Thursday, October 16, 2003

previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (2)


The post-war debate on the pre-war rhetoric, part IV

Schwarz responds to Sebastian Holsclaw's first post. [Both Holsclaw and Schwarz will respond to each other's rebuttals, and then I'll render my judgment]:

Sebastian's claim that the Bush administration "strenuously resisted labeling" Iraq an imminent threat is misleading.

The Bush administration rarely addressed the question using this specific language.

On some occasions, they skirted around the issue, neither saying Iraq was an imminent threat, nor that it wasn't, nor that it might be but we couldn't know for sure:

QUESTION: Richard, just to pursue this line a bit further. Is the threat from North Korea more or less imminent than the threat from Iraq?

MR. BOUCHER: There is not one policy that fits all. Each situation has to be dealt with on its own. We want to deal with this situation peacefully with regard to North Korea and we will make the appropriate decisions.

On some of these occasions when they were directly asked using this specific language, as I noted, Ari Fleischer happily assented that the administration claimed Iraq was an imminent threat.

On another occasion, the State of the Union address, the administration (as I also noted) did not, as Sebastian claims, "specifically reject a need for an imminent threat before attacking Saddam's regime." Bush did not say "Iraq doesn't need to be an imminent threat for us to attack it." Rather, he rejected the idea that we could accurately perceive whether the threat was imminent.

Therefore, a more accurate description of what happened is this:

During the runup to the war, many people questioned whether Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States. However, except on a few occasions, the Bush administration avoided engaging the issue using this exact language. Instead, they made many extremely alarming claims that used synonymous language and terms. When the exact "imminent threat" language was used, the administration sometimes agreed that Iraq was an imminent threat; sometimes didn't address the question; and sometimes said we couldn't know whether or not it was an imminent threat.

It is speculation, but (I believe) quite plausible, that the Bush administration was trying to have it both ways. It was difficult for them to claim that Iraq in fact was an imminent threat to the U.S., and they certainly did not want to have to assert explicitly that it was an imminent threat in order to wage war. But they also couldn't say straightforwardly that Iraq was not an imminent threat, because it would undercut support for a war. Hence a frequent avoidance of the exact language, combined with repeated references to the "clear peril" and "gathering danger" that was "more clearly defined" than Al-Qaida and could strike on "any given day."

posted by Dan on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM




Comments:

Hence a frequent avoidance of the exact language, combined with repeated references to the "clear peril" and "gathering danger" that was "more clearly defined" than Al-Qaida and could strike on "any given day."

"Hence", our debater, uninterested in "exact language", will indulge in the deliberate "avoidance" of "clearly defined" "references" in the hopes that a blizzard of disconnected, misleading microquotes can obscure the weakness of his case.

Me, I say you owe the other guy $100.

posted by: Mitch H. on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



Dude, you are making your arguments weaker not stronger.

You are now reduced to "Well that is what they were thinking."

You did better earlier.

IMO

posted by: James on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



A while back there was the whole Leak debate, and I offered the suggestion that while it may not be exactly known if it was illegal that reasonable observers could agree that it was wrong to have done so - something the minimalist apologists are essentially conceding when they argued so eagerly that it wasn't really all that bad.

Here we come upon a similar distinction. The Administration in its use of careful language does not seem to come out and exactly said that we needed to go after Saddam right now or else there would have been dire consequences.

However it pushed that message so loudly and persistently that only a moron would have been able to miss it. Similarly only a completely irrational apologist would deny in retrospect that the whole thing was sold to the American people on a bunch of hype from repeated multiple Admin outlets.

Does a rose by any other name still not smell as sweet? Actually roses often have a very heavy rich scent, compared to say lilacs but you get the idea.

The Admin pushed this as a big deal, a clear and present danger, and now is when they're trying to have it both ways by saying Saddam was a bad bad man and we had to get him out!!!

Well Pinochet was a bad man, and we didn't seem to mind all that much. Marcus was a bad man and we didn't seem to mind all that much either. So was Suharto. And how exactly is Musharaff keeping power in Pakistan, is it because he's such a nice guy everyone likes him or is it maybe his army and secret police? Or when King Abdullah of Jordan nabs those Alqueda guys for us - do you think maybe he respects miranda rights and court orders? And when Saddam was gassing his people which we now condemn, at that time there was hardly a peep out of us b/c then he was OUR guy. Or that "President" in Azerbarzjhan who just installed his son as President and there is rioting in the streets over that. Is the reason why we are not protesting over this autocratic dictator so much perhaps because we want that country to continue opening its oil and gas reserves to us?

The fact that Saddam was a bad bad man is a canard. Let us not be naive.

So give it up. Saddam was a bad man, but that was irrelevant to the case made for the war. The case made for the war was pretty much smoke and mirrors. The great thing about America is not that this kind of thing never happens from time to time, but that we care enough to think its wrong and try to prevent it. Or at least we used to. Now it seems business as usual.

posted by: Oldman on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



>But they also couldn't say straightforwardly that Iraq was not an imminent threat, because it would undercut support for a war.

No, they couldn't say that because it was quiote possible that WMD from Iraq, via Al Qaeda, were in fact an imminent threat. Why should they insist that it "wasn't imminent"?

The point is, the "imminent" threat was never the point of the invasion.

posted by: Mick McMick on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



This whole debate is really quite senseless. We can all agree that the President classified Iraq as a "grave and gathering" threat. Assuming that those are the exact terms that he used (they are), then it is of no consequence whether the word "imminent" was used or not. Surely it is evidence of sloppiness on the part of war critics.

But, what made Iraq a "grave and gathering" threat? The same exact arguments that are used to show that Iraq was not an "imminent" threat can be used exactly in the same manner to show that Iraq was not a "grave" threat either.

"Grave and gathering" means the following: (1) Iraq is already a serious threat to the United States right now and (2) It is growing into a more serious threat day by day.

"Imminent" is purely a question of timing. "Grave" is a question regarding the weight of the threat. A non-"grave" threat could be imminent. On the other hand, a "grave" threat is not likely to be grave, unless it "imminent."

Again, this whole argument is really pointless.

posted by: grave man on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



I don't get this line of argumentation. Why do some people seem to overcomplicate something that should be real easy to comprehend? Saddam Hussein already had a proven track record concerning terrorism. He attempted to assassinate a former American President and successfully ordered the murder of many throughout the world. The scum bag also used a WMD on his own people. Have we already forgotten the large sums of money sent to the Palestinian families of suicide bombers? He was also violating the terms of agreement with the United Nations. That’s all we needed to know. So let’s stop with all this hand wringing and existential angst---and be glad that the Iraqis now have a fabulous opportunity to improve their lives.

posted by: David Thomson on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



Perhaps because some people have this weird notion that maybe it wasn't about whether it was the right thing or not to do for the Iraqis, but rather whether it was the right thing to do for Americans.

Thinking in terms of America's national interest first used to be a Republican trait you know. We're Americans, not Iraqis. If the Administration has harmed anyone in this - it is the national security interest of America and not Iraq. Therefore the President has an obligation to explain to America why it was that *Americans* ought to have done this and done it in such a way that we are almost wholly bearing the cost in blood and treasure.

One can admit that Saddam was a bad man, that the future prospect for Iraqis may have improved, and still question whether it was beneficial to *America* to have done this. And that case so far has been nothing but con and grift.

posted by: Oldman on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



David,

I agree with the notion about being glad that he is gone, as I am a war supporter.

My fear though is this: Most of the public would not have signed up to support the war for the reasons that I did re: regional transformation via democracy had they known the cost both in terms of lives and dollars, as well as the length of time necessary to pull this off.

I believe that the public would support the concepts above in the abstract. But, I do not think that the public would have supported the war based on democratizing Iraq and trying to transform the region alone.

As such, the democracy argument was put on the backburner and replaced with the post-9/11 argument of "if we do not attack Iraq right now, 3000 more Americans are going to die at the hands of Saddam." You must admit that it is cynical to support that argument and then get hung up on whether or not the President said "imminent."

Finally, you list many things of which saddam is surely guilty. but, there is one thing that you do not list because you can not: sponsorship or involvement (be it direct or indirect) of an attack in the United States of America.

After the assassination attempt on 41, there is nothing related to attacks against the US. If sponsorship of bombings against the Israelis is enough to draw us in to invasion, when do you suggest we role in to Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria?


posted by: grave man on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



"Saddam was a bad man, but that was irrelevant to the case made for the war."

This is getting less connected to reality by the moment...

posted by: HH on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



The post doesn't seem as good as the first one. Anyone still in doubt about the Administration's (probably cynical) use of imprecise language in order to create a terrifying threat from Saddam, check out anonymousblogger from the previous thread.

But Grave Man, who sounds like Thomas Friedman, I have a question: do you really think unilateral war on Iraq was the best way to promote democracy in the Middle East? (Leaving aside the outrageously false pretenses under which support for the war was marshalled.)

posted by: Andrew Lazarus on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



HH, were you a big supporter of intervention in Kosovo and Bosnia because Slobodan Milosevic is also a very bad man? Rwanda? Uzbekistan?

I imagine not. "Saddam was an evil despot" is the fallback position of liars because the prewar arguments that were actually made were all false. We would never initiate a war on that basis, costing hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives before it is over. Are you guys proud or ashamed of how the arguments you actually made didn't work out?

posted by: Andrew Lazarus on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



Jonathan Schwarz' final paragraph above looks mighty like a concession.

posted by: Tom Holsinger on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



"HH, were you a big supporter of intervention in Kosovo and Bosnia because Slobodan Milosevic is also a very bad man? Rwanda? Uzbekistan?

"I imagine not."

You imagine wrong.

posted by: HH on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



Andrew,

In response to your question about war being the only way to bring about democracy to the middle east, I can only answer with this: I damn well hope so. I am from the tom friedman school of international economic/political development.

I'm not sure that there is a better way. That said, we don't need to invade every nation bordering Iraq. But, if we can make it work in Iraq and prove to the people of the region that we are not trying to be a global hegemon for the sake of plundering resources, then it may work.

Finally, I will not say that our ultimate objective has been met for until I see a stable government. God forbid we try this great experiment and then five years out watch it fail when a general kindly removes the government that we fostered.....

posted by: grave mam - my name is jim on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



Just wondering... at what point in the runup to WW II did Hitler become an imminent threat to America? Why was it necessary for us to oppose him? To paraphrase slightly: One can admit Hitler was a bad man, that the prospect for the Germans (not to mention their neighbors) improved as a result of his being removed, and still question whether it was beneficial to *America* to have done this--especially given "the cost in blood and treasure."

Oh, but that's right. WW II was just Roosevelt's way of getting us out of the Depression, just as removing Saddam (not to mention removing the Taliban--remember the pipeline?) was just Bush's way of making the world safe for big oil. But hey, that's at least a tangible benefit, eh?

posted by: Bernard on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



Tom Holsigner,

You're incorrect; my final paragraph is nothing like a concession. Remember the terms of the bet: "It is a complete fabrication that the Bush administration argued Iraq was an imminent threat." Also, see my upcoming extensive (and final) post.

In the meantime, here's an (imperfectly) analogous paragraph for you:

It is speculation, but (I believe) quite plausible, that the Bush administration was trying to have it both ways. It was difficult for them to claim that Iraq in fact had played a role in the World Trade Center attacks, and they certainly did not want to have to assert explicitly that it had in order to wage war. But they also couldn't say straightforwardly that Iraq had not played a role, because it would undercut support for a war. Hence a frequent avoidance of the exact language, combined with repeated references to "9/11" right next to "Saddam Hussein" and statements that "Mohammed Atta did apparently travel to Prague... We have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer a few months before the attacks on the World Trade Center."

posted by: Jonathan Schwarz on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



Jonathan,

IMO you are trying too hard. Look at Dan's thread immediately above, and my response to it. There were and are major policy disagreements in the Bush Administration. Many of its officials continued their opposition to the invasion of Iraq after the President announced a firm decision to invade it. Some, a lot less to be sure, continue to do so even today. Most of those are in the State Department.

The public manifestations of these disagreements are not evidence of duplicity. Indiscipline and disorganization maybe, but not duplicity.

IMO the Bush Administration really was duplicitous in making its case for invading Iraq, but not in any of the ways you and Sebastian Holsclaw have discussed so far. The duplicity lay in omission - no one mentioned that the conquest and reconstruction of Iraq is the ideal first step in reconstruction of the entire Middle East. I think you two are missing the forest for the trees.

posted by: Tom Holsinger on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



The public manifestations of these disagreements are not evidence of duplicity. Indiscipline and disorganization maybe, but not duplicity.

But that's all Jonathan needs, surely? The weakest claim he could still win with (I think he can do better, but bear with me) would be "Bush did not in fact say or mean that Iraq was an imminent threat but regularly used unclear language which contributed to his being misniterpreted". If that was true, then the claim would not be a complete fabrication which is the very strong standard agreed to. Like I say, I think that Jonathan can actually do much better than this.

Sebastian, on the other hand, appears to need to prove that nobody in the Bush Administration ever said anything which could remotely be reasonably construed as implying that they believed Iraq to be an imminent threat. Otherwise, it's not a "complete fabrication"

posted by: dsquared on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



Tom,

I don't really understand what you're saying. I haven't cited any Bush administration officials who opposed an invasion of Iraq -- on the contrary.

Also, this really isn't a discussion about duplicity. If the Bush administration argued that Iraq was an imminent threat, it doesn't logically follow that they didn't sincerely believe it.

posted by: Jonathan Schwarz on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



“My fear though is this: Most of the public would not have signed up to support the war for the reasons that I did re: regional transformation via democracy had they known the cost both in terms of lives and dollars, as well as the length of time necessary to pull this off.”

We are not primarily acting out of altruism. An Iraq without Saddam Hussein sends a clear signal to the dictators in that region: stop your nonsense, or you are next. Groups such as Al Quaeda and the secularist Baath understand and respect only brute force. Iraq’s neighbors are already trying to stay out of harm’s way. Also, the moderates are better able to influence events in their own countries. Encouraging the forces of democracy significantly increases the safety of all Americans.

The lives and money spent, from a historical perspective, is ridiculously low! The United States is not being confronted with out of control expenses. Moreover, if we were to embrace your defeatist rhetoric---the logical conclusion would be to never do anything militarily to defeat our enemies.

posted by: David Thomson on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



Mick McMick,

All I can suggest is that you take up your argument that the Bush administration couldn't state Iraq wasn't an imminent threat with Charles "Bush plainly denied that the threat was imminent" Krauthammer.

Also, you're incorrect about "imminent" -- as you soon shall see.

posted by: Jonathan Schwarz on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



IMHO, Jonathan's still ahead on the question presented. If Sebastian's smart, he'll spend some time in the next piece arguing about what the phrase "complete fabrication" means in this context, because that's where he's losing.

It seems as if Jonathan and Sebastian are close to agreeing on the following:

The Bush administration's general thrust was that the threat from Saddam might be imminent, or might not, but that if it wasn't imminent at the time, it was likely to become so, and we'd couldn't know when the threat crossed that line.

However, many of the statements made can be interpreted as stressing the possibility that the threat might be imminent or near-imminent.

Sebastian would no doubt say that this is a result of cherry-picking the tens of thousands of words issued on the subject, and that only ideologically blinded or otherwise dunderheaded people could reasonably have understood the Bush admin to be arguing imminence. Still, I think that's enough to demonstrate that the charge isn't a "complete fabrication."

posted by: J Mann on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



In 1992, then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and I. Lewis Libby drafted a report outlining the role the U.S. should play in the 21st Century which was called; "Defense Planning Guidance". It suggested an aggressive, preemptive, and unilateral approach that would "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role" and wanted to make sure that America would maintain dominance in the world "by force if necessary."

"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia.

"There are three additional aspects to this objective: First the U.S must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."

- "Defense Planning Guidance for the 1994-1999 Fiscal Years (Draft)," Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and I. Lewis Libby - Office of the Secretary of Defense, 1992

The report met with plenty of criticism and was quickly changed before the final draft, but the ideas it contained did not die with it.

During the Clinton administration, a group of like-minded neoconservative imperialists - funded by right-wing foundations, energy companies, and the military-industrial complex - continued the strategic planning outlined in the report, evolving into a group called; "The Project for a New American Century" (PNAC).

The group's former and current members and contributors include; Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, Defense Department Head of Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation Stephen Cambone, Vice President's Chief of Staff I. Lewis Libby, Undersecretary of Defense (comptroller) and Chief Financial Officer for the Pentagon Dov Zakheim, Defense Policy Board Member Eliot Cohen, and Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board Richard Perle.

In September 2000, before the election and one year before the "attack on America", the PNAC released a report entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses", from which Bush's new National Defense Strategy derives.

The report is a blueprint for an American empire and goes a long way to clarify the apparent murky attitudes and aims of the Bush administration.

Iran, Iraq and North Korea are identified as potential targets in the same sentence, hence explaining the "Axis of Evil" remarks from Bush. "Past Pentagon wargames have given little or no consideration to the force requirements necessary not only to defeat an attack but to remove these regimes from power" it says.

It speaks of a "Pax Americana" where we will have to perform "constabulary duties" and act preemptively and unilaterally to obtain our goals. This requires "American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations."

Both the National Defense Strategy and the PNAC report have the stated objective of insuring that no country will ever present a challenge to the United States and both recommend almost exactly the same increase in military spending which has now occurred. This is so we can "fight and win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars."

The report recommends that the U.S. establish permanent military bases "within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia, as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. troops" in addition to the roughly 130 nations where U.S. troops are already deployed. It refers to our troops as "the cavalry on the new American frontier" and says we need new bases in the Middle East, in Southeast Europe, in Latin America and in Southeast Asia.

This helps explain why we have now installed troops in Georgia and the Philippines and why we are sending military "advisers" to Columbia.

The report recommends the repudiation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty, a strong commitment to a global missile defense system (otherwise known as "Star Wars") and the development of small nuclear warheads "required in targeting the very deep, underground hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries."

The report says that "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

The report laments that the climate in America is not such that they can hope to obtain their goals without "some catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

The attack on 9-11-01 is just what they were looking for.

These people are now in power, in key positions, with the event they needed to accomplish their goals. They came ready with the blueprints for empire already in hand, and they have been following those blueprints to the letter.

The PNAC report soon became the outline for our new National Security Strategy.

According to CBS News, immediately after 9-11, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq and began pushing the intelligence community hard for some link between the attack and Iraq. According to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on Sept. 11, Rumsfeld is quoted as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. (Saddam Hussein) at same time. Not only UBL (Osama bin Laden). "Go massive," the notes say; "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

Though no real evidence was found linking Saddam Hussein with 9-11, six days later, on Sept. 17th - according to senior administration officials - President Bush signed a "TOP SECRET" document outlining the plan for war with Afghanistan and directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq.

Lacking hard evidence that Iraq had anything to do with the attack, The Bush administration began effectively conducting a campaign of misinformation, misrepresentation, and dissemination regarding the threat by Iraq to the United States of America.

Based on the evidence, the "war on terrorism" is just an pretext for an imperial "Pax Americana".

Why should we believe they have any other goals than what they have already self-professed in the report - once given the event they claimed they needed to accomplish them?

----------------------

Most of the above is excerpted from an article I wrote in Jan. 2003. I am on record casting doubt regarding the threat posed by Iraq and claims of WMDs as early as Dec. 2002. In another article, which was written BEFORE the war, I addressed and challenged every claim made by Bush & Co. as reason to go to war (see Selling A War) and, as of this time, nothing has come out that has shown me to be in error. I am one guy with a computer and Internet access - without any "inside" information. If I was able to determine that the Bush claims were bogus before the war, I'm not sure that it speaks well of our leaders, if they can't determine the accuracy of their claims. (Or did they know they were bogus?)

Perhaps they refrained from using the exact words; "imminent threat" because they knew better, however they certainly made the threat seem about as scary and awful as possible to encourage quick action. At the very least, they implied that the threat could be imminent - with mushroom clouds on any given day.

They were using 9-11 to pursue a previous agenda which goes beyond Iraq.

"It’s not just simply a matter of capturing people and holding them accountable, but removing the sanctuaries, removing the support systems, ending states who sponsor terrorism. It will be a campaign, not a single action."

- Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Sept. 2001

"In the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, many in the Bush administration seemed most focused on a prospective move against Iraq. This was the old idea of 'state sponsorship' - even though there was no evidence of Iraqi sponsorship of 9/11 whatsoever - and the opportunity to 'roll it all up.' I could imagine the arguments. War to unseat Saddam Hussein promised concrete, visible action.

"I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, and one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan. So, I thought, this is what they mean when they talk about 'draining the swamp.' It was evidence of the Cold War approach: Terrorism must have a 'state sponsor,' and it would be much more effective to attack a state than to chase after individuals, nebulous organizations, and shadowy associations."

- General Wesley Clark

"Grand strategy for the Middle East: Iraq is the tactical pivot. Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot. Egypt the prize"

- Conclusion of a Presentation to the Defense Policy Board, July 2002

"No stages. This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq ... this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war ... our children will sing great songs about us years from now."

- Richard Perle, 12-16-02

"Everything will be measured by results. The victor is always right. History ascribes to the victor qualities that may or may not actually have been there. And similarly to the defeated."

- Karl Rove

They are waging a "war on terror" which is their ticket to ride. It is an excuse to go anywhere and do anything at anytime by declaring that someone is a potentual future threat to us. It is the opposite of every moral belief system in the world to do unto others BEFORE they MIGHT do onto us. It is unchristian and un-American.

Of course, the "war on terror" is never-ending. You can never walk down the street and know that terrorism will not occur. It is a dangerous and hysterical response.

It is not a war about oil. It is a war about empire; it's just that we need oil to have empire (and it doesn't hurt to benefit all you old buddies along the way).

That is what is worrying me - there have never been any democratic empires. If anyone needs a previous example to understand what is happening now, check out Roman history during their transition from democratic republic to imperialistic empire. There are plenty of relevant parallels.

We cannot create democracy at gunpoint.

The attack on 9-11 didn't HAVE to change America, at least, it didn't have to change it to the point where we are giving up our freedoms and ideals to combat those that supposedly hate us for them - which is what Ashcroft and others are working hard on at the moment (see HERE).

posted by: Joseph on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



"The Bush administration's general thrust was that the threat from Saddam might be imminent, or might not, but that if it wasn't imminent at the time, it was likely to become so, and we'd couldn't know when the threat crossed that line.

However, many of the statements made can be interpreted as stressing the possibility that the threat might be imminent or near-imminent. "

Oh God, here we go again. We were not obligated to endure any more procrastinating nonsense from Saddam Hussein. He was playing games with the UN inspectors---and this was a clear violation of his agreement. Thus, we had a full right not to take any further risks. End of story. Nothing more needs to be added.

posted by: David Thomson on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



I agree with the other comments that this wasn't as pursuasive as Jonathan's earlier posts, but that he is still ahead.

As dsquared and J Mann have noted, given the standard of 'complete fabrication' all Jonathan needs to win the debate is to show that a reasonable person could have interpreted some of the administrations comments as implying an imminent threat. He does not need to prove, as he attempts today, that this interpretation is correct, or that these quotes outweigh others.

However, I am happy to see him argue this way, because these latter standards matter much more than the bet.

The reason for this whole debate is that the post-war evidence is that Iraq was not an imminent threat (or at least much less of one than many suspected.) It is therefore alledged that Bush's case for the war has been disproved, implying that he was either dishonest or incompetant in making the case in the first place.

This is the important issue, the one which is more than just playing with words. In order to make this claim stick Jonathan and his side need to prove a much higher claim. They need to show that the concern of an imminent threat was an essential part of Bush's causus belli so that without an imminent threat the case falls apart.

Much of the debate, both between Sebastian and Jonathan, as well as in the comments, seems aimed at this more general claim. Here Sebastian has two strong arguements: i) the administration, including Bush himself in the SOTU, explicitly denied than an imminent threat was required. This is what the whole arguement for pre-emptive war was about. One may not be convinced of this arguement, but it seems hard to deny that the administration made it, and did so quite visably and forcefully. ii) there were several other reasons for the war (humanitarian, democracy building, not letting a bluff be called, future threat) many of which were made, at the time, by the pro-war camp.

My net take on this is that the claim:

the Bush administration used the fear of an 'imminent threat' (albeit in different words) in its case for the war

is not a 'complete fabrication' and thus Jonathan wins the bet. I would go further and say that he has made a good arguement to show that this claim is reasonable (this is something I would not have said a few days ago, but Jonathan has convinced me.)

However, Sebastian has shown, that on its own, this claim is not the whole truth. In fact, it is very misleading if it is portrayed, as it often is, as the whole truth. The pro-war camp in general, and the Bush administration in particular, made many other arguements and certainly did not rely on the imminent threat claim. The ex antecase for war, is thus only partially weakened by our ex post. knowledge.

posted by: marc on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



Mr. Joseph - Can I assume that the Executive Summary of your post is:

A group of citizens is pushing an agenda that, if successful, would see thier nation an unrivaled power, in order that it would have the capability to make decisions regarding its existance free of outside interference.

If so, I think you'll find no dissent on this board. Well done.

posted by: Arthur Wellesley on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



David,

I agree with this:

"We are not primarily acting out of altruism. An Iraq without Saddam Hussein sends a clear signal to the dictators in that region: stop your nonsense, or you are next. Groups such as Al Quaeda and the secularist Baath understand and respect only brute force. Iraq’s neighbors are already trying to stay out of harm’s way. Also, the moderates are better able to influence events in their own countries. Encouraging the forces of democracy significantly increases the safety of all Americans."

But, I do not see how you can classify my rhetoric as "defeatist." I'm not saying that we are going to fail. I don't know what is going to happen, and neither you, the Bush administration or the American people know. My point is that public support was bound to experience a major fall when post-war developments did not match pre-war claims.

If we had explained to the public the larger geo-strategic reasons for going to war, as you aptly have done, I'm not so sure they would have signed on. If we scare the hell out of the public, like saying (i'm paraphrasing here) "Imagine those 19 hijackers except this time armed by Saddam", of course the public was going to support the war. But, the scare tactics were completely disingenous.

Again, my reason for writing in the first place was to illustrate the pointless nature of this debate. Yes, the use of the word "imminent" to describe the threat to America in quotes is sloppy. But, if one were to supply the words "grave and gathering" in place of imminent, then exactly the same criticisms would apply.

1) Was Iraq a "grave and gathering" threat to the US?

2) Where inspections really a failure as has been said by both the Pres., the VP and many others?

3.) As a corollary to #2, can anyone argue that containment failed vis-a-vis the Iraqi regime?

4.) Isn't the difference between the doctrine of pre-emption and prevention really a question of the nature and timing of the threat? Under the doctrine of pre-emption, we invaded Iraq to pre-empt a threat to the US. One pre-empts an existing and somewhat imminent threat. Prevention on the other hand is an act to stop a threat from ever forming. Based on what we now know, was Iraq pre-emptive or preventitive?

5.) Finally, we launched the war on a very specific timetable. Even after other security council members asked that we give Iraq four more weeks, the administration said no. Why? Bush's response was the following:

"Some ask how urgent the this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today --and we do-- does it make sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?"

and my favorite quote for this debate:

Iraq . . "could bring SUDDEN TERROR AND SUFFERING TO AMERICA."

Does it matter whether or not the President said eaxctly the word "imminent" when he is saying things like those quoted above, which require aboslutely no listener interpretation to understand that the President is saying that we can not wait and that we must act now?

posted by: jim aka grave on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



Jonathan,

My point about disharmony in the Bush Administration being so extensive that there was overt opposition to the invasion of Iraq demonstrated the _degree_ of disharmony. It also went the other way - lots of its officials felt Iraq's WMD posed an imminent threat and said so.

IMO you are being quite unrealistic in taking one aspect of such SOP policy disagreements out of context and proclaiming those as evidence that the "Bush Administration" as a United Front body deliberately overstated WMD as a justification for the invasion of Iraq.

Many people, notably academics, have a vision of government policy-making which is a fantasy. No presidential adminstration is that united. Policy-making at that level is as messy, complicated and nasty as Congressional legislation. I recall an adage something like, "Legislation and sausage-making are not for the faint of heart."

You guys see real life and go "ICK!"

And blow things out of proportion. You are doing so now.

IMO Sebastian Holsclaw errs by not disputing your underlying premise of Bush Administration harmony. He might even share it.

posted by: Tom Holsinger on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



jim aka grave,

Does it matter whether or not the President said eaxctly the word "imminent" when he is saying things like those quoted above

No the specific words don't matter. However, it does matter that the quotes you gave were not the only things which the President said about his reasons for war. He made several other cases, which did not rely on the immediacy of the threat. You can't simply ignore these.

posted by: marc on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



A group of citizens is pushing an agenda that, if successful, would see thier nation an unrivaled power, in order that it would have the capability to make decisions regarding its existance free of outside interference.

Arthur,

The relevant phrase is if successful. The problem is that the PNAC's objective is a pipe dream, conjured up by people who have no idea (let alone an actual plan) how to bring it about.

Bush and the neocons are living in a fantasy world, where they think they can transform the entire middle east into a series of western style democracys. Unfortunately, reality has an uncanny knack for intruding on the fantasies like this.

The military have a saying: A hope is not a plan. Since the PNAC is all hope and no plan, it's highly unlikely to succeed. As we're finding out the hard way in Iraq right now.

Ultimately, though I have to agree with Karl Rove - the Iraq policy will be judged on whether or not it's a success, not whether we did it for the right reasons whatever those reasons are.

A year from now we'll see if Iraq has degenerated into civil war (most likely), a fundimentalist Islamic state (second most likely), still hanging on in a semi-stable manner like it is today (third most likely) or is firmly on the road to peaceful democracy (least likely).

posted by: uh_clem on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



An Iraq without Saddam Hussein sends a clear signal to the dictators in that region: stop your nonsense, or you are next.

Well, yes. Except that "stop your nonsense" clearly means "Develop strong business ties with big US corporations like Halliburton and right-wing dynasties like Bush". It says nothing about human values or human rights or even supporting anti-American terrorists or being hostile to Israel.

The other message being sent that Iran and North Korea have picked up loud and clear: "Stop your nonsense. Make sure you really do have WoMD, and the US knows you do: that's how to avoid the fate of Saddam Hussein."

posted by: Jesurgislac on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



An Iraq without Saddam Hussein sends a clear signal to the dictators in that region: stop your nonsense, or you are next.

Well, yes. Except that "stop your nonsense" clearly means "Develop strong business ties with big US corporations like Halliburton and right-wing dynasties like Bush". It says nothing about human values or human rights or even supporting anti-American terrorists or being hostile to Israel.

The other message being sent that Iran and North Korea have picked up loud and clear: "Stop your nonsense. Make sure you really do have WoMD, and the US knows you do: that's how to avoid the fate of Saddam Hussein."

posted by: Jesurgislac on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



Mr. Clem

I concur. In fact, I purposefully added that clause IOT appeal to the President's detractors. I really believe that that is the core of the disagreement between the left and the right. Both know it to be true, and almost all nationalists, in any corner of the globe subscibe to it, and the internationalist (recoil as they may from the term) disagree with it.

And now for something completely different:
You're Hope is not a Plan addage. First time I heard it was from cynical old bastard, right before an op. I love the emotion that goesd with the line - you're all sitting there, listening to some bone-head plan, you're ALL thinking it, and someone has the nerve to say it under their breath, and your first thought is always " Yeah, No F'n kidding". Love that feeling, such a release - helps you deal with the whole mortality thing.

And why the sidebar? Because my absolute favorite version of that , what "meme"? is from a little cult film called 'Tremors' When Fred what's his name asks:
"we need a plan, what do we do?"
to which bacon replies;
"I say we run for it"
to which Fred replies:

"Running ain't a plan, Running's what you do when you ain't got a plan"

Thanks for brining it up,

Cheers

posted by: Art Wellesley on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



1) Was Iraq a "grave and gathering" threat to the US?

The answer is yes. Saddam Hussein was, sooner or later, going to exact revenge on the United States. I am convinced that he never stopped plotting to commit a terrorist action against us. It is not rational to think otherwise.

“2) Where inspections really a failure as has been said by both the Pres., the VP and many others?”

Saddam Hussein was jacking around. There was no reason to continue allowing him to make a fool of the process.

“3.) As a corollary to #2, can anyone argue that containment failed vis-a-vis the Iraqi regime?”

You are focussing exclusively on the military model. Instead, your attention should shift to a possible terrorist attack.

“4.) Isn't the difference between the doctrine of pre-emption and prevention really a question of the nature and timing of the threat? Under the doctrine of pre-emption, we invaded Iraq to pre-empt a threat to the US. One pre-empts an existing and somewhat imminent threat. Prevention on the other hand is an act to stop a threat from ever forming. Based on what we now know, was Iraq pre-emptive or preventitive?”

This is a false dichotomy. The difference between pre-emptive and preventative is similar to debating the number of angels on the head of a pin. I was always far more concerned that he would fund a terrorist attack where it would be difficult to assign blame. He might have claimed:
"Who me? I had nothing to do with it!"

“5.) Finally, we launched the war on a very specific timetable. Even after other security council members asked that we give Iraq four more weeks, the administration said no. Why?”

There was no sense continuing to permit the embittered Old Europeans to keep screwing us. Please cease giving our “allies” the benefit of the doubt. These folks, especially France, are merely envious of our preeminent power.

"Some ask how urgent the this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today --and we do-- does it make sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?"

Yup, I couldn’t say it any better. These are my thoughts exactly.

“...and my favorite quote for this debate:

Iraq . . "could bring SUDDEN TERROR AND SUFFERING TO AMERICA."

Does it matter whether or not the President said exactly the word "imminent" when he is saying things like those quoted above, which require absolutely no listener interpretation to understand that the President is saying that we can not wait and that we must act now?”

“Could” sounds good enough for me. Saddam Hussein’s track record is such that we needed to act prudently---and take him out!

posted by: David Thomson on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



No the specific words don't matter. However, it does matter that the quotes you gave were not the only things which the President said about his reasons for war. He made several other cases, which did not rely on the immediacy of the threat. You can't simply ignore these.

Jim,

No one is disputing that Bush and Co. proffered many reasons for going to war. The invasion of Iraq was the subject of a massive marketing campaign and different segments of the market were targeted with different messages. That's not necessarily dishonest in and of itself - Clintonesque, perhaps, but not dishonest.

But remember the terms of the debate at hand - the question is whether the claims of 'imminent threat' were fabricated after the fact by Bush's opponents, or whether that argument was actually used by the Bush campaign.

I understand that someone who had their nose stuck inside of The National Review or various other "serious" conservative publications would not hear the same marketing message as someone who casually scanned the headlines on USA Today or CNN.

Anyone who bothered to read the PNAC papers or the "serious" commentary would have understood that the WMD and the ties to Al Quaida were not the real reasons for going to war. But they were the primary marketing tools for the USAToday/CNN/Fox crowd. The Al Quaida link and the WMD fear were the reasons why most people supported the war.

Bush and his cohorts were very very careful with their language to never explicitly state a Saddam-OBL connection, but to imply through juxtaposition and innuendo that such a tie exists. Likewise with the WMD/imminent threat, although they went further with that than the Saddam-OBL argument.

posted by: uh_clem on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



Bluntly, an argument about semantics cannot have a resolution.

Schwartz interprets "imminent" as "gathering".

Holsclaw goes even further to the other side, and defines "imminent" as "the missles are in the air". He also discounts administration officials *agreeing* to the phrase "imminent" as somehow not applicable...
(And, yes, Sebastian, a thesaurus is relevant. Unless the phrase "imminent threat" is literally used, we'll have to decide if a given phrase is equivalent. We will do that by examining the words, and deciding whether or not they convey a parallel meaning.)

Without a clearer definition of the terms, the matter cannot be resolved.

posted by: Carleton Wu on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



Ok, once again:
If the Bush administration was not at the very least implying an imminent threat, then why were they quoting the British 45 minute thing?

Yes, there were many, many reasons for war. From Al-quada links to WMDs to to freeing the Iraqi people to readjusting the political geography of the middle east.

But one of the implications was that if we don't act NOW, we are screwed. And that, I would say, is an argument that the threat is imminent.

posted by: Dan on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



uh_clem,

It was my post which you were referring to, not Jim.

If you read my earlier comment, I agree that Jonathan has sucessfully argued that, albeit without using that word, the Bush administration did, at times, paint a picture of an imminent threat. I accept that it was part of their case for the war.

However, it was never the whole case. Not in the National Review (which btw, I rarely read) Nor in CNN, nor the NYT. I doubt you can find a speach (not just a response to a question) by an administration official where there were not several other cases presented -- a not imminent but growing threat, democratization of the region, humanitarian reasons, violation of UN demands, etc.

In particular, the administrations main statements of its case: the SOTU, Bush's speach at the begining of the war, Powell's speach at the UN, the text of the congressional resolution, all give several reasons.

I don't understand your insistence in identifying the one, true reason why Bush invaded Iraq. Why can't an action have more than one justifying reason? It seems to me that this happens all the time.

posted by: marc on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



"Bush and his cohorts were very very careful with their language to never explicitly state a Saddam-OBL connection, but to imply through juxtaposition and innuendo that such a tie exists. Likewise with the WMD/imminent threat, although they went further with that than the Saddam-OBL argument."

There is indeed evidence that a possible Saddam-Al Quaeda connection existed. And the jury is still out regarding the WMD question. Once again, why take any further risks with someone with Saddam's track record? He jacked around with the UN inspectors---and violated his agreement. End of story. Can't you Bush haters find anything else to complain about?

posted by: David Thomson on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



Mr Wellesley
Re your Executive Summary of Joseph's article:
"A group of citizens is pushing an agenda that, if successful, would see thier nation an unrivaled power, in order that it would have the capability to make decisions regarding its existance free of outside interference."

I think a more accurate summary would be:

"A group of political prostitutes is pushing an agenda which will bring riches to their masters in the short term , but will inevitably bring massive death, destruction, and poverty to the US population and will destroy the American Republic."

posted by: Don Williams on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



Tom,

I still don't understand what you mean about administration disharmony.

Also, I'm not claiming here that the Bush administration overstated the case on purpose. This really has nothing to do with that one way or the other. It has only to do with what they argued, sincerely or not.

posted by: Jonathan Schwarz on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



marc,

Sorry for confusing you with Jim. This non-threaded comment format can be a bit confusing...

I don't understand your insistence in identifying the one, true reason why Bush invaded Iraq. Why can't an action have more than one justifying reason?

I didn't know that I was insisting that we identify one true reason. You are undoubtedly right that there are multiple reasons behind any action, and to insist on explaining everything in terms of one reason is to oversimplify things.

However, when it's apparent that a publicly stated argument is pure BS (viz. Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks) one is compelled to seek out other more plausible reasons.

In reviewing the arguments presented, the only one that struck me at the time as compelling was the WMD/imminent threat rationale. In retrospect, it turns out that there was much less to this than was advertised. I feel duped.

To cast a broad historical analogy, the American Civil War was not fought (only) over slavery - the historical reasons were much more complex and you will drive yourself crazy if you try to identify the one reason why that war happened. The failure to find WMD is about like conquering the Confederacy and discovering that there weren't any slaves after all.

Somobody's got some 'splaining to do....

posted by: uh_clem on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



"No the specific words don't matter. However, it does matter that the quotes you gave were not the only things which the President said about his reasons for war. He made several other cases, which did not rely on the immediacy of the threat. You can't simply ignore these."

I don't disagree with this statement at all. Many rationale were offered for going to war. A lot of them were valid. But, from the marketing point of view it is ludicrous to suggest that any other argument was more succesful than the "grave and gathering"/"Imagine 19 hijackers this time armed by Saddam" argument.

I listed many questions in a previous post. Here are my answers.

The threat that Iraq posed to us was hypothetical at best. Yes, Iraq could have attacked us. But anyone arguing that that is a good enough reason to go to war better sign up for the service now and convince everyone to sign up with them.

Saddam's track record with inspectors was abysmal. Regardless, those "failed weapons inspections" really seemed to have worked. Even Kay's report seems to echo that conclusion.

If people are going to point to Saddam's track record of defying inspectors, then they should look at Saddam's track record of launching terrorist attacks against the US (the "imagine those 19 hijackers but this time armed by saddam argument.) After the failure of the assassination attempt on 41....for a good twelve years there is no evidence of anything.

Sure, Saddam could have tried something. But, what would be the point. Revenge? C'mon. Post Gulf War I, the guy survived in power by not engaging in fights that he knew he would lose.

If we decide to attack any nation that "could" attack us, we are going to be awfully busy.

Finally, I must reiterate that I am a war supporter. But, the tactics of the administration of continually trying to sell this as a war of necessity as opposed to a war of choice based on scaring the public was wrong.

posted by: Jim aka grave on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



The problem with the debate topic is that it is not terribly relevant to anything important. The question --which can't be debtaed intelligently because we don't have the intelligence -- is "Did the Bush administration distort the available intelligence on Iraq to build its case for war?" The corrolary question is "If the intelligence was not distorted, why was it so wrong?"

The second problem with the debate topic is that it simply presumes bad faith, stupidity or ignorance on those who interpreted the Bush administration's remarks as saying there was an imminent threat. If you think arguing in that way is a good idea, try telling your spouse that her suspicion that you don't like her brother is "a complete fabrication."

posted by: appalled moderate on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



First...I am not a Bush-hater and I resent the fact that my criticism of their PR campaign is reduced to that emotion. I think that the right thing occurred for the wrong reason.

I had to listen to rage about the phrase "it depends on the meaning of the word 'is'" from people who cared about precise honesty. Today, people are stuck in some infantile argument about whether the word imminent was said or not, when we all know that the administration in no uncertain terms described the war as something that we had no choice but to do and no choice but to do NOW.

In question format again:

1) Does anyone really disagree about which argument convinced the public that war was necessary?

2) Does anyone disagree about which argument the administration used most often and most forcefully?

3) If there is a correlation between question #1 and question #2, is our criticsm justified? Or, would you rather prefer to take the easy way out, declare victory, not care about precision anymore and call me and others Bush-haters?

Finally, I must admit that I am enjoying myself. The Bush-hater thing got me on edge a little, but I really respect this debate. Not once have I been called an idiot or a traitor.

posted by: jim aka grave on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



"First...I am not a Bush-hater and I resent the fact that my criticism of their PR campaign is reduced to that emotion. I think that the right thing occurred for the wrong reason."

I still insist that Bush hating underpins this debate. Also, why are you ignoring my arguments? Do you find any weaknesses in my logic?

posted by: David Thomson on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



I'm sure it would appeal to the rest of the posters/viewers of this thread if certain people would limit their input to the specifics of the debate topic. Extraneous political bullshit and speculations here are as annoying as cell phones going off in a restaurant. Please stay relevant to the post.

posted by: john on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



1) Does anyone really disagree about which argument convinced the public that war was necessary?

I think you understimate the "Saddam was behind 9/11" component of public support for the war. Remember that 70% of the US population thought this as recently as a few months ago. And if you think he was the culprit, it's damn hard to oppose the war unless you're a Quaker or something.

Bush & co did nothing to correct this misunderstanding, and took full advantage of it even though they knew it was false. Amazingly, some people still cling to that belief, despite all evidence to the contrary.

The WMD/imminent threat meme was pervasive, but I'm not sure which of the two was ultimately more persuasive. In any case, the debate at hand isn't about the Saddam-9/11 connection.


2) Does anyone disagree about which argument the administration used most often and most forcefully?

No disagreement here.


3) If there is a correlation between question #1 and question #2, is our criticsm justified?

Is the Pope Catholic?


posted by: uh_clem on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



uh clem...

I don't disagree with you, except to the extent that the WMD threat and the involvement in 9/11 were tied together.

David,

I'm not saying that your arguments are illogical, except the Bush-hating one. By focusing on that, you are acting as though we are illogical and criticize the president even though he is right purely out of hatred. you are suggesting that we are arguing against what we know is right simply because of hatred. That is illogical.

On another matter:

The word appeasement was thrown around often. Is it fair to label war opponents (again, I was not one of them) as appeasers for opposing the invasion of a country that was not an "imminent threat"? The President raised "appeasement" quite often. And, appeasement applies to obvious threats not perceived threats. anyone disagree with that?

Back to the subject of the threat: This exact debate is a waste of dime. "Imminent" threat vs. "grave and gathering" threat is a distinction without a difference. If there is a difference, "grave and gathering" is a more tricky proposition to defend. "Imminent" threat is only about timing, not about weightiness.

If the evidence is not there to suggest that Iraq was an imminent threat, there is simply no way that that same evidence could be used to support the argument that Iraq is a "grave and gathering" threat.

posted by: jim on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



The failure to find WMD is about like conquering the Confederacy and discovering that there weren't any slaves after all.
Wish I'd thought of that.

I think this thread is supposed to be about how mistaken, if at all, it is to believe Bush called Iraq an imminent threat. (I think he did.) I don't think this question can be answered by reference to other arguments the Administration advanced, which, with the exception of the even more spurious intimiations that Saddam was materially involved in an atrocity conducted principally by Saudis, were unlikely to sway the American people into a protracted and expensive conflict. (Note to jim grave: see below.) Nor, frankly, can the original question be evaded by reference to Saddam's cruelty and despotism or to alleged progress in democratizing Iraq (which I am not too sure about either). I don't understand (or perhaps I do!) why there is no "conservative" interest in

(1) How did the threat to American lives posited by Bush, as 'imminent' or whatever slightly lower level you prefer, get exaggerated compared to the capabilities we found on the ground;
(2) We claimed to know exactly where the WMDs were, even to the extent of GPS coordinates sent to the UN inspectors in their last days, which they investigated and called "garbage". (I think they actually said "shit" and the newspapers cleaned it up.) Even during the war, Rumsfeld reiterated (incorrectly) that we knew exactly where WMD lay. Is it not a matter of great concern that our intelligence on this was totally bogus, and what steps should be taken to improve it?
(3) Is there any reason other than the upcoming Iraqi summer that the invasion took place when it did, even to the extent that UN inspectors had to leave mid-task. (Posters who talk about Saddam's lack of cooperation with the inspectors should comment on the extent to which this is a response to our having planted spies among them earlier.) Pay special attention to the way Bush fractured the Democratic Party over this on the eve of the midterm elections.
(4) [for you, Jim] If the Administration's description of Saddam's grave threat to American security had been true, then I might concede that war would to be the only way to eliminate it. We now see that the inspections and sanctions did that for us, and with my very low opinion of the Administration's honesty, I did not believe it to begin with. What is the evidence that the various less politically dramatic reasons for the war were not receptive to other, peaceful methods. In particular, I don't see how a unilateral US invasion of Iraq is likely to drain the pool of anti-Americanism; it seems to have been an Al Qaeda recruiting godsend.
(5) To what extent was our policy influenced by Ahmad Charlatan Chalabi (a convicted swindler and likely source of the false intelligence on which we relied) and his pipe dream of a pro-US, pro-Israel [!!] Iraq?

Perhaps the conservatives can turn their attention to these critical questions when they are finished calling us Saddam appeasers and worse. (I wouldn't think of calling them Karimov-appeasers, after our Uzbek ally whose human rights record is only one degree better than Saddam's.)

posted by: Andrew Lazarus on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



Jim,

I would sincerly dispute your (implied) answers to the first two questions.

1) Does anyone really disagree about which argument convinced the public that war was necessary?

No doubt, the fear of an near-term threat played a roll. But again, I wonder why you insist on talking about which reason convinced the public. There is no single answer. Some people may have been convinced by one reason, some by another. Many people may have had many. My guess would be that a common man-on-the-street war support back in February would have said something like "Because he's a bastard who has been willing to defy the UN in order to build WMD. If we don't stop him now, one of these days he'll have nukes and then be unstoppable." This combines humanitarian reasons, revenge, support for UN / world order, and fear of a non-immediate threat. Some people may have focused on one or the other of these issues; I'll grant that some were concerned about a near term threat.

However, I don't recall many people talking about fear that Saddam would attack tomorrow. The main theme I recall was get him before he is too much of a threat. Recall that much of the debate at the time was about whether containment would work. This whole issue was relevent because the long-term threat was an important arguement for the war party.

So yes, I do disagree that fear of an imminant threat was a major arguement to convince the public, let alone that it was the only one.

2) Does anyone disagree about which argument the administration used most often and most forcefully?

This is not even close. If you look at the administrations statements, the most commonly cited reasons are a) defiance of the UN resolutions, and b) pre-emption of an eventual threat. Other reasons were given, and yes, there were several times when scare stories were made to seem near-term (I gave the debate to Jonathan)

I just don't see how you can say that a near term threat was the arguement the administration made 'most forcefully' when Bush himself, in the his widely televised speach, explicitly disavowed 'immanent threat' as a necessary cause for war.

posted by: marc on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



No doubt, the fear of an near-term threat played a roll. But again, I wonder why you insist on talking about which reason convinced the public.

Marc,

In response I offer a hypothetical: Person A makes 5 arguments to person B to support a position. Person B is interested in a few of the arguments but is not swayed to support the assertion by any of said arguments. Person A then resorts to repeating 1 argument over and over and over again thus convincing person B.

In that context, the argument most worth investigating is the one with the greatest effect.

WMD/Alleged connections to Al Qaeda/Grave threat all intermingled are what convinced the public to support the war. The rest of the arguments were filler.

Ask yourself this: Absent the WMD/Al Qaeda/Grave threat argument, do you really think that the public would have supported the war? To add to the question, do you think that the public would have supported the war, without the WMD/blah blah argument, if they knew or suspected that it would cost about $160 billion in the first year alone?

Another twist on those questions. If 9/11 didn't happen, would we have gone to war? We still need to protect ourselves from threats before they strike. 9/11 didn't teach us that. The question is what type threat is serious/credible enough for us to engage in invasion to stop?

Some may call my words Bush-hating, though I think that that is ridiculous. I call it legitimate criticism of their priorities. While we have boldly pre-empted the "grave and gathering" threat in Iraq, this administration has twiddled its thumbs about Iran and North Korea. Surely there is no one in here who would argue that Iraq is/was more of a threat than those two countries, right?

With the specific exception of gassing their own people, the Iranian regime beats Iraq in every major category listed by the President.

The response from people before the war to questions about priorities vis-a-vis Iraq, NK and Iran is that the invasion of Iraq would serve as a lesson to the world. Has it? Have we been benefitted in dealing with Iran and NK as a result of our invasion of Iraq? I am not suggesting that invasion is a good idea. But, at the very least, the administration can get its act together and try to accomplish something instead of engaging all the infighting.

posted by: jim on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



Hey Andrew. I guess I will take a crack at some of your questions:

1. How did the threat get exaggerated?

Well, one of two things happened. The Bushies had no valid intelligence or the Bushies rejected the valid intelligence in favor of stuff that reinforced their prejudices. There really needs to be a public congressional investigation of this issue, and because the importance of the issue, someof the fear about sources and methods may have to go by the wayside. Much is made about "exaggeration" of intelligence, but its hard to judge if there was exaggeration if the raw data does not get released. Furthermore, why does the CIA get a free pass in all this? Even if there was some exaggeration and spin,it seems like they believed some of this stuff. Otherwise, Clinton would not have had the data to go a-bombing back in 1998.)

2. Is it a matter of great concern that much of the intelligence was bogus?

Oh, I think the Bushies think it is a matter of very great concern. This is probably a great part of the war between the CIA and the admin, that has been the underlying narrative of l'affaire wilson.

3. Is there a reason the invasion took place when it did?

The "if we only waited a few more weeks,the world would have been with us" song is one of the least attractive part of the current Democrat attack. The inspectors would have continued to find nothing. US troops would have continued to stand around and do nothing. The French would have continued to stand forthrightly that compliance with UN resolutions means nothing, except when the US does not comply with UN resolutions.

4. Sanctions were working, so why go to war?

Given what we are finding, I will concede that sanctions kept Saddam from having an imminent WMD threat. But they did not keep Saddam from wanting and plotting to have an imminent WMD threat. The moment sanctions were lifted (and that was an aim of French policy during the late 90s), Saddam would have been back at work on his weapons. Do you honestly believe that a regime of sanctions as stringent as those imposed on Iraq could have continued to be imposed for 20-30 more years?

5. Did Chalabi influence policy?

I would guess that Bush & Co. used Chalabi more than Chalabi used the US. He's a rather unpleasent sideshow.

posted by: appalled moderate on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



marc,

This is a classic straw man argument.

"However, I don't recall many people talking about fear that Saddam would attack tomorrow. The main theme I recall was get him before he is too much of a threat. Recall that much of the debate at the time was about whether containment would work. This whole issue was relevent because the long-term threat was an important arguement for the war party...So yes, I do disagree that fear of an imminant threat was a major arguement to convince the public, let alone that it was the only one."

I never made the argument that we needed to stop Saddam from attacking tomorrow. What I have said is that this debate is particularly nonsensical on the basis that the difference between "imminent" and "grave and gathering" is marginal at best.

At the same time, the administration never made the argument that we are invading to stop the Iraqis from EVER becoming a threat. According to the President, Iraq was already a "grave and gathering" danger/threat.

posted by: jim on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



I must send a comment to Joseph for his lengthy post above.

I was stunned by the information you presented. I am a life long Republican, from a big family of Republicans. I could be called a Mark Hatfield type of Republican, a principled opponent to wars of aggression.

I knew nothing about this history of planning in the Middle East. I guess I have been too comfortable and complacent in my retirement. I am alarmed. No, that's too mild. I really have no words to describe my fear for the future of this country.

What can I do to help turn this ship of state around? I can only hope a centrist Republican will challenge Mr. Bush in the primary. Patrick Buchanan is looking better all the time.

Thank you for presenting this information. I'll be doing some more reading about it.

posted by: Gregory on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



I got around to looking at the Charles Krauthammer article on the Iraq War as a gamble. I didn't agree with his analysis, but at least it was on Planet Earth until the conclusion: "That [Saddam wanting to use an arsenal] was true when Clinton said it [in 1998]. It was true when Bush said it. The difference is that Bush did something about it."

What difference? It appears that the Clinton/Blair airstrikes in 1998 obliterated whatever was left of Iraq's CW capability. Krauthammer has a short and selective memory these days. If Iraq is as successful as a terrorist recruiting tool as it looks, we'll finish up behind where we started in national security.

posted by: Andrew Lazarus on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



[ME] 2. Is it a matter of great concern that much of the intelligence was bogus?

[appalled moderate] Oh, I think the Bushies think it is a matter of very great concern. This is probably a great part of the war between the CIA and the admin, that has been the underlying narrative of l'affaire wilson.

I take the opposite lesson, that the White House announced via Wilson that scorched earth tactics would be used against anyone who disturbed the impression of Bush's infallibility and omniscience. I don't see one shred of evidence that Bush or his supporters are concerned about the intel that led us into war, consistent with the possibility that they knew it was fictitious or exaggerated at the time.

As Talleyrand said of the Bourbons, "They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing."

posted by: Andrew Lazarus on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



I think you initially made about as good a case for the "imminent threat" argument as I have heard.

That being said, Holsclaw addressed your points and wins the $100 hands down in my opinion.

posted by: PJ on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



Marc...
I would have to say my experience with people's reactions was quite different. At an annual extensive family holiday, I and my niece are always the sole voices from the democrat side of most discussions. The rest, for the most part, are Fox-watching conservatives and a few older moderate republicans. Almost to a person the belief was Iraq and al-Qaida were intertwined partners, they had tons of bio-weapons and would use them as soon as we turned our backs, and they were an immediate threat because they were going to bring nukes-in-a-suitcase to our shores and that, on that basis, we should take Saddam out. The frequency and volume of these false claims (unmanned aero-systems, long range missiles, tons of bio-weapons, aluminum tubes....christ, it seemed like there was something new every day) caused such a panic among many people that that, plus the great sense of desire for revenge of 9-11, I believe, put near everyone at a frenzy for action...damn the consequences. And not once at that time did I hear mention of a concern for the victims of Saddam's regime from anyone advocating the war...never.
I realize this is purely anecdotal, but i think it describes a feeling many had...especially ones who don't read any of these blogs and strictly get their news from TV or cable.

posted by: johnn on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



How many of you pro-Bush commenters think the Kay report found botulism-based bioweapons in Iraq?

Nope. Fooled you. Just as with the "imminent threat" and the "Saddam 9/11 connection", the Administration uses deceptive juxtaposition and weasel words to create an impression that's totally false.

That one hidden vial of botulism was type B, a strain that occurs in nature and which the US and Russians both abandoned after being unable to find any biowarfare use for it. Of course, rather than admit (yet another) failure, the official report uses words like "BW-applicable" and "possible".

They are trying to deceive and terrify us. I feel like Lawrence Fishburne in The Matrix trying to clue you in.

posted by: Andrew Lazarus on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



appalled moderate....

The only thing appalling is that you try to hide behind the label "moderate."

Go ahead and change your monicker to "peeved liberal" and dump the hypocrisy.

It makes no difference to me either way... but at least be honest to yourself.

A proud and oft annoyed conservative,

Paul

posted by: Paul on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



Since we have drifted somewhat from the specific topic, the merits of the debating points, I will add that i do think it would be interesting to know the wide disparity of reasons people would be inclined to go to war.
There are dedicated pacifists (few, i know...so retro, right?) who think we should never fight under any circumstances, and those who think if another sovereignty is in possession of a resource we want (or perhaps some other singular bad reason), in the national interest we can pursue it through any means necessary.
I'd love to know if/how it interplays with the opinions on this thread...if everyone's opinions are strictly alligned with the facts they percieve as correct or if they are also motivated by other sugjective factors.
Sometimes I 'd just love to be a fly on the wall...

posted by: john on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]



There was an attack recently foiled in Jordan. The vehicles the terrorist were stopped in contained chemical weapons and poison gas. King Abdullah states that those chemicals came from Syria. Isn't it just possible that they originated from Iraq, and had been moved to Syria prior to the war? Interesting that there have been people saying all along those weapons were moved to Syria. And now, and al-quida attack using those weapons has been foiled! Food for thought!

posted by: Sue on 10.16.03 at 05:30 PM [permalink]






Post a Comment:

Name:


Email Address:


URL:




Comments:


Remember your info?