war then restarted and finished the way that it should have the first time.

It seems that all of the anti war arguments have one of two properties, either they overlook some critical fact, such as the fact that Saddam got himself in the pickle in the first place by launching an aggressive war agains a US ally, or they presume knowledge of the motives of all of the actors involved without requirements for evidence.

OK Philip: So the sanctions were for the benefit of the Iraqi people? I guess that's why all the human rights folks protested all those years to have the sanctions lifted. And maybe you didn't notice it, but Gulf War I was all about expelling Saddam's forces from Iraq - Oh, no, my bad - that was Kuwait, wasn't it???

As far as my "logical fallacy" I think you might want to actually read what I've written here. I assume that the expressed "Iraqi Freedom" campaign isn't a misnomer - that we want to free these people because we want them to be free - which I assume has something to do with "caring". At least that was the ruse, wasn't it? That IS what we WERE told - we're doing this to free the Iraqi people, right? That IS what MSNBC continues to blare every 45 seconds (at least it seems so), right? No, just maybe, we can say that the stated U.S. desire to see them free (if we really assume the Bushites have that desire, which I don't) isn't "caring" - perhaps altruism or something else - I'm fine with that.

Perhaps, though, you can enlighten us - just what is the motive behind this "Iraqi Freedom" thing??

"If they did really care about these folk, it would have come up prior to 9/11, which it didn't."

Bullshit. Removal of Saddam Hussein has been in debate throughout the entire sanctions/inspections period. It has been proven that all the sanctions/inspections delivered was torture and oppression of the Iraqi people.

Adam in MA -- The 2003 SOTU took place in 2003, while the Iraq resolutions (Congress and 1441) took place in late 2002 (before the 2002 election in the case of the former).

Dan (not Drezner) -- A quick glance at the Gardiner report you touted indicates that the report is replete with errors, and the conclusions he reaches about the motives for the media reports are suspect. Just look at the credentials Gardiner lists in his bio -- advising the Swedish Defense Ministry and serving as an analyst for the Newshour, BBC and NPR -- and you will see his anti-war bias. The fact that he taught strategy at various US war colleges says nothing about his qualifications to analyze the veracity of media reports or to qualify him as an objective journalist. You have to come up with a lot more than this report to convince people that there was systematic lying going on re: Iraq.

>"Mick McMick" and I are arguing this very question. Unfortunately, there's no $100, and Mick is the type of jerk who calls his opponents Saddam appeasers. Better I should move here.

Buck buck buck buck buck. Bkaw!

This entire debate is a joke. You can't boil own Bush's unprecedented Big Lie campaign on WMD to the narrow question of whether or not Bush himself personally used the word "imminent."

There can be no serious question that Bush mislead the American people multiple different ways, including lying about wheter or not he KNEW that Iraq had WMD.

This debate, I'm sorry to say, is nothing but a smokescreen.

Poster Jon wrote on this thread a while back:

"That was, by the way, the reason that Daddy Bush never entered Baghdad a decade earlier: U.N. resolutions at the time didn't authorize it. He apparently understood something rather essential that Junior still doesn't quite get."

The comment is striking because it does not acknowledge that this "essential understanding" cost tens of thousands of Iraqi lives and led to an American commitment stretching over a decade to contain Saddam Hussein, a commitment that included punishing sanctions, continuous and expensive air patrols, and the permanent presence in Saudi Arabia that lent so much impetus to al Qaida. It would have been perfectly fair for the Bush administration to have argued that its predecessor's action had been a terrible mistake with consequences we were no longer prepared to live with -- especially as the pre-9/11 evidence was clear that the sanctions regime was being progressively undermined, in part by the same countries that struggled to prevent anything being done about Saddam Hussein this year.

It would have been fair, but the Bush administration never made this argument. Instead it chose to make its case for war using alarmist rhetoric that gave credence to every worst-case scenario while staying just this side of saying what administration officials knew they could not -- that Iraq was planning to attack us soon either itself or through terrorist allies. The administration chose the path of least resistance, and having compounded that error with others is facing attacks on its credibility.

As I suggested earlier, it has mostly itself to blame for that. What concerns me is that this path of least resistance is becoming one the administration travels on with some regularity, and not just where Iraq is concerned either. Too often we have seen incisive, even persuasive arguments for this or that administration initiative made by its supporters in the media, and sometimes in the blogosphere, that bear only the most tenuous relation to the administration's own statements. In part I think that has to do with the warring departments in the executive branch being unable to agree on a shared message. A more important factor, though, is Bush himself. Well known for his lack of interest in foreign affairs before becoming President as well as for chronic intellectual laziness, Bush's much admired resolve and simplicity looks to me like a man unprepared to think through major decisions and making them on the fly based on the lowest common denominator of his advisers' varying counsel and a large amount of wishful thinking. This seat-of-the-pants style is not at all consistent with public explanations of policy choices that do justice to the right ones and provide as little room as possible for bizarre alternate theories about the reasons for American conduct to gain credence here or abroad.

There are several misleading statements being passed around here by Bush supporters that need to be corrected.

1) In post above ( http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/000816.html#002652 ) , Mark Beuhner states:
"Congressional leaders, for one, had access to the _identical_ raw intelligence the president had. And, if you look at their quotes over the last year, they reached the identical conclussion as the president based on the knowledge they had _at the time_. They also supported the same course of action, as they voted for it. .."
In fact, Nancy Pelosi and Bob Graham, members of the Intelligence Committees , said well before the war that they saw no evidence
of Hussein being an imminent threat to the US --and they voted against the war resolution.

2) Mark also states: "As far as the Kay report goes, Dan I suggest you bother to read it. Quite simply, Kay documents numerous UN violations proving that Hussein had all the facilities and intentions of instantly restarting his programs the moment the coast was clear."
This, of course, is a crock. Kay's report had a lot of hype which was deliberating misleading. Consider Kay's primary piece of
evidence:
" One noteworthy example is a collection of reference strains that ought to have been declared to the UN. Among them was a vial of live C. botulinum Okra B. from which a biological agent can be produced. This discovery - hidden in the home of a BW scientist - illustrates the point I made earlier about the difficulty of locating small stocks of material that can be used to covertly surge production of deadly weapons."
(Ref: http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/000816.html#002652 )

What Daniel Kay doesn't tell Americans is that botulinum bacteria can be found everywhere -- a half empty jar of mayonaise left out (with the lid on) for a few days probably has more than what Kay found. Plus the Okra B strain is less harmful than some other strains which send some people to the hospital every month with commonplace food poisoning.

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit and Andrew Sullivan made a big noise about the botulinum sample -- adding to the unfounded
hysteria that Bush is trying to create. I sent Glenn Reynolds several emails pointing out the commonplace occurrance of
botulinun bacteria and food poisoning --but I didn't see Glenn making any significant effort on Instapundit to correct the false impression created by his initial posts.

3) Re what Bush said about the threat from Iraq, look at the unsupported claims Bush made in the War Resolution he sent to Congress:
http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

Some excerpts:
"Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;..."

"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; ..."

" Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;"

"Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;"

4) We, the American people, understood in January that the President could not give us all the intel he possessed -- but we
assumed that he would not lie to or mislead us and Congress re the necessity for war. Unless Bush can produce more than
he had found to date, I think the American people are entitled to judge that Bush --and Bush's supporters -- are two-faced liars
who are deliberating deceiving us in order to promote their hidden agendas.

5) We know what some of those agendas are:
a) sucking up to Sharon in order to court major campaign donors like billionaire Haim Saban away from the Democratic Party.
Bush knows that the major financial support for the Democratic Party comes from supporters of Israel and he hopes to
to destroy the Democratic Party by pandering to Sharon even though this causes great harm to the US
b)seizure of major oil reserves for Houston by setting up military bases and puppet dictators in Iraq and the Caspian Sea region along the lines of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia,
c)creating a false impression among US voters which will allow hundreds of billions of $dollars to be diverted to defense
contractors

6) We know some of the damage this has caused and will cause to the US
a) Bin Ladin indicated that Sept 11 occurred due to US sale of advanced weapons to Israel . Bush sold 52 F16s to Sharon
in June 2001, several months before Sept 11 At the time, the Arab world was enraged because Sharon was using F16s
to bomb Palestinians. See http://www.hnn.us/comments/13865.html

b) Sept 11 cost us 3000+ dead, $300 Billion in direct costs and over $1 Trillion in indirect costs --all money which Bush is
stealing from our Social Security/Medicare Trust Funds
c) If Bush's corrupt and malign actions scare NATO countries into a secret alliance with Russia and China, then the danger to
the US will be thousands of times greater than anything Saddam could have done. It is possible, in my opinion, to deliver
several nuclear attacks into the US without leaving a trace to their source and a path for retaliation.
That would so damage our economy as to turn us into a second rate power within 5 years

> Bin Ladin indicated that Sept 11 occurred due to US sale of advanced weapons to Israel .

So you are quick to take the word of Bin Laden, but call Bush a liar based on your own fabrications.

Poke a Bush-hater long enough, and the anti-Israel diatribe starts gushing out.

As for the Kay report, it proves one thing: Saddam did not take the UN inspections seriously, and I certainly can't blame him.

Those who still lick Hans Blix's boots are now inventing new meanings for "material breach."

I think the Bush claims of wanting to
deliver democracy to Iraq are utter bullshit --
although Karl Rove obviously
can't fix an election and install a puppet government in Iraq unless Bremer goes through the motions of holding an election. Anyone want to bet on the likelihood of CIA carrying around suitcases of dollars in Iraq as they reportedly did among the Northern Alliance prior to the Afghanistan campaign?

Altruistic claims of delivering the people of Iraq from Hussein are also bullshit --I've seen a photo of Rumsfeld shaking Hussein's hand in the 1980s when Hussein was actually gassing Iranians.
Dick Cheney has never preached the joys of democracy to the oil dictators of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or Kazakhstan.

Re torture, I wonder why we get continual reports of information revealed by captured Al Qaeda? I would have thought those guys would have said little more than "Die, infidel dogs!" Wonder what's making them so talkative?

The "Bush never said 'imminent threat'" claim is the "technically true" sort that allowed Rice and Rumsfeld a little wiggle room on the Yellowcake-gate issue. Yes, it is true that Bush never said Iraq posed an "imminent" threat. And yes, in the SotU, he said we must not wait until the threat is imminent. But as I've argued before, these assertions belie the reality of Bush's public statements on Iraq. The SotU laid out a case that Iraq was probably armed to the teeth with exceptionally dangerous weapons and that the threat was not merely to middle east neighbors, but quite possibly and quite soon to the U.S. itself. Bush and his aids argued that the situation was so dire that we couldn't wait for inspectors to finish their work. All over the media, the hawks pushed and paniced and issued grave and urgent warnings. As Atrios points out above, Bush twice threatened that Saddam could use WMDs with 45 minutes of the order. Rumsfeld ominously (and in retrospect, certainly incorrectly) told Congress that,"[N]o terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." Conservative mouthpiece and Weekly Standard Editor characcterized the threeat as the gravest in the world, and, indeed, imminent, saying on Fox News: "He's [Hussein] a greater imminent threat than the Iranians or the North Koreans." If, when U.S. cruise missiles started flying into Baghdad, an average citizen thought the threat was anything but imminent, he or she was paying too much attention to the international media. Afterall, as I've demonstrated, and others have quoted, the Bush administration was completely comfortable allowing the U.S. media to construe the threat as imminent. They did so repeatedly. They asked Fleischer if it was "imminent" and he agreed. Rumsfeld called it "immediate." Bush's National Security Strategy of the U.S. definied the phrase to specifically apply to states like Iraq.

I've read piles of news transcripts on this issue. The sheer number of times the Bush administration has had a chance to say to reporters, "Hey wait ... we don't want to say Huseein is an 'imminent threat'" is staggering. Hundreds at least. But the WH press office has never once, not once, attempted to change the press's characterization. Come on now people: I really don't think it's fair to let the WH have it both ways.

The Bush administration can claim the mantle of being technically accurate (if you ignore Fleischer's answers and Barnes statement) and generally deceitful. A dubious claim, but one the WSJ and others seem happy to make.

It all comes down to this. The left has been accusing Bush of lying for months. It turns out Bush never said Iraq was an imminent threat, and the left was lying when it said he did. Now to cover their ass, they make up some garbage about "imminent" being implied by the sum of all Bush's comments.
Well this is all BS. It is clear Bush didn't lie about Iraq being an imminent threat and the left is just playing games. I hope they continue to use the Bush lied meme, because they will continue look like hysterical partisans.

That's weak.

I find all the talk of "UN Resolutions" by Bush supporters to be hysterically funny --Bush violated the most important rule of international law and of the UN when he attacked a country which did not pose an imminent threat to the US. That is a far worse violation than whether Hussein tried to hamper arms inspections. Recall also that Bush attacked Iraq after the UN explicitly refused to approve the attack.

The obvious two-faced hypocrisy of Bush's supporters dishonors America and
our values.

Re my being anti-Israel, I think there is a difference between supporting Israel and supporting Sharon's/Likud's aggression. Besides, if our national leaders are whores for Israel, the fault lies with those who vote for Bush, not with Israel--who is simply pursuing her interests.

I fail to see how the neo-cons placing support for Sharon above their duty to the USA --especially after Sept 11 -- is patriotism.

I think it's clear why Bush attacked Iraq:
a) Sharon saw Hussein as a threat
b) Israeli Haim Saban, who has dual US citizenship, gave $12 Million in donations in 2002 and also funded creation of a Brookings Institute program to "advise" US officials on Middle Eastern policy. Some other supporters of Israel have also given $millions in campaign donations. Donations by Arab Americans are trival by comparison

Think of it as "market-driven foreign policy"

Don

There is no Medicare Trust fund. There is no Social Security trust fund. They are pay as you go systems. The US does not have a bank that they put the extra money that's collected into, it is spent. So there is no "stealing". That would be a lie.

That we have violated International law, we actually didn't since Saddam violated the cease fire agreement we could have gone in anytime we wanted to, that we chose to go through the UN (ie the dictators club) and lay out the danger that we the world faced and France and Russia thought putting coin in thier pocket more important (who are the imperialists here) well who gives a rat's ass.

So this whole Bush lied theme is just smoke being blown by a bunch of people who lost the debate and are deciding to change actual debate after the fact. The fact that you think Bush lied does not make it so. Bush, eventhough he is so "stupid" kept in sight what his job was, to protect the US, he did that move on.

If the threat Iraq supposedly posed wasn't "imminent," what was it? Grave? Serious? Immediate (Rumsfeld's word)? Horrifying? Potential? Silly?

I presume no one will argue "non-existent"?

Reg, I believe we could call a post like your last: seeing a tree, missing the forest.

>b) Israeli Haim Saban, who has dual US citizenship, gave $12 Million in donations in 2002 and also funded creation of a Brookings Institute program to "advise" US officials on Middle Eastern policy. Some other supporters of Israel have also given $millions in campaign donations. Donations by Arab Americans are trival by comparison

See? You post kooky drivel like this, and then claim Bush lied. Why am I supposed to take you seriously?

Re Kevin's comment that "There is no Medicare Trust fund. There is no Social Security trust fund. They are pay as you go systems. The US does not have a bank that they put the extra money that's collected into, it is spent. So there is no "stealing". That would be a lie."

Even Bush's Budget acknowledges that there are Trust Funds for Social Security, Medicare, Government Employee Retirement,etc.. Bush's Administration even sent me a statement showing how much I have paid into my Social Security account and how much I receive when I retire.

Bush's budget also shows that Bush is taking surplus funds from those Funds--from excess worker payroll taxes -- and leaving worthless IOUs. He has to do this to pay off Treasury Bonds coming due, since he is not collecting sufficient income taxes from the rich to pay off the rich's share of the federal debt.

His budget indicates that by 2010, the Trust Funds will be holding over $5 Trillion in IOUs , up by $3 Trillion from when Bush took office.

The only way future governments will be able to pay off those IOUs will be to levy very high taxes (e.g., 60% ) on middle class withdrawals from IRA/401K savings. For the middle class worker, Bush has borrowed $80,000 and given an IOU which says the worker will receive the $80,000 back in the future --but only if the worker himself pays off the IOU via taxes on his 401K/IRAs. Or the worker can agree to tear up the IOU (by receiving none of the promised Social Security money which he has paid in during 40 years of work.)

Any banker would be thrown in jail for such fraud. Bush's Enron Accounting is the real lie. He hasn't given $1000 tax cut to the middle class worker --he has shifted $80,000 in federal debt from the rich (who own most of the nation's wealth and who receive most of the nation's income) over onto middle class workers.

The refusal of Bush supporters/pundits to reveal this to US middle class voters shows once again the extremely deceitful nature of such supporters.

So which side is it trying to change the subject? We're talking about "imminent threat", and suddenly it's the pro-Bushies who need to turn it into a discussion of whether the war was good, or whether the Left are closet anti-Semites and Saddam worshippers. I guess it got to hot for you trying to stay on topic, with quote after quote blowing your defense away.

The most amazing thing is it's possible to be pro-war AND believe the pre-war threat was wildly hyped (e.g., Thomas Friedman of the NY Times).

And as appalled moderate keeps asking, where are those WMDs you promised us, guys?

Aside to Mick: I even told you that I'd changed threads. I don't think your playground language about me shows your side to advantage, not with the people at this blog, but it's still a free country.

The UN Charter prohibits an attack by Nation A on another NationB (Article 2) unless in self defense (Article 51). International law has held that "self defense" means that either Nation B has attacked Nation A or that there is an imminent danger of Nation B doing so.

Bush supporters who claim that Bush never indicated that the US was in imminent danger from Iraq are thereby saying that Bush violated the UN Charter.

Everyone seem's to have ignored "Simon"'s post above, so I'm going to highlight it here:

http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/000816.html#002667

It's not about the "I-word"; it's about the "imminent-phrase". An "imminent threat" is "a threat which would warrant starting a war". The issue which is being debated here is; which of the following three grounds for war was the one actually used by the Bush/Blair administrations?

1) Saddam was a monster to his own people
2) Saddam was in breach of numerous UN resolutions
3) Saddam posed a sufficiently serious threat to the US, UK and Australia for it to be legal for them to pre-emptively attack.

1) is a non-starter; although rhetorical use was made of this point, the concept of a "humanitarian war" was specifically disavowed.

2) is problematic since the coalition never actually bothered to get the UN resolution; any attempt to argue this case would involve a horrendous legalistic battle over who said what when about resolution 1441.

3) is John Schwartz' case.

I'd further note that for Sebastian to prove this to be a "complete fabrication", it would on the face of it appear that he'd need to prove that 3) was never used *at all*, but this seems unduly harsh.

What the whole "Bush lied" mantra comes down to is this:

The Bush-haters of the world can't deal in facts. They can't deal with what _is_ and what today's situation calls for. That's too difficult, since any sane person would realize that what Bush did was the right thing to do. Especially when radical murderers are out to destroy us, we can't be wishy-washy and "just be nice to them."

This is a war. A real war. And it's one of those rare cases when war is the least bad option. And coming to this realization utterly shatters the decades of internationalist delusion that the sovereignty-sacrificing, World Court-courting, Kyoto-hugging World Socialists have been ensconced themselves in since the Carter years.

If they had to deal in the here-and-now, and address current situations with actual solutions, and not platitudes and soundbytes, they would have to come to the same conclusion that Bush did, and that Bush stuck to, despite the most foul accusations on his motives and the faceless insinuations of complicity.

That's too hard a pill for the "moveon" people to swallow. After all, there's an election coming up, and they can't (gulp!) support Bush! Not after Gore's humiliation. They can't join up arm-in-arm for the country's sake, nor for the world's sake. They have to paint themselves as against Bush, while at the same time claiming to want the same thing as he does: safety from massive, anonymous terrorist attack.

So we have the constant drum beat of Dems making excuses for our enemies, and false accusations against the Administration. Followed up with whines that it's "patriotic" to make America the villain.

And so they have to rely on portraying Bush as a liar. Remember, chanting "liar, liar, pants on fire" is one of the most basic schoolyard taunts. It's the number one weapon in the Democratic armamentarium. It's the first arrow they reach for in their quiver.

Today it's: "Bush lied about an attack being 'imminent,' er, I mean he implied 'imminent,' I mean he explicitly said it was 'not imminent,' but we took that to mean 'imminent,' since after all he's a liar, so you can't take it to mean anything but 'imminent.' So Bush is a liar!"

Tomorrow it will be something else, and the whole "imminent" nonsense will fade with the sunrise like Nosferatu. On to some other lie about what Bush "did." Not what we should DO. Today. Now.

In the two years + since 9/11, aside from "give our enemies what they want," I have yet to hear a single cohesive plan of defense from the Bush-haters. Only what "Bush did."

Oh, that, and "We shoud pull out of Iraq now!" Yeah, there's a plan.

If the launching of bio-chem weapons within 45 minutes [Yes, Bush did say this] is not an "imminent" threat i don't know what is meant by the word "imminent".
See July 20 Washington Post article copied below:

White House Didn't Gain CIA Nod for Claim On Iraqi Strikes
Gist Was Hussein Could Launch in 45 Minutes
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 20, 2003; Page A01
The White House, in the run-up to war in Iraq, did not seek CIA approval before charging that Saddam Hussein could launch a biological or chemical attack within 45 minutes, administration officials now say.
The claim, which has since been discredited, was made twice by President Bush, in a September Rose Garden appearance after meeting with lawmakers and in a Saturday radio address the same week. Bush attributed the claim to the British government, but in a "Global Message" issued Sept. 26 and still on the White House Web site, the White House claimed, without attribution, that Iraq "could launch a biological or chemical attack 45 minutes after the order is given."
The 45-minute claim is at the center of a scandal in Britain that led to the apparent suicide on Friday of a British weapons scientist who had questioned the government's use of the allegation. The scientist, David Kelly, was being investigated by the British parliament as the suspected source of a BBC report that the 45-minute claim was added to Britain's public "dossier" on Iraq in September at the insistence of an aide to Prime Minister Tony Blair -- and against the wishes of British intelligence, which said the charge was from a single source and was considered unreliable.
The White House embraced the claim, from a British dossier on Iraq, at the same time it began to promote the dossier's disputed claim that Iraq sought uranium in Africa.
Bush administration officials last week said the CIA was not consulted about the claim. A senior White House official did not dispute that account, saying presidential remarks such as radio addresses are typically "circulated at the staff level" within the White House only.
Virtually all of the focus on whether Bush exaggerated intelligence about Iraq's weapons ambitions has been on the credibility of a claim he made in the Jan. 28 State of the Union address about efforts to buy uranium in Africa. But an examination of other presidential remarks, which received little if any scrutiny by intelligence agencies, indicates Bush made more broad accusations on other intelligence matters related to Iraq.
For example, the same Rose Garden speech and Sept. 28 radio address that mentioned the 45-minute accusation also included blunt assertions by Bush that "there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq." This claim was highly disputed among intelligence experts; a group called Ansar al-Islam in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq and Jordanian Abu Musab Zarqawi, who could have been in Iraq, were both believed to have al Qaeda contacts but were not themselves part of al Qaeda.
Bush was more qualified in his major Oct. 7 speech in Cincinnati, mentioning al Qaeda members who got training and medical treatment from Iraq. The State of the Union address was also more hedged about whether al Qaeda members were in Iraq, saying "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda."
Bush did not mention Iraq in his radio address yesterday. Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), delivering the Democratic radio address, suggested that the dispute over the uranium claim in the State of the Union "is about whether administration officials made a conscious and very troubling decision to create a false impression about the gravity and imminence of the threat that Iraq posed to America." Levin said there is evidence the uranium claim "was just one of many questionable statements and exaggerations by the intelligence community and administration officials in the buildup to the war."
The 45-minute accusation is particularly noteworthy because of the furor it has caused in Britain, where the charge originated. A parliamentary inquiry determined earlier this month that the claim "did not warrant the prominence given to it in the dossier, because it was based on intelligence from a single, uncorroborated source." The inquiry also concluded that "allegations of politically inspired meddling cannot credibly be established."
As it turns out, the 45-minute charge was not true; though forbidden weapons may yet be found in Iraq, an adviser to the Bush administration on arms issues said last week that such weapons were not ready to be used on short notice.
The 45-minute allegation did not appear in the major speeches Bush made about Iraq in Cincinnati in October or in his State of the Union address, both of which were made after consultation with the CIA. But the White House considered the 45-minute claim significant and drew attention to it the day the British dossier was released. Asked if there was a "smoking gun" in the British report, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer on Sept. 24 highlighted that charge and the charge that Iraq sought uranium in Africa.
"I think there was new information in there, particularly about the 45-minute threshold by which Saddam Hussein has got his biological and chemical weapons triggered to be launched," Fleischer said. "There was new information in there about Saddam Hussein's efforts to obtain uranium from African nations. That was new information."
The White House use of the 45-minute charge is another indication of its determination to build a case against Hussein even without the participation of U.S. intelligence services. The controversy over the administration's use of intelligence has largely focused on claims made about the Iraqi nuclear program, particularly attempts to buy uranium in Africa. But the accusation that Iraq could launch a chemical or biological attack on a moment's notice was significant because it added urgency to the administration's argument that Hussein had to be dealt with quickly.
Using the single-source British accusation appears to have violated the administration's own standard. In a briefing for reporters on Friday, a senior administration official, discussing the decision to remove from the Cincinnati speech an allegation that Iraq tried to buy uranium in Niger, said CIA Director George J. Tenet told the White House that "for a presidential speech, the standard ought to be higher than just relying upon one source. Oftentimes, a lot of these things that are embodied in this document are based on multiple sources. And in this case, that was a single source being cited, and he felt that that was not appropriate."
The British parliamentary inquiry reported this month that the claim came from one source, and "it appears that no evidence was found which corroborated the information supplied by the source, although it was consistent with a pattern of evidence of Iraq's military capability over time. Neither are we aware that there was any corroborating evidence from allies through the intelligence-sharing machinery. It is also significant that the US did not refer to the claim publicly." The report said the investigators "have not seen a satisfactory answer" to why the government gave the claim such visibility.

Re Simon's comment above, note that Article 51 only allows military action in self-defense if an actual armed attack has been launched against the defender. However, international law has allowed a response to an "imminent threat" --i.e., massive number tanks massing on one's border.

None of Hussein's missiles could reach the US.

Bush has also deliberately confused the situation with his deceitful use of the vague term "Weapons of Mass Destruction"(WMD). This is no such thing as WMD. There are bioweapons, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons --but not WMD. But Bush did not want to talk clearly on this matter because his arguments fell apart if this was done.

Re nuclear weapons, there are two routes: U235 or Plutonium.

The design of U235 nukes can be simple -- the Little Boy design in which one subcritical mass is fired at another subcritical mass in an artillery barrel.
Such weapons are low yield --roughly 50 kiloton.
But Even with uranium ore (yellowcake) , one needs a massive industrial complex to separate small amounts of U235 from the large amounts of chemically identical U238.
See the huge US complex at Paducah Ky and Oak Ridge
IMO, There was no way Iraq could hide such a complex from UN arms inspectors and US reconnaisance.

It is more easy to create and separate Plutonium from U238 using chemical methods --but a plutonium bomb requires a difficult, complex "implosion" design
--in which a sphere of plutonium is encased in a sphere of high explosive and the high explosive is detonated simultaneously at multiple points so as to focus the explosive waves into a point and compress the plutonium. The Manhatten project solved this problem --largely via trial and error testing . Testing of the implosion design would have also been difficult to conceal. Plutonium is also difficult and dangerous to work with. And again, primitive atomic bombs are low yield (around 50 kt) and very large, bulky, and heavy. Hussein's missiles could probably have carried the Fat Man atomic bomb about 2 miles.

Chemical weapons are irrelevant as a threat -- they are heavy, bulky, difficult to transport from Iraq to the US, hard to smuggle into the US , very difficult to deploy, relatively easy to defend against, and with little potential for causing a significant number of injuries. Someone would be a fool to launch a chemical attack in a US city --the small damage caused would not be worth the pain from massive US retaliation.

Some Bio-weapons are a concern but no one ever showed that Hussein had --or was capable of developing -- a Fort Detrick type weapon. Moreover, such a weapon, if it existed, could be developed and hidden anywhere in the world. An attack on Iraq was unlikely to unearth it --as we have seen-- and was likely to provoke it's eventual use.

If Bush really thought that Hussein had a major bio-weapon, then Bush exposed many US citizens to high risk by provoking Hussein to use the weapon. Bush's advisors and he would have known that the Iraqi invasion would not capture hidden bio-weapons.

Bottom Line: There's little to support the argument that the Iraq attack was
"self defense" against an attack on the US by Iraq.

The complaint that Bush critics can't face facts is hilarious. I and others have provided many specific facts with citations/references to support our criticisms -- whereas all I've seen here from Bush supporters is, in my opinion, sophistry, confused arguments, floundering ad hominems, and dubious opinions untrammelled by any factual support.

Bush (on 9/12/02) told the UN: "Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger."

Forget whether or not "gathering" is a synonym for "imminent" (and whether that's undermined by the other synonyms Roget's also includes). Bush said Hussein already IS a grave danger, and getting worse.

Again: "_is_ a grave and gathering danger." Not "_will_ be a grave danger someday." Or "_might_ be a grave danger sometime, and we just don't know when that'll be." No. IS. IS. IS!

Are you conservatives really, honestly, gonna join our disgraced former president and parse over the definition of "what 'is' is"?

God, this is so frustrating. This has gotta be what arguing lingustics with Derrida is like.

By the way, in the big run-up to the war, in the many, many squabbles I had with hawks (on-line and off), I wish even ONE of them had said to me: "Oh don't worry, the threat from Iraq is not imminent."

Never heard that. Did you? I heard how Blix is a big pacifist stooge. I heard how the UN is an irrelevant debating society. I heard how peace protesters were "objectively pro-Saddam." And I even heard from Rumsfeld that he knew EXACTLY WHERE THE WEAPONS ARE.

But I just didn't hear many hawks consoling the masses with, "Hey, you're uninformed, folks. Don't worry. There's no imminent threat from Iraq. Calm down, people. They can't hurt us now, or any time soon."

Maybe I just wasn't listening hard enough.

Hey, fellas!

Just stopped in at an internet cafe for a brew and saw this on my blog-run. I tell you, this is turning out better than I thought it would. Stash a few things here, demolish and shred and burn evidence there - bam! Half of the Western world is ready to string Bush II up and defend me like Johnny Cochrane at his best. Stalin never had it as good as this, man.

Keep up the good work, guys, though I wouldn't pull a hamstring on this debate stuff. Who's listening to facts, anyway? I never had nuclear, chemical or biological relations with that woman - what's the audience response? That's right: Applause! Win this one, and maybe you can convince the Yanks to pull out.

Gotta run. This Guy Incognito thing is dangerous. Last time I was in Baghdad, Mitch McConnell asked me for a cigarette.

Ciao, or as Hans Blix would say, "Where's my ass"!

[/comic relief]

The claim of 45 minutes would qualify as a claim of imminent threat. However, I'd be interested in seeing exactly what Bush said about it -- as in a direct quote, not a journalist's summary. The 45 minute claim was one made officially by the British government. To my knowledge, the US government never made it officially, except to the extent that they cited the official position and statement of a close ally -- Britain. Saying "my friend, who I trust, says X" is not the same thing as saying "I say X."

This is basically one of the problems here. You have two sovereign nations in an alliance, lead by two leaders facing two very different domestic political situations and their statements ought to be kept separate because they were really quite different. Blair is the leader of a party with a strongly pacifist and, frankly, anti-American tradition (I lived in the UK in the early 1980s, trust me on that, they are). So Blair couched his argument in terms of traditional international law, the UN, and in terms of humanitarian concerns. That was what he thought he could sell to the Labour back benches.

Those are all valid arguments except that they lead him to make claims under traditional international law based on intelligence that turn out after the fact not to have been accurate. Hence, Blair (not Bush) made an imminent threat argument (the 45 minute claim) that now seems dubious in hindsight even though the evidence that has come out of the Hutton Inquiry is that the UK intelligence services did sign off on it.

Contrast that with Bush. He did not base his argument for the use of force on the traditional imminent threat standard. His official, written, public, policy was preemption. That is a MUCH more radical argument (albeit with antecedents such as the Cuban Missile Crisis). Bush is arguing that the imminent threat standard is inappropriate and dangerous given the nature of the threat we face in a post 9/11 world. He argues that the imminent threat threshold is much too high given that a terrorist, WMD-armed attack might easily evade detection until it is actually carried out in an undefended, and undefendable population center. Remember, we aren't talking about trackable missiles here, but about delivery by much more stealthy means.

This is the core strategic argument. Can nations take preemptive action, or must they wait for the first blow? It is because one side disagrees with that rewriting of the threshold of the use of force that they are trying so hard to prove that the Bush Administration made an argument it explicitly disavowed. It is a way of not dealing with the real question that deserves a straight answer.

If I might respond to Mick's request above: "I have yet to hear a single cohesive plan of defense from the Bush-haters."

Might I suggest the following policy for the US:

a) Put the US national interest above the agendas of the neocons' support for Sharon, the oil companies, and defense contractors

b) Do not drag the American people into a needless, bloody war with 1 billion Muslims when it is not necessary, when America has nothing to gain, and when there is no national interest involved.

c) Have the wit to realize that the US gets most of it's oil from Mexico, Canada, Venezuela, and Nigeria -- that it's stupid to let Richard Perle manipulate you into spending $50 billion /year controlling the Middle East in order to buy $25 billion of Saudi oil, and that investing even a fraction of that $50 billion/year into energy research would generate huge gains/savings for the US economy.

d) Use the US military to defend the US --not to police a global empire. Let America's rich know that if they want to lay off millions of US workers, close factories, and invest abroad then they should not expect US workers to pay heavy taxes/shed blood to protect those foreign investments.

e) Realize that things like the Sept 11 attacks would not occur if US voters insisted that elected officials stop being whores for the oil companies and Israel -- i.e., that the US government stop inflicting great misery on the Middle East solely to advance the agendas of a few campaign donors. The reason why Europe differs with us is that Bush and his wealthy supporters could not coverup the truth in European media the way they did here in the US.

f) Stop tolerating deceitful liars who greatly damage the nation and then wrap their agendas in the flag so that they can claim critics are unAmerican.

For Don Williams:

You said: "Re Simon's comment above, note that Article 51 only allows military action in self-defense if an actual armed attack has been launched against the defender. However, international law has allowed a response to an "imminent threat" --i.e., massive number tanks massing on one's border."

This is perfectly true. But also perfectly irrelevant. The question isn't what would the imminent threat standard of traditional international law allows. We are all agreed on that. The question is what is necessary given current realities, and whether reliance on traditional principles adequately serves international security in a modern world that includes unconventional threats?

That is, of course, the reason the Bush Administration eschewed the legal term imminent threat and instead used terms like "grave and gathering danger." It is quite clear that grave and gathering danger describes something less than imminent threat. Since we (including Bush) seem agreed that Iraq did not pose an imminent threat, then it follows that Bush's term "grave and gathering danger" means a situation short of imminent threat. So if you combine Bush's statements and his actions, you have military action in a situation that falls short of imminent threat, but which might have been a "grave and gathering danger." In other words, you have preepmtion of a future threat that isn't yet formed into an imminent one.

Actually, even a simple look at the words bear that interpretation out. "Gathering" is a future-looking word. He didn't say "gathered." He didn't say "fully formed" or "present" he said "gathering." If you act now on something "gathering" you are acting preemptively. That is what Bush argued, and that is what he did. There is no lie there.

The rest of your post and the other ones seem to be simply saying that a WMD attack on the US would be impossible, or not that bad. I personally have little interest on betting my own life, or those of my countrymen on such a rosy assumption. The phrase "famous last words" comes to mind.

Great post.

For me, this is a classic case in which both sides are right.

It should be obvious that, as Professor Drezner documents, the White House explicitly declined to characterize Iraq as an imminent threat. They also clearly made a decision not to formally identify Iraq as a "clear and present danger."

Instead, they advanced the doctrine of preemptive action against future threats, which is what this argument used to be about. Professor Drezner is right: it's as if those who opposed preemptive war have come to believe they won that argument, and are now attacking the Iraq war on grounds that . . . it was a preemptive war.

That said, at the emotional and nonverbal level the White House vividly conveyed the idea that, not to put too fine a point on it, the very thought of Iraq scared the bejesus out of them.

So the imminence folks are responding to something real: they're responding to the plain fact that the Bush administration saw Iraq as a grave and immediate danger, regardless of the words they used. As Bush himself once said, and I believe I'm quoting correctly, "Time is not on our side."

I attribute a lot of the Mars-and-Venus quality of this argument to the fact that Wolfowtiz, Cheny, Bush (according to Woodward's book) and probably others believed that Saddam was likely involved in the 9/11 attacks, as well as in the anthrax attacks.

Regardless of whether they were right or wrong in their suspicions, they were in the position of trying to talk about a future threat from a country that (in their view) had already hit us. That made their language urgent, angry, and fear-soaked, and people on both sides of the debate got the message. The Bushies thought Iraq was extremely dangerous, and they thought it was extremely dangerous now, not in some distant future.

So the discussion I wish we were having would not be the one we are having. It would be about what we should do when we've been attacked and we don't know who did it.

What do we do when we suspect a false flag operation, but can't prove it?

Do we sit tight and wait for further developments?

Or do we err on the side of caution?

Haaaang on a minute, dsquared. Iagree with what you posted, but the crux of this argument hasn't been ignored. Scroll all the way to the beginning of this keening, squealing desperarate wall of right wing text,and you'll see:

One speech -- versus a mountain of Meet the Press transcripts, minus the spooky organ music: "We don't want the smoking gun to be in the form of the mushroom cloud."

If, in a SOTU, I hear: the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons you've got my attention. If you alternate sentence subjects between "nukes" and "Iraq" and "threats" and inspections and an altogether uncooperative and malevolent dictator while giving that speech, though perhaps not explicitly linking them, I'm still tingly. If I'm being told by "the smart guys" there's "a bear in the woods" hurriedly working on a tactical nuclear device maybe just for a town like mine, well "imminence" stretches as far as my supply of Depends™.

Sebastian is parsing words, while this administration is traficking in paranoia and wiggle room. Hey, if I glare long and hard in your direction, I may not have said "I don't like you right now", but the inference is taken. Now, prove the inference.

How, in the face of objectively provable fact, people on political defense insist on saying "oh, we never meant that" is beyond me. I certainly wouldn't take that shit from my partners or employees or my kids.

A simple truth: 7 out of 10, thought Saddam was behind 9-11-01.

The left did not create that impression. In fact, they've been screaming to the heavens since way pre-war that the impression was allowed and encouraged to harden. Republicans of little intelectual character--and big hurry to kick some righteous ass--never took a chance to shoot that down. In fact, questions to patriotism, not intellect and available fact where the defense/offense mechanism.

7 out of 10. 7 out of 10.

Regardless of the exact words used, any country who (unofficially) is allowed to be judged the prime mover behind an unprecedented and tragic attack--and who is then presented as being an angry at us, maybe thermonuclear capable, and on the move, will be regarded as a fuckin' A imminent threat.

7 out 10 boys and girls. If intellectual and rhetorical purity is your defense, why were you whistling and pulling your puds while that one was stinking up your Higher Ground?

Man, if I ever go on a postal worker rampage, I'm switching parties and doing a lot of volunteer work first. That way I'm guaranteed plenty of "friends" to vouch for my "intent" at the trial. Maybe we'll be able to redefine the meaning of homicide, too.

Just one comment: "Clear and Present Danger" is another one of those things that Blair said, but I do not believe that Bush said. Clear and Present Danger is a term from US First Amendment law. It is an obsolete standard for when the government can prosecute subversive speech. It isn't something used in national security circles. Or at least it wasn't until Mr. Clancy used it for the title of of his books (which is probably where Blair heard it). Anyway, Blair used it, Bush didn't. But in any case it has no meaning under international law while imminent threat has a very specific meaning under international law. That is why the argument about imminent threat isn't just about impressions or semantics. It is a policy argument.

If my memory serves me correctly, on the Frontline documentary "Truth, War and Consequences", shown last Thursday [October 9], there is a video clip of Bush using the word IMMINENT to describe the threat from Iraq -- now, I don't know where to find a reference to that clip [i.e., its source,], but it seems to me that Bush using the word "imminent" to describe the threat from Iraq is game, set and match for those who make the charge that the administration DID say there was an imminent threat.

Re Catherine's comment above:
"It should be obvious that, as Professor Drezner documents, the White House explicitly declined to characterize Iraq as an imminent threat. They also clearly made a decision not to formally identify Iraq as a "clear and present danger." "

I disagree. I would argue that indeed: "the Bush administration argued in the runup to the war that there was an imminent threat from Iraq."

This does NOT require that we find a statement where Bush says makes the precise statement
"Iraq is an imminent threat". Only that the Bush Administration arguments and depiction of Iraq indicated to US citizens that "there was an imminent threat from Iraq."

I think that requirement is easily met by the statements in the Iraq War Resolution that Bush sent to Congress:
( http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686 )

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States ... and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability[NOTE!], actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability[NOTE], and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;[NOTE]..."

"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;[NOTE] ..."

" Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States[NOTE] or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack[NOTE], combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;"
----------------
The above depiction of the "current regime in Iraq" indicated a severe PRESENT danger, not something coming down the road several years hence.

With regard to the sourcing for the Bush 45 minute claim: first, it was in Bush's September 28 radio address and, second, it was in the "Global Message" issued Sept. 26 and still on the White House web site [as of July 20]. Of course, given the history of "scrubbing" by the White House of its web site [witness, changing the headlines re: "major combat operations"] it may be that this information is no longer there on the web site.

>Realize that things like the Sept 11 attacks would not occur if US voters insisted that elected officials stop being whores for the oil companies and Israel

Not one of your "arguments," answered what you promised to: "If I might respond to Mick's request above: "I have yet to hear a single cohesive plan of defense from the Bush-haters."

Instead you reiterate that the whole war on terror is (a) to claim Iraq for the oil companies, (b) doing Sharon's bidding to expand the Zionist conspiracy, (c) about the oil, and finally (d) based on the 9/11 attacks, which we DESERVED because of our "mean" policies.

So what is your "cohesive plan of defense"?

You don't have one. Aside from bend over for Bin Laden.

Simon: "It is quite clear that grave and gathering danger describes something less than imminent threat. Actually, even a simple look at the words bear that interpretation out. "Gathering" is a future-looking word. He didn't say "gathered." He didn't say "fully formed" or "present" he said "gathering."

'Gathering' is the word you're hanging up on, Simon. But we can even forget 'gathering,' 'cause Bush said ""Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave _and_ gathering danger." (9/12/02). Grave AND gathering (that means it's already bad, and it's getting even worse, right?).

So Bush was saying that Saddam Hussein ALREADY "IS" a grave danger. IS!

"Is" is not a future-looking word. He didn't say "might be" a grave danger. He didn't say "could be" a grave danger or "eventually will be" a grave danger. He said "is."

IS!

Are you going to quibble over what the definition of 'is' is? 'Cause I didn't like it when Clinton did it, and I doubt I'll like your version, either.

Patrick Meighan
Los Angeles, CA

Two things: first, the Congressional authorization resolution is just that -- a statement by Congress. You can't impute that to the Administration, though you could impute that to messers Kerry et al, who voted for it.

Secondly, the description is accurate. Iraq had used chemical weapons on civilians in the past. That is a pretty clear indication of a dangerous regime. Congress then determined that such a regime seeking chemical and other WMD was a threat to the United States. Congress then empowered the president to act. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Congress.

Basically, your argument seems to be that this is all or nothing. You suppose that Iraq had to be either no threat at all, or it had to be an imminent threat. Of course, it could have been a threat that hadn't (yet) risen to the level of an imminent threat. Bush's argument was that he wasn't going to wait because of the danger that the precise point at which a threat becomes imminent is basically impossible to see when you are talking about WMD falling into the hands of terrorists. So he argued you act now, rather than later.

So of course Bush did indeed argue that Iraq was a grave threat. That isn't at all inconsistant with saying that it was still short of an imminent threat as international law has traditionally defined it. It is simply that a grave threat is enough given the magnitude of the danger.

Or to put it another way, Imminent threat has two prongs and you need both. But what Bush is saying is that when it comes to the threat of WMD, the imminence prong is less important than the threat prong.

Mick: "So what is your "cohesive plan of defense"? You don't have one. Aside from bend over for Bin Laden."

Mick, one of the best defenses is to make people not want to attack you.

One of the worst defenses is to make people want to attack you.

According the the UK's International Institute for Strategic Studies today, the invasion of Iraq has very definitively done the latter.

Great. Bend over indeed. I just hope they bomb your block instead of mine, genius.

Here's the cite:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&ncid=721&e=1&u=/nm/20031015/wl_nm/security_iraq_balance_dc

Patrick: "So Bush was saying that Saddam Hussein ALREADY "IS" a grave danger. IS!"

Yes, and as I said above, this isn't inconsistent in any way. Perhaps it isn't quite clear just how high a standard imminent threat is under traiditonal interpretations of international law. For a threat to be imminent, it traditionally has to be *really* imminent. Something can still be a threat (or a danger) and not be an imminent threat. That is why I mentioned tanks massing on the border as opposed to merely having tanks. Having lots of tanks and the intent to use them would be a threat, but it wouldn't be an imminent threat until you mass them on the border. Is that clearer?

I guess this is why I keep emphasizing that imminent threat isn't just a loose turn of phrase, it is a legal term of art. It has fairly a precise meaning. You can still have all kinds of dangers and threats without having an imminent threat. So yes, Bush and his supporters (including Congress) outlined a threat, and a danger, and so on. But at least as far as Bush's people are concerned, they never crossed the legal threshold of arguing for the legal standard of an imminent threat. On the contrary, they argued that waiting for an imminent threat would be waiting too long.

Simon: "So of course Bush did indeed argue that Iraq was a grave threat. That isn't at all inconsistant with saying that it was still short of an imminent threat as international law has traditionally defined it."

Help me, HELP ME understand the difference between a grave threat and an imminent threat. 'Cause if something "is a grave threat," that means it's a bad threat right NOW, right?

If I say "my lawn is green," I mean it's green right now (present tense). I don't say "my lawn is green" to communicate that right now it's purple, but it WILL be green sometime in the future, we can't know exactly when.

If we agree (as you admit we do) that Bush said Saddam is a grave threat, then how is that different from an imminent threat? 'Cause "is a grave danger" is a predicate in the present tense, not the future tense, right?

Again, help me, Simon. Help.

Simon: "I guess this is why I keep emphasizing that imminent threat isn't just a loose turn of phrase, it is a legal term of art... at least as far as Bush's people are concerned, they never crossed the legal threshold of arguing for the legal standard of an imminent threat."

I'm starting to see the problem. You're talking about law, and legal thresholds. I'm talking about what message Bush conveyed to US, the people, his bosses (as this is a democracy). You're allowing that Bush conveyed an image of impending danger to the American public, but (for the sake of legality) studiously avoided using the two specific words that would cross the "legal threshold." It doesn't matter that the American public interpreted "grave danger" to mean that Iraq is, well, a grave danger to the US right now. What matters is that Bush didn't break the law.

Sorry, Simon, but that's incredibly weak. It's this duplicitous legalism and finest-of-the-fine hair-splitting from Clinton that disgusted conservatives and the American public, alike. They were right to be disgusted. And if I understand your argument correctly, I believe that I am right to be so, as well.

Patrick Meighan
Los Angeles, CA

Well, I'll try to help. I think I have already tried with my massing tanks analogy -- which is the standard one used in these situations.

Think of it this way. Suppose you have ten bombers. Are you a threat? Maybe. It would depend on what I think of your intentions. So suppose that I think your intentions are hostile? Are you a threat? Yes, probably. Your very capability and intent makes you a present threat. But are you an imminent threat such as traditional international law would recognize as being grounds for a preemptive strike on me? No, probably not.

For something to be an imminent threat, the attack being preempted has to be for all intents and purposes, already consumated. The only thing that hasn't happened is for the blow to have fallen on the victim of the attack. In all other ways, the attack itself is a foregone event. All the elements of the attack are otherwise in motion.

This is a rule of permissible self-defense. The traditional international legal rule is that it would be unfair to require the victim to wait for the blow before allowing him to act in self-defense. So the victim can act forst, but only if there is really no doubt that there really will be an attack regardless of whether he takes the first blow or gives it.

Anyway, that is the traditional rule. What I'm saying is that it is out of date given modern realitites. But even under the traditional rule there is no contradiction between a very real, very present danger without the specific conditions of an imminent threat.

You don't know the difference between grave and imminent?

You are either disingenuous or stupid. Probably both.

Grave = something that needs to be taken seriously, something that can lead to seriously sire consequences if not dealt with

Imminent = get to the bomb shelter now

Still clueless?

Ever.

>Mick, one of the best defenses is to make people not want to attack you.

That is not a "defense." That is pacifism, and just ask the Dalai Lama and Chamberlain how effective it is in protecting you from the world's murderers.

So again, what is your great defense plan?

Again I insist, you have none.

That is to say "dire".

Simon

The White House drafted the Iraq War Resolution, gave it to Congress, Congress debated and amended it, and Bush signed it--thereby affirming it's statements as President.

This site has the several drafts ,including the initial White House draft.
In the White House draft, Bush argued:

"Whereas the United States has the inherent right, as acknowledged in the United Nations Charter, to use force in order to defend itself;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the high risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify the use of force by the United States in order to defend itself; "

-----------
That is, Bush argued that the threat from Iraq met the criteria for the use of force as stated in UN Charter, Article 51. Hence, he was arguing to Congress that
Iraq met the "imminent threat" criteria of international law.

Sorry --link to War Resolution drafts is here: http://voteview.uh.edu/iraq_resolution.htm

First of all, I believe the Congressional authorization came in the form of a joint resolution. That means the President did not sign it. Presidents only sign acts into law, not resolutions.

The UN Charter is actually rather vague about the inherent right of self-defense. Article 51 says all nations have it, but it doesn't specify any exceptions. Those exceptions come from customary international law. I have articulated above what you might call the orthodox view of customary international law. Among other countries, the US has from time to time made other, less orthodox arguments. For example, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and for the invasion of Grenada (to take two examples off the top of my head).

Anyway, Article 51 is a reasonable thing to cite for the general proposition that international law recognizes the inherent right to self-defense. That is the basic justification for preemption. You preempt out of self-defense, not for fun. But it doesn't follow from a reference to Article 51 that any argument that follows is necessarily about imminent threat. It particularly doesn't follow when the Bush Administration has made it so clear that their policy is one of preemption.

"Mick, one of the best defenses is to make people not want to attack you.

Mick sez: "That is not a "defense." That is pacifism, and just ask the Dalai Lama and Chamberlain how effective it is in protecting you from the world's murderers."

Mick, Chamberlain is a red herring to this discussion. He agreed, in 1938, to give Germany land (the Sudetenland), in return for Germany's promise not to invade any further nations. That was appeasement. What, in 2003, was Saddam demanding? What territory did Saddam want back in March, in return for a promise of peace? None. But it doesn't stop bright scholars like yourself from tarring those opposed to this Iraq war with his tarnished name, does it? No. Why not? Maybe because "you are either disingenuous or stupid. Probably both."

The Dalai Lama, meanwhile, IS a pacifist. The U.S., by contrast, spends more on its military than EVERY OTHER COUNTRY COMBINED!

Try and find a post where I argue against it. You can't. Fine. Let's go ahead and keep a military stronger than all the others combined. Also, let's not invade other nations that pose no threat to us. That's probably the best defense there is. Better, anyway, than an unprovoked attack which swells the volunteer ranks of our opponents (did'ya click on that link I included above? No? Maybe 'cause you're disingenuous or stupid. Probably both.).

Re Mick's comment above:
">Mick, one of the best defenses is to make people not want to attack you.

That is not a "defense." That is pacifism, and just ask the Dalai Lama and Chamberlain how effective it is in protecting you from the world's murderers.

So again, what is your great defense plan?
-----------------

I'm definitely not suggesting pacifism.
I saying that our government should not go out of it's way to screw other people unnecessarily because we, the citizens,
suffer the consequences --either Sept 11 or massive taxes to pay massive defense budgets or lost of liberty under the Patriot Act.

Only a moron thinks there's some benefit in being a corrupt bully which pisses on the rest of the world for little or no reason.

I support Israel as an ally but there was no need to support's Sharon's sabotage of the peace talks and his behavior in bombing civilians by selling him 52 more F16s-- Israel already has the largest collection outside the US Air Force. Moreover, Israel hasn't faced a serious threat since the fall of the Soviet Union and since we bought off Egypt.

Similarly, if we support Israel --with $91 Billion in aid, massive arms sales, UN vetos, --then the rest of the world holds us responsible for Israel's actions.

There's no reason for us to install the US military in Saudi Arabia to protect a corrupt kleptocracy which has pissed away it's peoples' birthright in the casinos of Monte Carlo.

There was no reason for us to overthrow a lawfully elected Prime Minister of Iran in the 1950s(Mossadagh) and install a dictator like the Shah --whose Savak was known for vicious behavior.

There was no need to give Suharto a list of 100,000 people to kill in Indonesia --or to support him while his family stole everything no nailed down and bankrupted that nation. Same goes for Marcos in the Phillipines.

The US has a right to do business with lawful rulers --but not to install dictators and prop them up with sales of advanced weaponry in order to steal the few resources a poor nation has. Or because some bureaucrat like Richard Perle has delusions about being master of the world. Especially since Bush and his supporters seem disinclined to fight in the wars they start. I didn't see Bush in Iraq.

The interim Kay report makes it clear that Saddam's regime had high-level contacts with North Korea attempting to purchase missile technology with a 1000km range in 2001. Imagine a missile filled with a bioweapon, chemical agents, or a dirty bomb. I for one am very happy that Saddam will no longer have an opportunity to lob missiles at Israel/SaudiArabia/Turkey or anyone else within a 1000km range.

As for those who say "tough" sanctions would have worked, Saddam's regime made a mockery of the sanctions regime throughout the 1990's, giving the finger repeatedly to the vaunted "international community's" demands.

Aside from prisons full of 8-year-olds, mass graves with toddlers still clutching their dolls, torture in wet rooms with truck batteries and bare cables, rape as an instrument of state, and killing 1 million of his own people, what's not to like? 1 million Iraqis killed and over 4 million in exile--comparable percentages in the United states would be 11.2million people killed and 44.8million in exile.

I guess it's far more important to parse the word "imminent" to score domestic political points, though....

He he. Yes, the Dalai Lama is a pacifist. He's also Tibetan. And which country occupies Tibet? The rather non-pacifist Chinese! I think perhaps there is a lesson there somewhere. ;-)

Anyway, on the imminent threat issue, it occurs to me that people who disagree with Bush would do a lot better if they would be honest about what they are really arguing. Argue preemption is wrong if you like. Argue that Iraq was no threat to anyone. Argue that terrorism isn't a real threat. Or argue it is something we should just get used to. Any of those would be more honest than trying to argue that Bush said things he plainly did not say, and plainly argued against. That is just disingenous. Policy and opinion is one thing, but simple facts about what was or was not said can be checked.

From the Mick school of enlightened discourse:

If your dictionary doesn't say what you want it to say, call your opponent a name, and then invent your own definitions. To wit:

"You are either disingenuous or stupid. Probably both.
Grave = something that needs to be taken seriously, something that can lead to seriously sire consequences if not dealt with
Imminent = get to the bomb shelter now
Still clueless?"

Mick, MY dictionary (Websters 9th, FWIW) says "grave" means "likely to produce great harm or danger" and "imminent" means "ready to happen." Websters doesn't say "imminent" means "already happening," which I guess is when you'd be told to "get to the bomb shelter now."

But I dunno. Maybe Websters is disingenuous or stupid. Probably both.

However, we are talking about imminent threat. A legal term requiring both words. Websters is unlikely to be much help.

But in any case, look at your definions from the dictionary. The two words are clearly not synonyms. One says something is likely to produce something. So "grave" would be an expression of probability. Imminent is something "about to happen," or to put it another way, it is a term referring to the shortness of time between now and when something happens. So I'm afraid you have undone your own semantic argument. Grave is not the same thing as imminent.

"Any of those would be more honest than trying to argue that Bush said things he plainly did not say, and plainly argued against. That is just disingenous."

Simon, it's YOU who's being disingenuous. You take one SOTU quote from Bush where he "rejects the need for an imminent threat" (that's Sebastian's interpretation of the quote, not mine) and interpreting that to mean Bush was plainly arguing that there WAS no imminent threat. That WASN'T Bush's argument! That's not what he said.

Meanwhile, you're reinterpreting the many administration warnings about Saddam's many WMD capabilities, how they could be executed at 45 minutes notice (an assertion Bush made with AND SOMETIMES WITHOUT attributing it to the British), how "we know where they are," how Iraq had flightless aircraft capability which could be used to deploy biological weapons in American skies...

All those statments, and you're NOW saying: "Hey, Bush didn't mean all that stuff was ready to happen" (which is the Webster's definition of "imminent.") "When Bush told you Saddam could unleash his WMDs in 45 minutes, you thought he meant that the threat was imminent, or ready to happen? How silly you were!"

God, Simon, I wish you were around to calm our fears back in February, when everyone was goofily misinterpreting Bush's soothing words as warnings of a danger ready to happen. Perhaps the whole invasion could've been avoided.

Anyone wonder if Hussein's interest in bio, chemical, nukes was provoked by Israel's possession of roughly 400 nukes??

Can Anyone explain why the US government made no attempt to deter Israel's acquisition of those nukes --but hyperventilates over Iraq's apparently minimal to non-existent weapons.

Given Bush's preemption view , why not launch a first strike on the Israeli complex in the Negev? For that matter, why not disarm France --or China?

Doesn't Bush's attack on Iraq --and his claim to attack anyone else if he feels like it -- encourage other nations to covertly develop nukes or bio weapons --because that's their only protection from Bush? Isn't the unjustified aggression of Bush and the neocons causing the creation of the very threat they are trying to eliminate? Is that in the national interest?

"look at your definions from the dictionary. The two words are clearly not synonyms. One says something is likely to produce something. So "grave" would be an expression of probability. Imminent is something "about to happen," or to put it another way, it is a term referring to the shortness of time between now and when something happens."

NO, SIMON! You have just twisted the Webster's definition. It is NOT "about to happen." As I posted above, my Websters (pg. 602) defines it as "READY to happen." (actually, specifically, it's "ready to take place.") Not "about." "READY."

I hope that this was just an accident on your part, and not a willful, intentional edit of the dictionary definition I posted above, 'cause that strikes me as kinda dirty, debate-wise.

Anyway, yes, when the president said Saddam could launch his WMDs in 45 minutes, I took that to mean that it is "READY TO TAKE PLACE" (again, that's the accurate, dictionary definition of imminent). Was that an unreasonable interpretation of Bush's words, on my part? Should I throw away my dictionary? I'm eager to hear your answer.

Simon's argument that "imminent threat" is a "legal term" in international law is hilarious for several reasons.

1) Bush has demonstrated that there is no such thing as international law --that might makes right and the law of the jungle applies.

2) Given that international law is a fantasy --humored by the Bush administration when convenient, ignored when not -- I don't see why US citizens should care what obscure cant terms have
been developed by international lawyers.

3) What Article 51 says is that military action for self defense is justified
"if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations ".

4) Maybe Simon can tell us whether he thinks that Bush violated the UN Charter? If not, why?

PS Maybe Simon can also explain why his
definition of "imminent threat" should take precedence over how Webster and most people would define it?

>I'm definitely not suggesting pacifism.

So once again what is your great plan to defend the country? You have yet to actually state one, aside from:

>I saying that our government should not go out of it's way to screw other people unnecessarily because we, the citizens, suffer the consequences --either Sept 11 or massive taxes to pay massive defense budgets or lost of liberty under the Patriot Act.

So you are once again justifying the 9/11 attacks as a reasonable response to United States policy, by which you must mean Clinton policies, which were in effect during the original WTC bombing, and during the planning for the one that succeeded.

As for pacifism, please read up on pacifism in England during the "grave" and "gathering" threat in Europe. Are you saying the pacifists didn't exist? That they preferred anything to another war, even though not taking out Hitler made "imminent" an even worse war, with its attendant holocausts?

Your arguments also "imply" that Clinton was right to not send the army into Afghanistan to wipe out Bin Laden's camps back in the '90s. After all, 9/11 wasn't "imminent" yet. But as soon as Mohammed Atta boarded that plane, THEN we should have declared war. That is what you imply.

As for people's "perception" that the President was claiming an "imminent" threat, I don't think you can lay the blame on the Adminstration when people are so stupid that they tack their own insinuations onto a perfectly coherent English sentence.

I guess they were too busy calling Bush "dumb" to bother actually reading what he said.

Your assertion sort of implies that they themselves already believed the threat from Iraq was imminent, causing them to attach that onto Bush's statements. And possibly Stockholm syndrome made them side with the enemy. Who knows?

But their motivation for "interpreting" Bush's statements aren't the problem. It's that they now accuse him of making claims he never made. And worse, of concocting the entire "fraud" in "Texas." Where are the Wings?!

"Anyway, yes, when the president said Saddam could launch his WMDs in 45 minutes,"

See this is a lie right here! Bush never said that. It was in the Brit dossier, but Bush NEVER SAID IT. you guys keep lying and we are expected to believe you? One has to start from a position of already hating Bush to the point of not examining your arguments to accept them.

"Anyway, yes, when the president said Saddam could launch his WMDs in 45 minutes,"

Moptop sez: "See this is a lie right here! Bush never said that. It was in the Brit dossier, but Bush NEVER SAID IT. you guys keep lying and we are expected to believe you? One has to start from a position of already hating Bush to the point of not examining your arguments to accept them."

Moptop, you're wrong, and I'll accept your apology for calling me a liar right here on this blog, please.

Here's the Washington Post (July 20th, 2003)

"The White House, in the run-up to war in Iraq, did not seek CIA approval before charging that Saddam Hussein could launch a biological or chemical attack within 45 minutes, administration officials now say.

The claim, which has since been discredited, was made twice by President Bush, in a September Rose Garden appearance after meeting with lawmakers and in a Saturday radio address the same week. Bush attributed the claim to the British government, but in a "Global Message" issued Sept. 26 and still on the White House Web site, the White House claimed, without attribution, that Iraq "could launch a biological or chemical attack 45 minutes after the order is given."

See, moptop? Now what do you have to say?

Besides "sorry for calling you a liar," that is.

Here's the link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17424-2003Jul19?language=printer

Re Mick's question above:
"So once again what is your great plan to defend the country? You have yet to actually state one, aside from: "

I didn't state one because US national security strategy has been clear for decades -- although Bush and the neocons have screwed it big time. They are claiming the same right as Adolf Hitler --to unilaterally invade and occupy any country they choose.

In thousands of years of history, prosperous, secure nations have been destroyed again and again by disasterous overreach and aggression on the part of bad leaders. Paul Kennedy , in the "Rise and Fall of Great Powers" showed how every past attempts to create global empires have failed and harmed the hegemon nation.

Bush's wars are greatly harming the US in several ways:
a) they are building up a huge debt --Bush's projections for federal debt in 2008 are now over $9 Trillion, $3 Trillion higher than what he projected just 2 years ago. That debt saps the strength of the US in a major way.
b) The best way to get warnings of Terrorist strikes is to have friends -- or at least people who don't view us as bitter enemies -- throughout the world.
c) One way to deter terrorist strikes is not to unnecessarily give millions of people cause to hate us --and to be willing to give their lives just to strike back at us.
d) There is no country in the world who wants to move against us unless we give them cause -- we have the big stick, we just need to replace Bush with someone intelligent enough to speak softly. If need be, we can easily smack anyone who attacks us without cause.

OK, I learn something new every day.

Bottom line to Mick: The Bush Administration did indicate to the American people that Hussein was an imminent threat --in the common usage of the term -- so much so that he indicated that UN Article 51 criteria was met and military self defense was justified.

I really don't care what Simon's definition of imminent threat is. I think contorted arguments that "Bush did not specifically say 'Iraq is an imminent threat' or "Bush's statements don't meet the criteria of imminent threat as defined by international lawyers" are sophistry.

Moreover, the primary issue is that several specific statements that Bush made have been shown to be false and
misleading. What is worse, it appears they are the result of deliberate deception rather than honest error. Note that when Bush speaks, he speaks as the President and is supposed to be describing the situation based on the enormous resources of US intelligence.

“Bush's wars are greatly harming the US in several ways..”

Yup, I can see it now. You would have probably been saying something similar some sixty years ago:

“Roosevelt’s war are greatly harming US in several ways...”

“There is no country in the world who wants to move against us unless we give them cause “

Are you asserting that the United States is an international bully? If so, that is an outrageous assertion---and it tells us a lot about people like yourself.

To answer the two direct questions asked me. One, why does the international law definition of imminent threat not follow Webster's dictionary? Because that isn't how international law works. International law has its bases, and commercial dictionaries applicable only to American useage of English isn't one of them. Sorry about that.

Secondly, did the US violate the UN Charter? That is a difficult question. The UN Charter generally prohibits the use of force, but not in every case. For one thing, the Charter has to be read in its entirety, not cherry picked for the bits you like when you like them. A very narrow reading might suggest that absent Article 51 or security council authorization then the use of force is illegitimate. But remeber, the UN Charter was designed to work as a collective security arrangement and in that respect it has proved to be a spectacular failure. Since states have found in the last 60 years that the UN is incapable of protecting them, states necessarily turn to self-protection. That goes for the US as much as any other. The UN wasn't going to deal with Iraq, so the US acted on its own authority.

A second reason the UN Charter doesn't decide the issue is that nothing in the UN Charter directly addresses what the recourse is when force is used by a permanent member in a deadlocked Security Council (absent something called a Uniting for Peace Resolution that is considered a dead letter). The fact is, the UN was never designed to restrain the permanent members and since the permanent members have vetoes, there isn't really anything the UN can do. So any question of illegality in that case is moot. There simply isn't any body to appeal to in that situation because (SHOCK) international law isn't exactly like domestic law where there are courts to appeal to. Pushing the analogy to domestic law too far simply leads to frustration.

The basis of international law is primarily self restraint and mutual self-interest, not the Social Contract. That means the willingness of any country to abide by what amount to artificial rules is limited by the country's perception of the costs. Most of the time the benefits outweigh the costs, so most of the time contries abide by international law. But it is simply unrealistic to expect that when push comes to shove any country will sit by and allow what it perceives as a significant threat to develop.

Re Simon's comment: "The basis of international law is primarily self restraint and mutual self-interest, not the Social Contract. That means the willingness of any country to abide by what amount to artificial rules is limited by the country's perception of the costs"

In other words, international law is a con game which only fools take seriously. And citing UN Resolutions while launching a military attack contrary to the UN Charter is simple hypocrisy.

International law means nothing if it is held in contempt by the most powerful nuclear-armed superpower in the world.

If I were other major powers, I would continue to talk softly to the Bush doggy while covertly developing a big stick.

It is US citizens who will suffer the backlash from Bush's aggression. As Bin Ladin noted in the Dawn interview, there are many good people in America --but we are responsible for the behavior of our elected government.

Re David Thomson's question to me: "Are you asserting that the United States is an international bully?" ,

I should note that I draw a sharp distinction between the people of the United States --who have been largely kept in ignorance about Bush's actions overseas and about the hidden agendas Bush is supporting -- versus the Bush Administration itself.

Perhaps Mr Thomson thinks that Bush has a $400 Billion defense budget -- greater than the COMBINED budgets of the next 23 largest military powers -- because Bush is a Christian consumed with altruism??

Perhaps Mr Thomson thinks that the US war in Colombia --conducted in support of a malign kleptocracy -- is really a "war on drugs" --instead of being a war to protect Occidental Oil's pipeline from the sabotage which has occurred in the past??

Why do Bush supporters keep pushing their bizarre claim that criticism of the Bush Administration is the same as criticizing America itself?

Interesting discussion, although I fail to see how offering up ancillary and arguably specious allegations of fact--a citation, for instance, of "Sharon's sabotage of the peace talks"--is in any way relevant to the point of debate. (And if one wants to explore this particular issue fairly, and with moral intelligence, how is it possible to do so without even a passing reference to Arafat's "sabotage"?) But as I've said, that is beside the point.

Germane to this discussion is whether the notion of 'imminent threat' was used to justify intervention in Iraq. It seems to me that the two sides of this debate cannot even agree on a definition of 'imminent', much less whether or not the concept of imminence was used--intentionally or not--to promote acceptance for war. I won't pretend to try to resolve the issue, other than to offer a few personal observations. In the runnup to the war, I remember the sense of dread many of us felt that Saddam would use chemical or biological weapons on our troops, either pre-emptively (an ironic notion, eh?) while they massed at the border or tactically as they closed in on Baghdad. I remember a 60 Minutes story on the inadequacy of the chemical suits our troops had been issued and a dire prediction that thousands might die horribly as a result. This fear was only reinforced with the discovery of chemical suits issued to the Iraqi front and discovered by our forces enroute. Perhaps, as now seems likely, there was never any chemical threat to our soldiers--imminent or otherwise. Perhaps Saddam had ordered up a plausible hoax to dissuade us from advancing to Baghdad. And perhaps--if one wishes to believe it--our intelligence sources had discovered the charade and relayed this information to the Administration beforehand so that the invasion could proceed apace. Perhaps the generals were even snickering as the rest of us waited with needless apprehension for what we feared might be the worst of all possible outcomes.

That could have been the case, but I doubt it. I think our military was prepared--despite 60 Minutes' contention to the contrary--for any eventuality. But I doubt very much the generals, or anyone, knew in advance that Saddam's defense was nothing but bluster and bluff.

Those who deride the President for not knowing what they now think he should have known (or even worse, contend that he did know, but chose not to reveal), might--allowing the liberties of an intellectual exercise--say he misled us into war. It is an interesting line of thought, but not one (and I hereby admit to a personal bias) that a fair-minded person would likely take seriously.

The thing is, who of us could be sure there was no imminent threat to our troops? And who could say Saddam would not have been a future threat to our country or its interests (however you want to define them) if he had been left to his own (I so want to insert 'chemical', 'biological', maybe even 'nuclear') devices? Who of us can be sure? Those of you who are may now raise your hands and say it: The man posed no threat whatsoever, imminent or otherwise.

I'm just not so sure.

You know, the interesting thing about this international law argument is that the people who are arguing that Bush argued imminent threat are actually throwing away their strongest argument against Bush's Iraq policy. The best argument against Bush is that he is deliberately violating international law by deliberately going to war in full knowledge that Iraq was not an imminent threat. The international law argument, after all, is a very simple one. International law requires imminent threat. There wasn't an imminent threat. Bush went to war anyway. Ergo, Bush violated international law.

But that isn't what the anti-Bush people are arguing. Instead, they are arguing that, far from being a radical out to break with traditional international law, Bush is actually operating overtly within the traditional structure of international law. They argue that he really made a traditional international law argument for going to war, he just didn't base it on the right facts. That ironically makes Bush much less radical than (ironically) Bush himself says he is.

So why throw away what ought to be the best stick with which to beat the president? The only reason I can come up with is that they are scared to debate preemption openly. If that happens, they will have to outline a counter proposal to Bush's vision of preemption. And so far, I have seen no such counter proposal that isn't simply closing your eyes and hoping that terrorism will just go away. With no policy to offer in contrast, they are scared that people might agree with Bush that preemption is a justified response to a real threat. Instead, they would rather try to frame the whole thing in childish terms as one of lies, not the deep policy difference that it in fact is. Because to debate a policy properly, you have to have an alternative to offer.

One side is claiming that, while Bush may not have SAID "imminent", that's what he and his cabinet clearly implied over and over again. As such, they misled the American public.

But I wasn't misled. I understood from the get-go that they were saying we had to attack Saddam BEFORE he became an imminent threat. As I recall, the debates which took place leading up to the war were not about whether Iraq posed an imminent threat, but whether we could justify attacking them when they did not pose such a threat (for example, Michael Novak's article "'Assymetrical Warfare' and Just War: A Moral Obligation"). Obviously, this presupposes that he wasn't an imminent threat at the time.

The argument given was that with terrorism (Novak's "assymetrical warfare"), we would be unable to determine when a threat became imminent, so it had to be dealt with before it reached this stage. That's why we could (supposedly) justifiably attack a country that had not attacked us, nor were an imminent threat to us.

My point is not whether this position is valid or not; my point is that this was the issue being debated leading up to the war, NOT whether the threat was imminent. I understood that this was the issue, and most of the articles I read at the time seemed to as well. This is why it seems like one side is trying to change the terms of the debate after the fact.

>Bottom line to Mick: The Bush Administration did indicate to the American people that Hussein was an imminent threat --in the common usage of the term

No, the common usage of the term means "unavoidable and coming down upon us as we speak."

But you can claim "imminent attack" was "implied" if you continue making up your own definitions, even though Bush made consistent arguments specifically insisting it was NOT imminent. Heck, you can claim "imminent" means "big red lollipops" if you want. Doesn't make it so.

Bush's supporters seem to be ignoring another concept of the law -- that preemptive action done in self defense can't be based solely on "bare fear".

For example, if one is awakened at night, hears a noise downstairs, goes down to investigate, and --hiding behind a sofa --sees an intruder holding a gun then one is allowed to shoot the intruder. If the intruder is unarmed and making no threatening moves, then one is generally not --although states vary in views on this.

But all states would arrest someone who, with a legal permit to carry a concealed weapon , shot someone out of hand simply because the shot person "looked menacing".

The analogies made here to Kennedy and the Cuban missile crisis are misleading -- Kennedy had proof that the Russian nuclear missiles were being deployed in Cuba and he produced it for the UN.

After several months of US occupation of Iraq, Where has Bush produced proof for the following claims he made to Congress in the White House draft of the Iraq War Resolution:

a) that Iraq was " continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;..."
b) that "Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;"
c) That " members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;"

Where has Bush shown that Iraq had a "significant chemical and biological capability"?? Where has he shown that
Iraq was "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability"?? Where has he shown that Iraq had acquired the capability to launch a "surprise attack on the United States" capable of causing an "extreme magnitude of harm" to the United States?? Where has he shown any significant alliance between Hussein and al Qaeda?

Note that the "bare fear" we are speaking of exists within the Administration of the most powerful military power on the globe, with enormous power to control/protect it's borders, separated from the world by two large oceans, possessing the most powerful Navy on the planet, possessing the largest array of nuclear weapons on the planet, and with the power to project overwhelming force/retaliation to any part of the globe.

Doesn't this situation start to look like Hitler's claim that WWII started because weak Poland tried to invade the enormously more powerful Nazi Germany??

Something the Republican Brownshirts should remember is the ultimate fate suffered by German citizens --both under Hitler and the result when Hitler scared the rest of the world into forming an alliance against him.

The morning news has yet another butt-covering exercise from the Bush Administration. See
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1520&ncid=1520&e=3&u=/afp/20031016/pl_afp/us_iraq_powell_031016005129

------------------
"WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) dismissed as "nonsense" criticism from a former aide who accused him of misleading the American people by exaggerating the threat posed by Iraq (news - web sites).

Powell said the criticism -- from Greg Thielmann, a State Department weapons analyst who resigned last year -- was the opinion of just one person and did not reflect the overall judgement of various US intelligence agencies..."
-----------

It is ridiculous for the Bush Administration to keep finger pointing at the intelligence community. The intelligence community is SUBORDINATE to
Bush appointees. Dick Cheney , Condi Rice,Rumsfeld have turned the intelligence community into a sock puppet that must remain silent while the Bush Administration lies to the American people.

People in intelligence dare not speak out publicly against White House errors -- they would face loss of job at best, years in prison (for violating classified information laws) at worst.
Lost of job for an intelligence person can lead to years of lost income/poverty --because the special skills in that work have little value in today's commercial marketplace --especially in the Second Bush Recession.

Yet a few are sufficiently outraged that they do resign and risk prison by speaking out. Colin Powell is wrong --
Greg Thielmann is not just an "individual" --he is someone who probably knows more about the subject than Colin Powell.

The Bush Administration directly controls the production of intelligence , what the end product looks like, and has massive powers to retaliate against anyone in the community who crosses them. For them to point to the intelligence community as an excuse is another example of Bush's penchant for deceit.

Re Mick's comment above:
-------------------------
>Bottom line to Mick: The Bush Administration did indicate to the American people that Hussein was an imminent threat --in the common usage of the term

No, the common usage of the term means "unavoidable and coming down upon us as we speak."

But you can claim "imminent attack" was "implied" if you continue making up your own definitions, even though Bush made consistent arguments specifically insisting it was NOT imminent. Heck, you can claim "imminent" means "big red lollipops" if you want. Doesn't make it so.
-----------

I imply nothing.

Look at the White House draft of the Iraq War Resolution that was sent to Congress:
(http://voteview.uh.edu/iraq_resolution.htm
--scroll to bottom)

In that draft, Bush claimed:
a) That "Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States" --in part, because Iraq
is "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; "

b) That "members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; "

c) That "Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself; "

d) That "the United States has the inherent right, as acknowledged in the United Nations Charter, to use force in order to defend itself;"

[NOTE: Article 51 allows NationA to launch a military attack on another UN Member (NationB) ONLY if NationB attacks NationA. The international lawyers cited by Dawson stretch this to allow NationA to act if an attack from NationB is an "imminent threat".

By citing the UN Charter, Bush was telling Congress that the Iraq threat defined in bullets a-c MET the Article 51 criteria--that Iraq was an imminent threat.]

Now, after several months of US occupation in Iraq, haven't Bush's claims --the justification for military attack -- been shown to be false?? Isn't he therefore in violation of international law ?

Where is the evidence that Iraq ,in 2003, did indeed
"possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability,"?

Where is the evidence that ,in 2003, Iraq was "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability"?

Where is the evidence that Iraq was supporting Al Qaeda?

Where is the evidence that Iraq had the capability to "employ those weapons [of mass destruction] to launch a surprise attack against the United States " and cause "extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack"?

The reason for war was laid out very clearly, but you guys were still so blinded with rage over the 2000 election that you just weren't listening, and didn't give a shit if this country was hit by terrorists again. As long as you could spew your anti-Bush venom and antisemitic islamist-excusing conspiracy theories.

Saddam was in constant violation of the ceasefire agreement from the war he started in 1991. He never once adhered to it. And our alleged allies were covertly defeating any chance of the sanctions having any persuasive capacity. So after 12 years, and especially after the 9/11 attacks, it became clear that enough mucking about had transpired.

It was time for Saddam to either finally give up his dreams of building bio and chem weapons, and the very real attempts to get his nuclear ambitions back on track. Don't pretend you never read about the nuclear equipment he ordered buried in people's backyards. This was no fantasy. This was real, regardless of how far off the culmination might have been. Getting a nuke was his driving ambition.

We could no longer afford to let him go unchecked. His mockery of the dead firefighters of 9/11 was as clear an indication as anything that he had no qualms about mass civilian casualties. Even aside from his internal massacres and torture industry. He was a grave threat. To deny that is insanity.

So, like the internationalists insisted, we took this last ditch effort to disarm Iraq to the useless UN, which was already largely in Saddam's oil-rich pocket. It became clear that the UN had no interest in unseating or even annoying the dictator.

It was not evident that Saddam had not already given some of his deadly contraband to anonymous terrorists. Terrorist attacks certainly were imminent, as they erupted in Kuwait, Bali, etc. We did not have the luxury to believe that Saddam would be somehow prevented from getting his toxins into Al Qaeda hands. It's even possible that he has. We don't know. We may yet learn the hard way.

But the point is, and was, that we can't wait to find out. Saddam did not deserve the benefit of the doubt, considering his past crimes against humanity, his aggressive invasions over his borders, his support of worldwide terrorism, his support of the 9/11 attacks, his attempted assassination of Bush I, and his obvious and unrepentant attempts to deceive the UN inspectors.

But you obviously think he deserved to be left alone. You talk a lot about the alleged "rule of law," but what is a law if it is not enforced. The ceasefire agreement was meaningless if no consequences followed its violation. The UN mandates of 12 years were worthless if no enforcement was even threatened. The sanctions were ignored by out alleged "allies" who continued to sell Iraq weapons and steal the oil-for-food program proceeds, which were supposed to feed the Iraqi people you all claim to care so much about.

These were the reasons we had to act. Because we woke up on 9/11 to the fact that we have to defend ourselves. Nobody is going to do it for us. The world is a jealous cauldron of anti-American zealotry, and even our "allies" talked about "the bully" getting "a bloody nose."

Well screw them, and screw anybody who still supports Saddam's right to continue his atrocities based on some ludicrous notion of "international law." The law as you state it is only a law that protects tyrants and terrorists.

Gee, I hear Michael Moore is subscribing to the theory that the 9/11 jetliners weren't hijacked at all; they were controlled from the ground by George Bush's minions. I'm sure this kind of nonsense resonates with the anti-war socialists, but you are only painting yourselves into a smaller and more radical voting block. You are not convincing anybody who isn't already a kook.

And to focus on the notion that Bush exaggerated the threat is sour grapes from a bunch of socialists who, already depressed that the Berlin Wall is gone, are now downright despondent that their last great hope, who even looked like their hero Stalin, failed to bring the US to its knees.

And they think it rings true when they turn around and claim it's all in the name of patriotism. If you weren't so laughably pathetic, you'd be scary.

Re Mick's comments above, I don't feel it's necessary to reply to every piece of dung in his rant. I will respond to a few:

--------------------------------
1) The reason for war was laid out very clearly, but you guys were still so blinded with rage over the 2000 election that you just weren't listening, and didn't give a shit if this country was hit by terrorists again. As long as you could spew your anti-Bush venom and antisemitic islamist-excusing conspiracy theories.

Resp: This is a bald-faced lie.
--------------
2) "Don't pretend you never read about the nuclear equipment he ordered buried in people's backyards. This was no fantasy. This was real,"

I know something of what involved in developing weapons grade U235 or Plutonium. Such is not easily hidden, especially when a country has been under occupation for months. Bush has produced nothing that comes close to indicating that Hussein had anything significant in this area. Only a moron would think the reported "pieces in the garden" were significant.
---------------------
3) "He was a grave threat. To deny that is insanity."

Only a moron would think so. And constantly screaming it doesn't make up for Bush's failure to produce evidence of it.

Hussein was chickenshit --as shown by the ease of our forced entry. None of the Republicans were complaining about Hussein during the Reagan Administration of the 1980s --I believe Rumsfeld even went over and shook his hand. That's during the period when most of Hussein's reported atrocities took place.

A much graver threat will rise against the United States as other governments look at Bush and prepare measures to ensure they don't end up like Iraq.
---------------------
4)"the useless UN, which was already largely in Saddam's oil-rich pocket. It became clear that the UN had no interest in unseating or even annoying the dictator."

Resp: What kind of society would we have if someone, on receiving an adverse ruling from the court in a lawsuit, went out and shot their adversary? Our allies and the UN weren't convinced by Bush's evidence -- as time goes on, they look more and more right.

Supporters of Bush-Cheney are hardly in a position to complain about leaders being corrupted by oil riches.

--------------
5) "You talk a lot about the alleged "rule of law," but what is a law if it is not enforced."

Resp: Such a law is Worthless. Since the UN doesn't have the power to arrest Bush for violation of the UN Charter, then Bush has destroyed international law and we are back to the law of the jungle and might makes right.

Attacking another UN Member , contrary to the Charter, makes Bush's arguments of enforcing UN Resolutions into two-faced hypocrisy.

Iraq posed no significant threat to the US. How many of Iraq's neighbors asked the US to invade Iraq?
------------------
6) "to focus on the notion that Bush exaggerated the threat is sour grapes from a bunch of socialists who, already depressed that the Berlin Wall is gone, are now downright despondent that their last great hope, who even looked like their hero Stalin, failed to bring the US to its knees."

Actually, I have, in the past, worked for years in defense and intelligence
--as a computer contractor. I had Top Secret clearance and clearance to 4 areas of SCI material. I am a member of the NRA.

What makes me "downright despondent" is that the stupidity and ignorance of my fellow countrymen is a greater threat to me and my family than Hussein or Bin Ladin could ever hope to be.

The idea that a nation can bully the rest of the world --force it to obey the wishes of Bush, Cheney, Delay -- and escape blowback is ridiculous.

The idea that we can spend hundreds of billions on a global empire --and divert riches to a chosen few by setting up puppet governments around the world -- without bankrupting the people of this country is idiotic.

What makes me "downright despondent" is that a fair portion of my countrymen do not recognize how they are being manipulated. That they fail to realize how Bush's global campaign --financed by stealing $Trillions from Trust Funds for Social Security/Medicare,etc -- is to serve the agendas of a wealthy few, at the expense of the national interest.

Wilsonians had this same idiotic view at the end of WWI --that they could loot Germany at will, teach the Germans a lesson, and so cripple the German economy that Germany would never be a threat. The hatred they created came back at them in the form of Adolf Hitler and the ruin of WWII.

It's one thing to suffer another World War if it's necessary for our national survival. It's something else to be dragged into it because Bush and the Republicans are whores for wealthy interests.

I think may neighbor bought a gun. I base this on the fact that a receipt for the purchase of a gun blew into my yard from his yard. He might one day use it. I know he has beat his wife at least once in the past. I know he does drugs. I found syringes in his garbage. He is therefore prone to violence. I think I should kill him before he kills somebody.

Oh, rats, he doesn't have a gun. Oh, and he had syringes because he was a diabetic? Oh...Well, I still acted in self defense. I'm sure my lawyer will convince the jury that I had a right to kill my neighbor based on his past use of violence and drugs, and my mistaking that he had bought a gun. I mean he could have bought a gun. Well, at least I prevented him from beating his wife again.

>The hatred they created came back at them in the form of Adolf Hitler and the ruin of WWII.

I'm sorry the United States created Hitler and WWII.

This is what you're saying about Al Qaeda and Saddam as well, so why should your "blame America for everything" philosophy be taken seriously at all?

You can make love sonnets to Saddam all you want. I never hear you talking about his violations of international law. Or is your response to such violations always limited to whining?

>I know something of what involved in developing weapons grade U235 or Plutonium.

So you are disputing his intention of cranking up production as soon as the inspectors were gone? You refute that this equipment was intentionally hidden from inspectors and not declared, in violation of 1441 and all the other resolutions?

No, you can't do that, so you scoff because he didn't have actual atom bombs at the ready.

The threat at issue here was Saddam's intentions. And the fact that he hid this stuff demonstrates the fact: while not imminent, the threat of him gaining nuclear and other weapons had to be addressed before it became so. That is the entire argument.

But you can't address this, so you focus on things that never happened, ie, Bush claiming an attack was imminent.

Sorry, but your interpretation of "international law" won't hold water. And even if it did, our nation's security would still take precedence as far as the President is concerned. Any President that sacrificed security for the sake of "international law" should have been impeached. (Oh, that's right; he was!)

>Actually, I have, in the past, worked for years in defense and intelligence
--as a computer contractor. I had Top Secret clearance and clearance to 4 areas of SCI material.

Yeah, you and Robert Hanssen.

Can an argument possibly be more tedious?

Bush argued that America should bear the cost of removing an odious, murderous tyrant. Most people agreed.

You mean he never even brought up WMDs at all? Mind's playing tricks on me, I guess.

My reading of Bush's speech concerning "imminent threat" is that to him any threat is imminent and the bar for the our defense and that of our public security is set too high and must be lowered. Thus, when the president said...."Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. " he effectivly lowered the bar and unleashed the dogs of war. He did so in great style and with the tacit approval of the media which never was able to ask hard questions. Except for a hand full of Congressmen the president and his administrative minions closed the door on political debate and opened us up to the new and dangerous foreign policy of preemption. Certainly a sad day for a great country which I once served.

Simon says "He he. Yes, the Dalai Lama is a pacifist. He's also Tibetan. And which country occupies Tibet? The rather non-pacifist Chinese! I think perhaps there is a lesson there somewhere. ;-)"

I found this quite funny, we (the US) should not be pacifists because, look where it got the Dalai Lama. I guess we should be more like the Chinese, might makes right, right? Or maybe we should be like Nazi Germany -nobody pushed them around!

Never mind that the original argument was not that we should forswear all violence. (thereby allowing someone to forcibly take our land -that's what happened in Tibet) But rather, that we should not become an aggressor in a complicated global conflict where kicking some ass is not going to guaruntee our security. The Bush apologists act like every liberal is an ass-kissing sissy that wants to appease the enemy. In fact, liberals are willing to make the difficult choices that will in fact make our country more safe.

Many have advocated an alternative energy initiative that would completely free our nation from dependence on foriegn oil. Oil money supports Islamic radicals and the Islamic schools that produce them.

Many have also pointed out that the best way to catch and stop terrorism is by massive cooperation between intelligence agencies, both within our country and with the other countries in the world. Bushes vitriolic unilateralism is ensuring that most of the world is going to turn a blind eye to terrorism in the future and in the worst cases celebrate it as vindication of bad American policy. It's not just the French, it is 90% of the world.

Lastly, what did Osama want when he launched the 9/11 attacks?
Answer - A global war between the US/Israel and the rest of the world.

It looks like bush is playing right into his hands, what a fool.

You might think we are winning, kicking some serious Arab ass! Boo Hah!

However, a conventional military victory can and will never prevent a 9/11 style attack. At present it only swells the ranks of Queda. Bushes policies are the most immenent threat to American security.

The repulsive Mick McMick writes of Don Williams: Yeah, you and Robert Hanssen.

Normally I ignore Mick's sandbox style of argumentation, but this is too good to pass up. You see, he's following in the Bush footsteps. Mick doesn't actually say that Don is a traitor, or disloyal, for his anti-Bush views, he merely compares Williams to a convicted spy. In politics (namely, this threat thread), and for that matter in libel law, one is permitted to plead the innuendo of the literal statements. (Leads me to think Mick didn't run that nasty little slander past a lawyer.)

In my opinion, Lazarus, Mick could mount a successful defense to such a suit by claiming
that he is incompetent --i.e., that he suffers from
mental illness or retardation.

Or more likely it implies that Don's previous statement about his work for "defense and intelligence" is irrelevant, if even true.

Not that he's a spy, but having done contract work for the government does not mean you are above giving hatred of Bush more importance than the country's defense.

>Lastly, what did Osama want when he launched the 9/11 attacks?
Answer - A global war between the US/Israel and the rest of the world. It looks like bush is playing right into his hands, what a fool.

No, you are the fool. Osama never thought that the US would invade Afghanistan, aside from lobbing a few cruise missiles. And if we did, he thought, it would be some lame Somalia-style event where we ran away at the first sign of blood.

He had become conditioned to believe that this was the American military style by our reactions to the Lebanon bombing, the Cole bombing, the '93 World Trade Center bombing, the embassy bombings, ad nausea.

George Bush is Osama's worst nightmare. The US has taken out the Taliban and Saddam, killed or captured most of Al Qaeda's leaders, forced the rest into hiding (which makes it harder to recruit), disrupted their substantial cash flow, and got even former antagonists to join us in the fight (especially Pakistan).

If you consider this "playing into Osama's hands," then what would you consider the opposite? More of our previous thumb-twiddling?