Everyone else must be watching the World Series.

Schwarz has shown from the Administration's own words (what his opponents call "microquotes", as if this battle could be fought without quotes) that the Administration did indeed disseminate the idea that Iraq was an imminent threat. (Of course, they may well not have believed a word they were saying.) As far as whether the idea of "imminent threat" is a liberal fabrication, in the first place, it is not a fabrication, and in the second, he shows how non-liberal news organizations held this belief before the war.

The Administration and its blog supporters are now trying to rewrite history because the only unequivocal claim they made, that Saddam had WMD and we knew where they were, turned out to be false.

To paraphrase my first comment on this issue, the score is Schwarz and Google 1, Holsclaw and Winston Smith Bush 0.

I can't believe that this many words have been spewed dealing with something that is so friggin obvious that anybody who has not either

• read way too much Jaques Deridas or
• is ready to march in lock-step with the marching orders of Karl Rove even when the order is ABOUT FACE AND DENY THAT YOU WERE EVER MARCHING IN THE OTHER DIRECTION

So, Holsclaw wants to impart a special meaning to the word imminent - one that means exactly what he wants it to mean, nevermind the common sense everyday meaning of the term. And once we've accepted his narrow definition of the term, it becomes a tautology that Bush never said any such thing.

Ok. I say "blue" means depressed. And for elaboration on the meaning of depresion, I turn to the American Psychiatric Association and their clinical definitions of depression. By that standard, it is a complete fabrication to say "the sky is blue" QED.

I'm wondering if the real bet is "I bet I'm such a better arguer that you that I can take a completly untennable position, one that is ridiculous on it's face and still beat you." Either way, Holsclaw didn't win that one either.

Everyone else must be watching the World Series.

It's Saturday night. Maybe they all have dates?

The problem with Schwarz's argument is that "imminent threat" is more than the sum of its parts. And an imminent threat means something very specific when it comes to pre-emptive war under international law. Imminent by it self means the something will happen soon or is about to happen. A threat means the danger of an action exists. But in terms of war an imminent threat means that a nation or power is about to attack. It's war plans are drawn up and the troops are preparing to march. An imminent threat is not North Korea saying we are going to nuke your ass tomorrow. Rather an imminent threat it is intelligence that North Korea is about lunch a nuke at us. Their words alone are not enough for it to be an imminent threat. You must have empirical evidence that something is going to happen before it becomes an imminent threat.

There was never enough evidence that Iraq was an imminent threat. If we had specific evidence that Iraq was about to attack us or hand over WMD to Al Quida then they would have been. The Bush administration was arguing that imminent threat no longer provides enough protection in this world. With nations you can spy on them and you know when they are going to attack with proper surveillance. With terrorists you can never be sure.

And yes I am one of those losers who don't have a date tonight!

Cheers,

Derek

I can not say that I have studied the debate as much as I would have liked but, let me see if I got this straight.

The Bush Admin argued a definition of "imminent" that really means imminent is whenever the Bush Admin decides it is imminent. That is convenient.

or

The present state of "terrorism" makes "imminent" meaningless, thereby obivating that little bit of international law and the Bush Admin can do whatever they want. Again convenient.

Derek’s arguing the wrong issue: not whether Iraq was an imminent threat, but whether Bush claimed it was. Bush, after all, could have "intelligence" showing how imminent the threat was that he couldn't share with us. (Yes, I realize Bush's intelligence is now a phrase laden with irony.)

ESP said:

The present state of "terrorism" makes "imminent" meaningless, thereby obivating that little bit of international law and the Bush Admin can do whatever they want. Again convenient.

Actutally the are trying to expand the concept of "Imminent Threat". In the past "Imminet Threat has been a nation or Army praparing to invlade or attack . Bush seems to want to expand this concept to include the surport terrorism and having WMD's to be enough for war.

Derek

Andrew Lazarus,
Actually I am arguing that Schwarz's argument is flawed because it is using terms like "imminent" and "immedate", and gathering to be the same as the concept of "imminent threat". Useing a term the sounds like a the term for a concept is not the same thing as asserting the concept. Saying Iraq is a gathering threat does not mean the same thing as the concpet that "Iraq is an imminent threat".

And remember the reason pre-emption was such a big deal in this war was becuase we were not asserting that Iraq was an imminent threat under intnational law but rather that it might be due to its connection to terrorism and it's WMD. Anit-War people had a cow over this before the war.

Derek

As a reminder, this is the point of discussion:

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

True or False?

I think I know what arguing "imminent threat" means. You do not inform a person that there is an "imminent threat" of being run over just because he\she is standing in the street. There is only a "general risk" of being run over. At a minimum to argue "imminent threat" you have to be aware that a vehicle is bearing down on the person and that time to avoid the vehicle is scarce.

At no time did the Bush administration ever suggest they had any knowledge that Iraq had any kind of short, medium or long term plan to attack the US either directly or by proxy. What the administration did suggest is that Iraq had the means to attack and may be motivated to attack the US (most likely by proxy), but they just couldn't be sure if or when. i.e. they argued a "general risk" of attack by Iraq, not an "imminent threat".

What they in fact argued is akin to a parent telling their child he/she should not play in the street any longer because the "general risk" of being run over is too great. This is entirely different from telling the child to get out of the street NOW! because there is an "imminent threat" of being run over, because a vehicle is bearing down on the child. You cannot use "imminent threat" in place of "general risk", they mean two different things.

Getting back to the case in point, to say that the administration argued "imminent threat" you have to prove they suggested that Iraq had a specific plan to attack the US, as oppose to Iraq posing a "general risk" of attack in a non specific time frame. The administration made no claim of any knowledge of an attack planned by Iraq in any time frame leaving only a "general risk" of attack, not an "imminent threat".

Advantage Holsclaw.

Schwarz wins, hands down.

If this was softball, the game would have been stopped on the mercy rule and we'd all be drinking beer.

Can I point out something else that bears on the discussion, reframes it a bit, and should (in my tiny brain anyway) close it for good? (Which is to say: will surely attract more sweaty discussion than it's worth.)

Even now, the absolutely constant (yet carefully never explicit) phony linking of Saddam to 9/11 still hasn't ended -- and please note that this consistently reinforces the idea that Iraq was, indeed, much more than an imminent threat... but an actual actor behind an actual act.

(Actual committed acts are, incidentally, somewhat larger than imminent threats, in case that point is somehow unclear. To pick up from an earlier comment, this debate may be about a distinction between standing in a road vs. having a bus about to hit you; but the simple fact of the matter is, the White House has quite consistently implied that the pedestrian has already been smashed, and the bus might be coming back. Then we can debate whether or not to add the words "any second," but for God's sake...)

Every time they say "9/11" or "World Trade Center" in the completely irrelevant context of Iraq, Schwarz' case is way more than made. And that's several times a day, before this whole game even starts. Then you take the administration at their own explicit words, as Schwarz asks, assume that something resembling standard English was in use, and the truth is obvious.

The administration has always screamed "boogety-boogety" in every conceivable way, many of them quite plainly dishonest, to drum up support for the war. Those who would deny it are simply saying "define 'boogety-boogety.'"

And it's still going on. This isn't some bit of history for interpretation. It's still happening right now. Look -- see -- right behind you! It's Dick Cheney with a WTC snowglobe and a fake tear in his eye! AIEEE!

Sure, you can carefully parse the White House's words and try to claim that nobody in the administration ever explicitly said Saddam was involved in 9/11 -- and that might be literally true. But it's also just as much and just as foul a lie.

Good Lord. Can we please see the obvious?

Define "obvious." Yeah. I know...

"Again and again the Bush administration argued that Saddam was a serious threat because of his past behaviour. Constantly the Bush administration argued that Saddam was a growing threat because of the impossibility of indefinitely sustaining an inspection regime. Bush always argued that Saddam was an important threat, a threat that would get worse with time, and a threat which ought not be left to fester."

I agree completely. President Bush’s very carefully worded statements have been totally misconstrued. The Liberal Establishment, especially the “mainstream” media, are acting in a despicable manner. President Bush’s very carefully worded statements have been totally misconstrued. The Liberal Establishment, especially the “mainstream” media, are acting in a despicable manner. The Bush haters will do just about anything to destroy this man. Lastly, I am being very consistent. I was also appalled by the Clinton haters---and said so publicly.

That last quote was from Bush's Cincinnati speech, Oct. 6, 2003.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/bush.transcript/

Now, just so I'm clear: that *ISN'T* arguing that a threat is imminent, right?

That last quote was from Bush's Cincinnati speech, Oct. 6, 2003.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/bush.transcript/

Now, just so I'm clear: that *ISN'T* arguing that a threat is imminent, right?

Crud. My first post didn't post and my second post double posted. This is a disaster for people of good heart everywhere.

David Thomas,

Bush's "carefully worded" statements were carefully worded to give the impression of an argument they were not actually making, because they knew even then it was completely fallacious.

Example: "9//11 was a terrible day for America. Now Democrats say we shouldn't invade Iraq!" (NOT a quote from the Bushes, just an example.)

What's wrong with this statement, David? Why is it misleading?

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained."
(real quote; State of the Union address)

Now what's wrong with this one?

"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

And this one?

--
That last quote was from Bush's Cincinnati speech, Oct. 6, 2003.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/bush.transcript/

Now, just so I'm clear: that *ISN'T* arguing that a threat is imminent, right?

Graham, I don't see how "immediate threat", "grave and gathering threat", "clear evidence of peril" and other phrases used by the Bush Administration are compatible with your statement that Iraq comprised a mere "general risk", akin to standing on the sidewalk. Do you feel an "immediate threat" while standing on sidewalks? Indeed, while it didn't claim knowledge of any specific attack plans by Iraq, it reiterated that waiting until we did learn of those plans would be too late (Bush: "the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud").

The proof is in the pudding. Is the invasion of Iraq more consistent with "imminent peril" or "general risk"? To use your analogy, when a child is merely standing on a sidewalk, do passersby sprint up, grab the child, and try to pull it to safety in a doorway? Of course not.

On a related topic, defenders of Bush should read the LA Times to find they have been deceived again. The botulism vial in Iraq was bought before Gulf War I from an American scientific supply house and is type B, useless for biowarfare. Type A is the deadly form (details at link). Why do you think the Kay Report, with its weasel words of "suitable" and "possible", hyped this innocent, readily available item? Because puny as it was, they had no better? Well, yes, but also, as Matt Yglesias points out,

This tactic -- saying things that are true in such a way as to get people to believe things that are false -- has become a prominent feature of the administration's public relations strategy on a number of fronts and, frankly, it stinks.

Graham...
Why, pray tell, didn't they use the term 'general risk' then, instead of 'imminent' and immediate'?

And Mr. Thomson, can you post just once without your 'liberal media' spew, and your 'Bush-haters' silliness and strictly adhere to the merits of the specific debate? It really gets old after awhile.

Andrew, I just want to state again that the point of discussion is whether the assertion:

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

is True or False. To answer that question you have to define what an "imminent threat" is. That is all you have to define and then you can examine the evidence to see whether it fits the definition or not. Without an agreed upon definition of "imminent threat" we risk talking past each other indefinately.

As a matter of semantics I contend that to argue there is an imminent threat of a person being run over, you have to argue specifically that there is a vehicle bearing down on that person and that person has little time to get out of the way.

Extending the analogy to an attack by one nation on another, to argue imminent threat I believe you have to argue that there is a specific plan for an attack by that nation on the other scheduled to occur in a relatively short time frame. This is not the case the administration made. If the question at hand had read:

"It is a complete fabrication that the Bush administration argued in the runup to the war that there was a (very grave and possibly hyped) potential threat from Iraq."

then things would be different and Schwarz would be on much firmer ground in this debate. If you take the question at face value and think that parsing it as I describe is the best way to interpret it, then it is my belief Holsclaw is on firmer ground. Indeed parsing the question at face value and rendering a judgement based on that alone is the only way to be fair to the debaters.

"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

Graham,

Please address this quote from Bush on 10/6/02. (02, not 03, I mistyped before.) In what way do you think this constitutes a "general threat" rather than an "iminent threat?" Do you believe that characterizing this as an imminent threat is a "complete fabrication"?

This is too out of context for me to say. I can't even tell if he is talking about Iraq specifically or the general nexus of WMD and terorism etc. Besides, the question doesn't address my contention that arguing imminent threat means at a miniumum arguing that you know of a plan, however embronic, of an attack by one country on another. Clearly the administration did not argue that. If you have an alternative definition of "imminent threat" I'd be interested to hear it.

You can throw up all the smokescreens you want about this artifically narrowly defined debate over whether Bush did or did not explicitly argue that the Iraq threat was imminent.

The fact is Bush lied his ass off repeatedly when he and his minions repeatedly said thay they had bulletproof evidence that Iraq had stockpiles of WMD. Stop trying to change the subject. Couldn't you stupid conservative fucks be honest just once?

Andrew Lazarus says:

"Even to the extent the most tortured and literalistic readings of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Fleischer can somehow be interpreted to deny the existence of an imminent threat (quite impossible in my view), the Administration is responsible for the intended (but false) inferences everybody drew from their remarks."

This, to me, (and clearly not to others) is the most important part of this debate that remains largely ignored. Forget parsing, forget synonyms. What were the American people pushed to believe and then subsequently ALLOWED to believe in order that they might support the decision to go to war?

Namely, that Iraq could (and probably will) cause another 9/11 because they have ties to the same guys that pulled that attack off. AND that Iraq possess weapons (not just programs or intentions to have programs, like we're being told now) that would be given to more of those same guys.

Forget "imminent" or even "general," I'm still waiting to see the "threat" or "risk" part. A vial of mold in some guy's fridge? This is why we're spending billions and letting our sons and daughters suffer?

To say "it stinks" is probably the understatement of the decade.

I've come to an important realization:

I no longer care, at all, whether the administration ever described anything as an imminent anything.

What I do care about is the extent to which the administration described the situation in Iraq as warranting action right away, and why they described it that way, and whether the evidence available to us now supports their claims. I don't think any quantity of debate about "imminent" is likely to help, though I do hope the debaters come to some resolution and someone enjoys a nice dinner on the proceeds. :)

Great job both sides. This was an enjoyable debate and the civility everywhere has been impressive.

In regard to statements such as this:
I agree completely. President Bush’s very carefully worded statements have been totally misconstrued. The Liberal Establishment, especially the “mainstream” media, are acting in a despicable manner.

Look, if the Bushies didn't want Iraq to be portrayed as an imminent threat, and took such amazing care with their language in order to try to stop that portayal, why didn't they take one of several thousand opportunities the "mainstream media" gave them to correct it? The WH has never, never objected to the press characterization of the Iraq threat as imminent. Never.

When you've got administrations hawks making statements like this, how can this even be a question?

Richard Perle on Meet the Press, 10/6/2002:

Mr. RUSSERT: Richard Perle, what is the imminent threat that Saddam Hussein possesses against the United States of America?

MR. PERLE: He will at any time--we don't know when--it could be tomorrow--cross the line and acquire nuclear weapons to add to the chemical and biological weapons he already has. And every day that goes by, we run the risk that he gets there first.

And later:

You can't wait until it's too late. A mushroom cloud is the statement that she's looking for.

Here are some very interesting comments on the link between Saddam and 9/11:

"The events of September 11 created new understanding of the terrorist threat and the degree to which every nation is vulnerable. That understanding enabled the administration to form a broad and impressive coalition against terrorism. Had the administration tried then to capitalize on this unity of spirit to build a coalition to disarm Iraq, we would not be here in the pressing days before an election, late in this year, debating this now. "

Or, a bit later:

"Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies. "

The first was John Kerry, who is still posing as a candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination, speaking to the Senate in October 2002; the second is Kerry speaking in January 2003.

The Senator seems quite disappointed that Bush did not target Saddam in the fall of 2001, a linkage to al Qaeda notwithstanding. What sinister hold does Bush have over him, that he could force the Senator to adopt this line?

Tom,

Well, if John Kerry supported the war I guess that makes it all okay. Kerry originally supported the war. Okay, now we can stop examining the facts which show how the hawks' evidence was built on distortions and misrepresentations. If we could only find a quote where Paul Krugman says Saddam was a bad, bad man then we really could stop having this debate about whether the American public was lied to.

In the end, we can all find lots of quotes from people who now disagree with the war who originally believed the war was a good idea. What is probably worth examining is what those original reasons were based on and what precipitated their change of heart. For John Kerry, at least (since you bring him up), he claims that he was deceived by the president. I won't go into what other reasons many might claim could have caused Kerry to take his positions (shifting political winds, for instance), but this is what he's said publicly since he made those particular speeches you cite.

This “so called” debate while informative, has obviously not resolved anything mainly because, as many have pointed out, it became an argument over semantics and “Definition of Terms”
I agree with Graham (in part) when he says …
is True or False. To answer that question you have to define what an "imminent threat" is. That is all you have to define and then you can examine the evidence to see whether it fits the definition or not. Without an agreed upon definition of "imminent threat" we risk talking past each other indefinitely.
So the debate is actually a DRAW, because both sides are right by there own definition of ‘imminent threat”
If the definition of “imminent threat” had been AGREED to as having the more “legal definition” (under International law) then Holsclaw might have won the debate... Perhaps – but maybe not
The other side could ague, and has, that the Bush administration has given a “new meaning” the term. As Schwartz pointed out as did others.
Schwartz:
I'll begin my final post with an excerpt from the official National Security Strategy of the United States, signed by George Bush on September 17, 2002:
We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries.
… The Bush administration was arguing that, by its own definition, Iraq fell under the concept of an imminent threat;
Ah Ha! We’re back to a DRAW. And again all over semantics and definitions. Should we use the old definition or the new Bush definition?
Another important “term” or definition that has been overlooked however is “complete fabrication”
"It is a complete fabrication that the Bush administration argued in the runup to the war that there was an imminent threat from Iraq."
I said earlier that … “I agree with Graham (in part) …” BUT I disagree when he says...
… “That is all you have to define …”
I will leave to Graham or others to define, or further confuse the issue, as they wish.
Recently Andrew Sullivan pointed out the recent Frontline TV program, the interviewer and writer used the words “imminent threat” 2 times in a 90 minute broadcast. He (Sullivan) the proceeded to discredit the entire program, without taking issue with anything else, and went on to label the entire program as Liberal Left Wing bias (or words to that effect)
Let me say this, I don’t think that Frontline or any of the other 100’s of individuals and media, consulted their legal department, or read the International (Legal) definition of the words ‘imminent threat”, when they used them. They meant it with the broader definition. So while so might say, or the debate topic could have been something along the line of the term being “misused” or “misquoted” There CERTAINLY was NOT any “Complete Fabrication” by any means.
When I first saw the debate topic, I knew that it was “un-debatable) because no one could ever prove that it was “complete fabrication” … unless of course you believe in the Liberal Left-Wing Conspiracy” theory

So the debate is actually a DRAW, because both sides are right by there own definition of "imminent threat”

No, no, no

The question is framed as

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

If it can be argued either way, depending on on your definitions, then it is not a complete fabrication. i.e. if reasonable people can disagree, neither side is "fabricating" things. Get it?

When I first saw the debate topic, I knew that it was "un-debatable" because no one could ever prove that it was "complete fabrication"

The onus is on the affirmative to prove their side. That's why several of us noted early on that this was a sucker bet. I take it you agree?

What hold does Bush have over Kerry? Maybe we should ask the other Boodle Boys. (They both belong to Skull & Bones, a secret society in which the initiation includes the recounting of one's sexual history and certain public self-gratification rituals.)

This whole debate is like arguing about whether or not Hitler ever gave explicit orders to kill the Jews. I don't care. He was responsible for it.

C'mon conservatives. You have been exposed. Bush was publically exposed as a liar over his WMD statements. It's as frikkin' plain as day. You have to be insane to deny it. The longer you go on like this the more you embarass yourselves and deepen the ultimate blow to your intellectual integrity. You and your party will go down in history as a bunch of deluded hyopcrites.

A question to the defenders of this Administration...a very simple questions:

Do words have meaning?

Or are you all suddenly late converts to the post-modernist school of deconstructionist politics?

I've noted this once before on an earlier thread, but I will repeat it for the benefit of newcomers like Graham.

The Bush Administration did explicitly state that Hussein was an imminent threat --to our ally Turkey -- and suggested that
we were bound to support Turkey under the NATO agreement. Note that Article 51 allows members of a collective defense alliance to respond to an "imminent threat" to one of the alliance's members.

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030210-8.html
Feb 10, 2003 ; Press gaggle, Scott McClellan
----------
QUESTION: What about NATO's role? Belgium now says it will veto any attempt to provide help to Turkey to defend itself. Is this something the administration can live with, or is it a major obstacle?

MR. McCLELLAN: Two points. We support the request under Article IV of Turkey. And I think it's important to note that the request from a country under Article IV that faces an imminent threat goes to the very core of the NATO alliance and its purpose.

QUESTION: What can you do about this veto threat?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, I think what's important to remind NATO members, remind the international community is that this type of request under Article IV goes to the core of the NATO alliance.

QUESTION: Is this some kind of ultimate test of the alliance?

MR. McCLELLAN: This is about an imminent threat.

QUESTION: Who's going to do the reminding to NATO?

Re: Don Williams on the McClellan statement

The "imminent threat" to which McClellan was referring was to Turkey, not to the United States, as developed in the very particular context (in February '03 amidst the closing "window of diplomatic opportunity") of the run-up to then imminent war.

More generally, on the Schwarzians:

The Schwarzians will apparently leave this debate confident that a thesaurus provides lists of synonyms that can always be taken as exact equivalents, and when, for instance, they would previously have spoken of the imminent collision of two automobiles they can now also speak of the gathering collision of two automobiles.

Similarly, for now on, when the president makes a direct statement about a policy issue before the eyes and ears of the entire world, they will await press conferences at other times and consider the press secretary's answers to stray questions as the truly definitive policy statements.

When a leading official, such as the Defense Secretary, expresses uncertainty verging on confusion about the meaning of a particular word or concept, they will see that as a clear affirmation and adoption of the concept. Likewise, when a strategic document expresses shared dissatisfaction with the applicability of a term, they will see an indication that the term is from then on to be adopted and applied.

The Bush administration could not deny the possibility of an imminent threat, just as it could not deny a direct 9-11/Saddam link, because the Bush administration - unlike many of its critics - neither possessed nor pretended to possess perfect and complete knowledge of the world. (And I would note that there IS evidence of possible links between Saddam and 9-11. There is substantial evidence of contacts and cooperation between Saddam and Al Qaeda, among other terrorist groups. And there is a to my mind undeniable connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq vis-a-vis the war on terror and primary US geostrategic interests.) The critics would not be satisfied, apparently, until the Bush Administration directly asserted that there was no Saddam-Al Qaeda or Saddam-terrorism link, and there was never a threat of any kind (imminent, gathering, short- or long-term, etc.) from Iraq, as any other statements will be seen as fearmongering, but neither the Bush Administration nor anyone familiar with the evidence can honestly make those assertions.

During the long run-up to the war, the Bush Administration, or rather members of the Administration, at times appeared to indicate belief in an imminent threat or perhaps a potential imminent threat from Iraq. The Administration as a whole never adopted the argument from imminent threat as its policy.

After cogitation,

Seems to me as if the debate has been about whether Bush has ever used the word 'imminent' in the same sentence as 'Iraq' where 'imminent' was an adjective describing Iraq's threat.

One guy says that because Bush never actually used the two words together in the same sentence, the Admin's message didn't mean to imply that we didn't have to go *ASAP*.

The other guy says that the Admin did mean that we had to go *ASAP* even though Bush never used the exact two words "imminent" and "Iraq" in the same sentence.

My vote is for the guy who claims that Bush meant that we had to go right now, even if he very carefully and legalistically came out and made that exact claim himself. Clearly his subordinates used that exact term freely even if they were less careful in avoiding an exact and overt assertion of the case.

Overall, the Clintonese and double-think and legalistic stench is overwhelming. Both were well articulated, but only one was being honest about what happened even though both argued from facts.

The entire debate is a waste of time. Those that think Bush et al lied will think so, no matter what is presented. Same for those that don't.

Why don't you debate something that matters.

"Does the removal of the Baathist regime improve the prospects for a peaceful future for the Middle-east, or worsen them?"

Or how about:

"Is pre-emptive war against a known tyrant justifiable under any circumstances?"

Or just maybe:

"In the modern world where extremists plan to cause mass civilian casualties that inflict mainly psycological damage using unconventional tactics and weapons, is it even possible to eliminate the threat using only military means?"

These would be better debate topics IMHO.

To John...

As to your question #1, the removal of a Baathist regime in Iraq may improve the prospects for a peaceful middle east provided that the successor regime wishes for peace in the middle east, and is capable of moving the (peace) ball downfield in the international arena. So far, as there is yet no successor regime, much less one with a desire for middle east peace or the capability to advance such an agenda.

“And Mr. Thomson, can you post just once without your 'liberal media' spew, and your 'Bush-haters' silliness and strictly adhere to the merits of the specific debate?”

I’m sorry but that is impossible. The Liberal media are a reality that cannot be ignored. It is absurd to ignore the fact that the Liberal domination of the media distorts the news for many of our fellow Americans. This is especially true of the New York Times which supposedly sets the tone for much of the rest of media. Also, have we already forgotten the disgraceful behavior of the Los Angeles Times during the recent California governors race?

The Liberal media are out to destroy the Bush administration. They will do just about anything to drive down the President’s poll numbers and hurt his reelection chances. These people will even sometimes outright lie to achieve their nefarious goals. It is your problem if you can’t handle the truth---and nobody else's. We don’t owe you a thing because you prefer to hide your head in the sand.

“Why don't you debate something that matters.

‘Does the removal of the Baathist regime improve the prospects for a peaceful future for the Middle-east, or worsen them?’”

Does anyone truly believe that a Iraq under the control of Saddam Hussein encourages peace in the Middle East? The Las Vegas bookmakers would almost certainly bet that the odds have dramatically improved since his removal. If nothing else, the recent stock market jump is a good indicator that this is so.

“Or how about:

‘Is pre-emptive war against a known tyrant justifiable under any circumstances?’”

A pre-emptive war is justified only if we are confronted with an on going threat. In the case of Saddam Hussein, we most certainly were. As I have stated previously, the former dictator would likely have never confronted us directly. No, he would probably opt to discretely fund a terrorist operation---and later deny his very involvement.

“Or just maybe:

‘In the modern world where extremists plan to cause mass civilian casualties that inflict mainly psycological damage using unconventional tactics and weapons, is it even possible to eliminate the threat using only military means?’”

Absolutely not! Military action is only part of a total package. Moreover, an exaggerated reliance on mere force could make things worse in the long run. We must also use diplomacy, education, and be perceived as friendly as possible to the regular indigenous folks. In short, we must not hesitate to become secular missionaries representing the best that Western Civilization has to offer. Does this imply that much of the Muslim world is backward, reactionary, and behind the times? Indeed it does---and we should not hesitate in gently, but firmly saying so.

In an earlier round of speeches/essays a commentor noted experience in judging high school debate. I endorse that.

By the standards of such formal competitive, sporting debate, Schwartz has committed a serious foul. Affirmative side introduction of new evidence and quotations in final rebuttal is like the offense sending receivers down the football field before the snap. FOUL! In particular, the 17 Sep '02 National Security Strategy quote is effective -- just as sending an uncovered receiver out for a pass is effective. But by the terms of the game, it OUGHT to be disallowed. Just a judge disallows certain sorts of testimony in a criminal trial.

In my humble opinion, without that particular quote, Schwartz loses. Had he opened his first affirm with it, he'd have won hands down.

So, I guess the question is, is a dirty win better than no win at all?

Pouncer,

Where did you get the idea that Schwarz is arguing the affirmative? Holsclaw is arguing the affirmative, not Schwarz.

Or are we going to try and twist that one after the fact as well? Given the tortured up-is-down, black-is-white arguments by those supporting Holsclaw, it wouldn't surprise me at this point...

Make that some of those supporting Holsclaw.

It's a good thing that bits are cheap. What a stipid argument. To support the idea that it is a complete fabrication, it would have to be that no reasonable person could come to that conclusion. At a minimum, Schwarz has argued reasonably. Several commenters here have made reasonable arguments. Only if we are down the rabbit hole has Schwarz not won.

So does that mean that since Schwarz is arguing in the negative, he's allowed to bring in new citations at this point? Seemed like bad form to me, since it gives Holsclaw no chance to rebut.

This debate has been great comedy, but I can't say anything has been accomplished. The whole thing has a kind of Alice-in-Wonderland feel, with words being defined and redefined at will to fit the needs of foregone conclusions.

Words have meaning, folks, and in most cases you don't need to pore over a dictionary to know what words mean. The conceit of this argument is that "imminent threat" is a term that has a very precise meaning, and that all other similar language is not so precise. This is simply false. There is no reason to think that "imminent" was used with any more precision than "immediate," "growing," etc., and even if it was, meaning has more to do with what you can reasonably expect listeners to understand words to mean than what you may or may not privately stipulate their meanings to be.

It seems the goal here was to define "imminent threat" in as narrow a manner possible, just in order to exclude all of the Bush administrations dire warnings about Saddam, while at the same time defining "complete fabrication" as expansively as possible. I find it very interesting that so many intelligent people are willing to engage in this pointless word game in order to defend Bush. Why not just admit the plainly obvious: he claimed there was an imminent threat, and likely thought it was imminent himself,...but it turned not to be.

So does that mean that since Schwarz is arguing in the negative, he's allowed to bring in new citations at this point?

I think so. It's certainly allowed if he's bringing them in to rebut something that Holsclaw brought up previously. If it's a completely new line of argument he's on shakier ground. I'd say that the 17 Sep '02 National Security Strategy quote is allowable since it's basically more-of-the-same, not a new line of argument.

But I don't claim to be an expert on formal debate rules, and I'm not sure that this format necessarily follows them. Having a peanut gallery full of kibitzing know-it-alls chime in after every stage is not a normal part of a formal debate...I don't know if Mr. Drezner is going to give any weight to our comments or not.

Yes, words have meanings, but those meanings are derived from context. Because in certain very peculiar contexts "gathering" and "imminent" are almost interchangeable, the thesaurus cited earlier includes the former as a synonym for the latter, even though in most contexts the connotations are far apart. Indeed, in the specific context that the President directly addressed and delineated in his SOTU and that the administration consistently argued as its central position (stray superficially contradictory statements notwithstanding), the two words are effectively antonyms.

The normally quite voluble Mr. Williams hasn't chosen to defend the misleading citation he made to Scott McClellan's Feb '03 use of the term "imminent threat." If you check the link - http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030210-8.html - you will see a quite proper use of the term in the context of military threats and military actions. Because the US was on the verge of military action against the Baath regime, the administration was arguing that TURKEY, not the U.S., could be considered under an imminent threat for purposes of invoking NATO treaty obligations, thus overriding Belgian resistance to the provision of defense aid to Turkey. You might disagree on the merits of the claim, but what made the threat "imminent" was the fact that the US military build-up was nearly complete and that Iraq, which of course border on Turkey, was showing no sign of ceasing its defiance. There was a clear causational factor, the looming war, and a short timeline relative to military actions and preparations. From a certain, extraneous perspective, you might say the potential threat to Turkey was also "gathering," but a more precise description would be that it had already almost completely gathered and was on the verge of moving from potential to reality.

An inability to understand the not really very subtle differences in types of threat and in contexts of discussion suggests a larger incapacity for serious discussion of foreign policy. It is not surprising that the same people who cannot tell the difference between "imminent" and "gathering," who misconstrue and completely reverse the plain meaning of statements such as those on the part of Rumsfeld cited by Schwarz, and who do not appear even to know how to use a thesaurus are also unable to understand strategic contexts, also accept ludicrous Truthout-level polemics without question, and, for that matter, seem unable even to distinguish between Turkey and the United States, at least when deploying misleading statements appears to serve their larger purpose of attacking US policy at all costs.

A thesaurus used for any serious debate is laughable.

You might as well drag out
"My First Pictionary."

Here's what Microsoft's Thesaurus provides as a quick path from things that mean "almost the same thing" to things that don't:

imminent = at hand = convenient = agreeable = pleasant

So by your lame-o standard, President Bush was "implying" that the threat from Iraq was "pleasant."

So you can claim he "implied" anything you want him to have implied.

You also argue that any reasonable person would take away from the President's arguments for the war the exact opposite argument. And the President "allowed them" to think what they thought.

So now the President is guilty of "lying" because he did not force people to think correctly.

Well, aside from plain silliness, you are now the liar here. Who are these people the President "fooled" into going along with the war? You? The people from Women's Press Collective who plastered every lamppost in NYC with posters for their anti-war rally, even when the war was over?

Was it Kennedy who was fooled? Kerry? Pelosi? The press? Were these people all convinced?

I think it would not be a "total fabrication" to assert that you are in fact lying to justify your accusations that Bush lied.

What does your thesaurus have under "irony" and "hypocrite"?

Apologies to any who have said the same thing I'm about to say, I read about half the posts in here and formulated my own, and skipped down to post it. Now going back to reading the posts ;-)

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

This is all semantics, Holsclaw, Schwarz and everyone else is arguing the semantics of "imminent threat" and whether or not the bush administration explicitly stated there was an imminent threat. I think the word everyone should be focused on in the above statement is "argued". From reading through portions of the "Debate" it's obvious that the Bush administration was very careful in their wording (It's amazing to me the "Resident" didn't screw this up), and while they never may have came out and technically said "Iraq is an IMMINENT threat" they certainly implied it.

If you want to get into semantics lets look at "Argue". The Merriam Websters dictionary has the following definitions for Argue:

intransitive senses
1 : to give reasons for or against something : REASON
2 : to contend or disagree in words : DISPUTE
transitive senses
1 : to give evidence of : INDICATE
2 : to consider the pros and cons of : DISCUSS
3 : to prove or try to prove by giving reasons : MAINTAIN
4 : to persuade by giving reasons : INDUCE

At least to my understanding of the definition it's not necessary to say there was an imminent threat, and the Administration certainly argued that there was one, even though they didn't come right out and use the term "Imminent Threat".

The phraseology used in the administrations spin certainly tied together 9/11, Iraq and Al Qaeda, as GC has noted, in a way to imply that there was imminent threat. If you look at the fact that 60-70% (Whatever the actual numbers) of people polled thought that there was a direct link between 9/11, Al Qaeda and Iraq, this shows that the spin was successful in making the "argument" for the administration that Iraq was an imminent threat because Al Qaeda had already struck. How embarrassing then for the "Resident", Condoleeza and Rummy to have to come out and say (Finally) that there is no proof of those ties. Funny how Cheney even a week later was still spouting the same lie.

At any rate, this fiasco was based on a tapestry of lies and calculated misrepresentations/manipulations, regardless of the semantics of "Imminent Threat". As we've come to find out Hussein was only a threat to his own people (as terrible as this was), not his neighbors or the United States and the United Kingdom. There was no legal justification for the "Resident" to press for war, Saddam was contained and not even a gathering threat, more of a general nuisance threat. Definitely a danger, but one that could have been dealt with in many different ways short of war.

In my opinion as far as the debate goes, if you want to be technical about it, Holsclaw wins because I feel at least to me that the point was proven that the Bush Administration didn't ever say "Iraq is an imminent threat". However as I've pointed out, that is not really the operative word in the question the debate is based on. If you base the debate on the word "Argue" then I'd have to say Schwarz wins. Too bad we all lose because of the crooks in the administration.

And David, if there is a liberal media why was Clinton constantly attacked by the media during his administration? Clinton was a liberal right? Why did Gore receive far more negative press during the 2000 election than Bush did? Gore was a liberal right? Hmmmm...

It's sad when you have to rely on the free dictionary and thesaurus that came with your subscription to Time.

It is always the tactic of those who rewrite history to rely on twisted semantics and out-of-context quotes.

Bush's argument was that we should NOT wait until the treat became imminent. How in any context could this mean the threat "is" imminent? No pictures of "imminent" in your dictionary?

How about the word "not"? Or "before"? Do we have to drag out the pictionary to recast every word in a new light?

By the way, the threat from terrorism was and remains imminent. It is a constant possibility, and we don't know when or where they will strike next. The possibility of Saddam contributing assets and support to terrorists, imminent or not, was just one of many things that suddenly on 9/11 became intolerable.

And he had many opportunities to come clean. He blew every one of them, but that doesn't stop you from making excuses for all the programs and materials he hid from inspectors. Proving there was no threat was his job, and you can't possibly claim he did that.

As for the connection to Al Qaeda, there is ample evidence there was a connection between them, and a burgeoning relationship against a mutual enemy. The administration always maintained there was no solid evidence of Saddam's hand in 9/11, but that was very specific. We did and do have evidence that they were fostering a partnership, and that could only have one end goal.

We had to act quickly BEFORE the threat became imminent, because when you're dealing with terrorism, imminent is too late.

Rewriting history now to claim the argument was something it wasn't is hypocritical in its malicious design to deceive.

Who are these people the President "fooled" into going along with the war?

Look in the mirror, Mick.

Of course, some folks are clueful enough to realize when they've been fooled...

"As for the connection to Al Qaeda, there is ample evidence there was a connection between them, and a burgeoning relationship against a mutual enemy. The administration always maintained there was no solid evidence of Saddam's hand in 9/11, but that was very specific. We did and do have evidence that they were fostering a partnership, and that could only have one end goal."

Huh? What evidence? I'm tired of these
assertions that get repeated over and
over again without a shred of credible
evidence. And the alleged meeting
between Atta and the secret agent in
Eastern Europe doesn't cut it, even
though people persist in bringing it
up. That has been refuted over and
over again.

As far as the "always maintained" part
of your statement: bullshit. Only
recently have they reluctantly
admitted there was no link. For two
years they dodged the question and
relied on innuendo and artful
speechwriting to give a mind-numbingly
2/3 of the country the impression of
a definitive link.

Back up your statement with actual
evidence and maybe people will take
you seriously. Otherwise you're
not debating, you're trying to
convert people to a religion. Although,
I admit, the whole uranium lie shows
that this administration has had
considerable success in that direction.

Rewriting history now to claim the argument was something it wasn't is hypocritical in its malicious design to deceive.

If the press were liberal, would Reagan-appointed FCC commissioner Mark Fowler have dissolved the Fairness Doctrine in 1985?

If the press were liberal, would Reagan have vetoed the Fairness Doctrine law in 1987?

If the press were liberal, would George Herbert Walker Bush have vetoed the Fairness Doctrine law?

Come on. Cut the crap. The right's war on the press has continued since Nixon's administration. The only surprise is that the new generation of pearly-teethed correspondents is intimidated by bluster, not realizing that they hold the power to destroy a president.

>If the press were liberal, would Reagan-appointed FCC commissioner Mark Fowler have dissolved the Fairness Doctrine in 1985? [bla bla bla.....]

Duh!

Bush and Reagan were against government regulation of private industry. Even at the expense of Equal Time. They saw the concept as impinging on freedom of speech, and as hurting business.

But when Dan Rather says "Well, we lost another one" when a Dem loses, the bias sort of reveals itself.

I see I hear I understand...the root of all evil is goodness. All this self assuring talk about my religion is better than yours is a little childish dont you think. Sure all of us grow up with our own little concept of religion that our family bestow upon us. And we spend the rest of our lives trying to justify to ourselves that we are right to believe what we believe. For once can we just step back from our mindless bickering on the subject of religion. Open your eyes wide and you will see that political ideologies is so mixed up with religion that we sometime blind ourselves from the reality. I ask if anyone can prove uncontestably the existance of GOD, ALLAH etc whatever you call it?? Not just feeling, not just oh you got to have faith kinda answers. Stop all this nonsense. Is the Koran or the bible written by god? The answer is definitely no. Someone sometime ago created all this so called religious text to control a few and we stupidly living in the 21st century still hold it as the truth. Why? Because we dont have the answer to all our questions. The answer is too confusing and I doubt anyone in this world now has the full answer to our existence. All religious text are written by one or many HUMANS as a form of political control at one time or another. All we HUMANs can do at this point of our evolution is follow what is nature. These wars and religious intollerance is a result of ethnic differences and politics, today and yesterday. It is our human nature for control. Do you see animals with religious doctrines.? There is only one law in this universe. That is birth & death. We will all die. Naturally we want a reservation or confirmation to where we are going to. But to kill and die to reach that answer is utter stupidity. The world , our human race has come to a crossroad where we either kill ourselves to extinction or progress to another level of mankind's development. One of the hurdles left is religion. We have learned in some cultures to shed the disctintion of race, political ideology, wealth disparity,...now it is time to shed religious differences. Why cant the world consider religious believes as a starting point for discussions for a unified believe of existence. Only one thing is constant, change. And change we must for humankind to progress. I beg all of you to drop the concept of a GOD(the creator of man) and see the future of man. We can all be GODs on our own. What does G.O.D. means....Good Only in Death.
Our religious icons made mistakes when all they ever wanted is peace and harmony for all mankind. The are just human like you and me. Their mistake? Jesus claimed to be son of GOD because he had to, otherwise nobody will listen to him during a time when literacy and scientific understanding was low. Mohammad told his people he is the TRUE messiah because he had to convince the people he's better than Jesus. The Jews had to come up with their "real Coke" concept by claiming their religion is the "classic coke" , because Jesus was a Jew too. Yes there is NO GOD. We all know this in our back of our mind but refuse to ackowledge the fact. Yes we are without a leader, messiah whatever, we just made it up to console ourselves. But if you look at NATURE, the principles and laws of science, you will discover GOD. But not in the form of an old man up in heaven dictating the fate of humans but as a destiny we must follow if we are to florish and to grow. Now you know why GOD is laughing at us all? Some details of the workings of the universe confuses us. Like when all of us die we go to another place ( dimension) and some of our dead comrades comes back in spirit to appear GODlike to confuse us all. That, i will discuss in another chapter if anyone is interested to know. For now let not a politically motivated few tarnish your minds by using religion as a cover up for their ambitions. To the future of mankind, I predict there will be no religion as we know it today in 50 years time.