Did * say Iraq was an imminent threat, or not????

[CatWoman]

Watching David Corn this morning, some right wing whacko called Corn a liar for saying that * said Iraq was an imminent threat.

I know Cheney and Rice have said it, but did *?

I can't recall -- although I recall * hyping the Iraq threat with visions of mushroom clouds.

[La_Serpiente]

1. That's interesting

This is just one of those lies being purported by the right.

In the war resolution, he didn't say it, but it was highly evident that Bush meant Iraq was an imminent threat.

The also funny thing is that Bush said Sadaam was a gathering threat. Was he really a gathering threat? Looks like there wasn't any evidence of that.

[imax2268]

4. you know...

I had a discussion with a freeper about this subject...and I used the word "imminent"...well...this freeper chastised me saying "He never said that...He never said that...you can't prove it"...

So I fired back and told this freeper that "I" used the word...I didn't say he did...I also said that I didn't know for sure if he said that exact word...but he implied it...

The freeper had nothing to say...

[Brucey]

2. If he didn't say it, does that mean he didn't think it?

Then why did he have to invade them?

[Guaranteed]

16. Right...if they WEREN'T an imminent threat,

there was no rationale to invade.

[WilliamPitt]

3. Bush Letter to Congress, March 18, 2003

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html

Presidential Letter

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

[Guaranteed]

15. Oh man...that's damaging...

(to Bush)

[JHB]

5. Radio Free Europe thought so...

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2002/10/08102002135121.asp

Washington, 8 October 2002 (RFE/RL) -- President George W. Bush addressed the American people last night in an effort to convince them of what he believes is the urgency to confront Iraq about its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, and to go to war over the issue if necessary.

Speaking from Cincinnati, Bush said Iraq's president, Saddam Hussein, poses a unique threat to the Middle East, to the United States, and to the world. "While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant (Hussein) who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people," Bush said.

Bush said the United States and the world cannot afford to wait -- as some have suggested -- for Saddam to abandon his programs of weapons of mass destruction, as required by the United Nations under the terms of the cease-fire that ended hostilities in the 1991 Gulf War. "The longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence," Bush said.

But the U.S. president said this urgency does not mean that war is imminent or inevitable. Still, he said, he is prepared to lead a coalition of countries in a military strike against Iraq if necessary.

[zanana]

6. It depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Do you remember that? Now that they're backed into a corner, Republicans are using semantics as a defense.

[JHB]

8. Funny you should mention that...

[DemBones DemBones]

11. Exactly! See what I just posted below. n/t

[NicoleM]

7. I don't think he said the word, BUT

if the threat wasn't imminent, why the hurry? We could have taken our time and put together a real coalition. Talking about things like "mushroom clouds" and launching chemical weapons within 45 minutes would make most people think that the threat is imminent and we don't have time to wait for the international community to come on board.

[BikeDeck]

24. Mushroom cloud

If memory serves me right, the mushroom cloud comment was saying that we could not wait until the "smoking gun" of evidence was a mushroom cloub.

[JNelson6563]

9. The lies are apparent

and don't let anyone distract you with hair splitting.

Here's a great column from a conservative about Bush's pre-war lies.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34930

Julie

[Elidor]

12. Excellent article

"We will strike them before they hit more of our cities and kill more of our citizens."

As Sperry says in the column (about a different lie), if that's not lying, I don't know what is.

Edit: SOMEONE in the administration used the word 'imminent.' I don't recall who, but it was probably Cheney or Rumsfeld.

[maggrwaggr]

41. dude, that's a scary picture

that's the picture of Bush as seen through the "They Live" glasses.

His true evil

[DemBones DemBones]

10. It's so obvious that this is THE new right wing talking point! There

were two more calls about this during the "free phones" segment following the segment with David Corn. Wingnuts are calling in every damn day to say "Liberals say that Bush* said the threat was imminent but he never said that -- so stop saying that!" They sound like whiny elementary school kids.

It's like Clinton saying he "never had sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." I knew when he said that that he meant he hadn't had intercourse with her but that they'd been up to something. I was surprised that no reporter tried to follow up on that answer. He didn't lie, he just gave a very specific answer that people gave a very broad interpretation. The wingnuts continue to say "Clinton lied about Monica" but the new RW shout is "Bush* never said 'imminent threat'. "

ADDED ON EDIT: I missed the first part of David Corn's segment, just read the David Corn thread & learned that a wingnut called in and brought up Clinton's finger-wagging lie! Hilarious!

I've been trying to track down a Bush* quote where he does say "imminent" because it would be such fun to shove it in the face of these obnoxious dittoheads, but I suspect that if he did say it, the speech has been scrubbed and the quote will never be seen again. Certainly he was implying that the threat from Iraq was imminent but it may be that only the media were using the words "imminent threat," as in "The president discussed the imminent threat that Iraq poses to the United States, blah, blah."

[Elidor]

13. Altercation touched on this Friday

(Just now found time to read it):

"On May 7, 2003, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked, “Didn’t we go to war because we said WMD were a direct and imminent threat to the U.S.?” He replied: “Absolutely.” On Nov. 14, 2002, a mother of a U.S. soldier told Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld that she was not convinced that Iraq was an imminent threat. He replied: “I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before, or two months before, or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?”

"The administration also made the “imminent threat” point in other ways. On Jan. 29, 2003, Rumsfeld said: “The president has stated that he considers the Saddam Hussein regime a danger to the United States.” And Vice President Dick Cheney said on Jan. 30, 2003 that there was a “grave danger posed by the outlaw regime in Iraq,” adding that Saddam “threatens the United States of America.”

http://www.msnbc.com/news/752664.asp
Scroll down a little

[CatWoman]

14. ah, great

thanks, Hardhead :hi:

[NoKingGeorge]

18. To use the War powers act it has to be so.

The war powers act ,that Congress gave him for UN leverage,says that he can ONLY use the Act if there IS an imminenet threat.
The War powers ACT can ONLY be used IF there is specific rational for war.If he used the Act without beleiving in an imminenet threat ,then he violated the Act.

[htuttle]

22. Exactly

Along with that, an 'imminent' threat is the ONLY rationale allowed for pre-emptive war by the UN Charter.

So either Bush said 'imminent threat', and is a liar and a scoundrel, or he didn't, and merely violated the Constitution and committed a war crime (but is still a liar and a scoundrel).

Take your pick.

[BikeDeck]

25. War powers

what was the imminenent threat that Kosovom, Somalia, etc... posed to allow the enacting of the war powers act?

[htuttle]

28. Kosovo was a treaty obligation to NATO...

...and NATO determined that the situation was a threat to Europe. Treaty obligations are covered in Article VI, I believe.

As far as Somalia, I'm not sure. You'd have to ask Bush Sr. about that one -- he's the one who originally sent US troops there. I think it had something to do with the famine originally.

[HootieMcBoob]

20. the difference there is...

The Bush people had plenty of evidence that there was an immenent threat of terrorists attacking the U.S. They had evidence from our own intelligence service, intelligence agencies from countries in the middle east, from the FBI, from the Clinton administration, from the Gary Hart et. al. report. They just chose to ignore all of that information.

With Iraq all of the evidence pointed to Iraq not being an imminent threat. They had to go so far as to creat their own intelligence agency in order to fabricate facts to support their theory that Iraq was a threat.

They all deserve to be in prison for war crimes.

[Guaranteed]

17. Alright, just to put this to rest:

I don't think Bush himself ever used the word "imminent." HOWEVER, he DID use the word THREAT. Over and over and over. And over and over (thus implying the imminence of the threat with his insistence on invading them).
But, Iraq wasn't even a threat to us, because they didn't have anything to threaten us with.

[Spazito]

19. There were 2 paragraphs from the State of the Union 2003 that..

inferred "imminent threat" very strongly, imo. The key one being:

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)"

and the second one, using the words "serious and mounting" :

"The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups."

In reading these, there is no question in my mind that the intent was to impress upon those listening and reading that Iraq was an imminent threat. Indeed, the headlines screamed "Imminent Threat" right after Bush's speech.

[Oilwellian]

21. Mike Malloy also captured the essence

of Bush's campaign to go to war in Iraq. I posted this a few days ago as a reminder of the many speeches Bush told, leading up to war. Go a third of the way down the page and go to this section:

Official Communication #1 of The White Rose Society

Dear Friends, This communication is brought to you by the White Rose.

Please have no fear, we will not be reporting your reading of this document to Homeland Security! (Though they may be watching you anyway!)

Please listen to the following special audio program. Please be aware that this program may make you doubt the honesty and intentions of Our Leader. The Truth Will Set You Free!

George W Bush and 1984: You decide. - Five easy steps for turning America into a totalitarian state.

http://whiterosesociety.org/

[samsingh]

23. neo cons are stupid

if shrub committed the nation to war against a country that was not an immiment threat, that is also criminal.

either way shrub lied and the neocons cannot slither out of it.

[BikeDeck]

27. are you saying

that committing an act of war (bombing, killing, removal of regime, etc...) against a country that is not an immenent threat to the United States is a criminal act, and the president who does it should be impeached, removed from office, and then tried in a criminal court?

[htuttle]

29. Yes

As far as I'm concerned, I don't care what party they are in. The question is, does the law mean anything, or is it just a cover to be used when convenient, and ignored when not.

[BikeDeck]

43. Great

now show me your writings calling for the impeachment, removal, and criminal prosecution of virtually every president in history.

[htuttle]

47. I don't have any 'writings'...

...as I have a real job that keeps me plenty busy.

What's your point? Are you wondering whether I am personally philosophically consistent? Well, I am. As I said in the post you replied to, it doesn't matter to me whether a president is a Democrat or Republican. If they break the law and the people's trust, they should be held accountable.

That Bush is an imperialist president is nothing new. We've had plenty of imperialist presidents before, Democrat and Republican, and I've let my opinion be known on all of them.

The main problem with Bush is that he's an INCOMPETANT IMPERIALIST. He's gotten us in WAY over his head, and we're all going to suffer for it.

Altering the imperialist mindset of America is a long term project. Dumping this idiot frat boy in the White House is an immediate concern.

[DemBones DemBones]

26. I mentioned earlier that I was looking through transcripts for what

Bush* actually said. . . I started at the White House site because I figured even the wingiest wingnut will believe that site. And I found a speech given at Ft. Hood in Janiary that shows how "enthusiastic" the troops were. Here's an excerpt to show what I mean:

<snip>

That's not the way the enemy thinks. They don't value innocent life. They're nothing but a bunch of cold-blooded killers, and that's the way we're going to treat them. (Applause.)

AUDIENCE: Hooah!

THE PRESIDENT: They reach across oceans to target the innocent. They seek weapons of mass murder on a massive scale. The terrorists will not be stopped by mercy or by conscience. But they will be stopped.

AUDIENCE: Hooah!

THE PRESIDENT: And they will be stopped by the will and the might of the United States of America. (Applause.)

AUDIENCE: Hooah!

<snip>

By my count, there were 21 shouts of "Hooah!" in a twenty minuted speech.

I'm just curious to hear from CatWoman and other vets if it's customary for servicemen/women to be ordered to yell "Hooah!" at every possible chance during a presidential speech? Obviously, those in uniform won't boo the commander-in-chief, and I'd expect them to be told to applaud, but all the "Hooah" seems over the top to me. Am I wrong? Was this done for earlier presidents as well?

[CatWoman]

34. Never attended a presidential speech while I was in uniform

however, I've been "volunteered" to participate in parades, etc.

It's no difference.

"You will participate, and you will like it."

Yelling "Hooah" is common for servicemen and women -- It's like a verbal high five. Platoon sergeants, as well as higher-ups, do encourage its use. They think it displays esprit de corps.

[DemBones DemBones]

48. Esprit de corps is good but this smells like Bush* spirit.

Seems very orchestrated to me -- and very undignified during a presidential speech.

[NNN0LHI]

30. What difference does it make?

Either Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat and he invaded and it has turned out that they were not. Or he did not say Iraq was an imminent threat and he invaded and it has turned out that they were not. I see a little difference in the semantics, but I don't really see a whole heck of a lot of difference in the results. Maybe I am missing something here?

Don

[htuttle]

32. There is no difference

The whole question is just a bunch of silly word parsing by the right wing.

[truebrit71]

31. He didn't say it....BUT ....

In speech in Cincinnatti (sp) he made mention several times of the "urgent" need to go after SH..because of his support of terra-ists, and WoMD...

TB

[rocktivity]

33. Word games

I'm pretty certain I heard him actually SAY THE WORDS "imminent threat" in a speech. But even if it turns out not to be so, he most certainly DESCRIBED an imminent threat in so many words--for example, that Saddam had WMDs he was able to DEPLOY WITHIN 45 MINUTES. And besides, if Cheney and Condi were wrong to use the words, "imminent threat," Georgie would immediately issued a correction for credibility's sake. Now months after the fact, this has become some kind of an issue? Nice try, freepers, but we've got you coming and going.

On edit: According to post #19, Bush said in the 2003 SOTU sddress:
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."


So I was half right--and turnabout is fair play. And using their logis, Bush may never have SAID "imminent threat," but he say "imminent" AND "threat," so there! :P


rocknation

[librechik]

36. Distraction moves

of course he tried in every way to imply that the treat was so urgent that we must go NOW. This is what "imminent" means.

All the parsing on whether Shrub literally said the I word is an attempt to deflect the truth--this misadministration is so lawyered up and scripted that I am not surprised that the dauphin never uttered the actionable phrase, but just talked all around it full of meaningful innuendo as often as possible. Now his weaselly defenders are whining that he never did say "imminient." It's comical. I'm surprised Corn didn't just laugh out loud at the GOP operatives calling in to throw that bucket of spit on him. Instead, he very patiently explained that he had anticipated their uninformed objections and had made a special spot on his website where each hohum accusation is addressed with documentation.

What an immature schoolyard gambit. They only succeed in convincing each other.

[Curtis]

52. It doesn't matter if Bush* said it

or if someone from his administration said it. HE is responsible for anything HIS administration says or does, period.

[E Pluribus Unum]

35. Bush said in The State of the Union speech that

we must act before Iraq becomes an imminent threat. As far as
I know he never did say they were an imminent threat.

[htuttle]

37. But legally he couldn't act without an imminent threat

So he committed a high crime either way.

[E Pluribus Unum]

40. Sorry, htuttle, the president can act without an imminent threat.

Presidents, both Dems and Repubs, have been doing it for years.

[htuttle]

42. That's not what the law says

And I don't really care what past presidents have done. Most of them at least put on a show of pretext to stay within the law. This one didn't. Besides, just because SOME people get away with breaking the law, does that mean ALL people who break the law should be let off the hook? If that were true, we'd have no justice system (imperfect as it is).

Here's the text:

SEC. 2.
(c) Presidential Executive Power as Commander-in-Chief; Limitation The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

http://www.udel.edu/htr/Psc105/Texts/warpowers.html

Which condition (1 through 3) did Bush exercise the War Powers Act under? I'll tell you. He's claiming (in the Iraq War Resolution), that he was responding to Sept. 11th (point 3), which is clearly a pack of lies (and he's admitted it).

High crimes (and dead soldiers).

[E Pluribus Unum]

44. We will just have to disagree in this one.

[E Pluribus Unum]

45. We will just have to disagree on this one.

[rucky]

38. NO HE DIDN'T - and it was INTENTIONAL

Let me tell you why:

The Bush Doctrine (PNAC) advocates Pre-emptive war. That's what he was selling, and the current talking points prove that. Bush is guilty of intentionally misleading us to believing the threat was immediate AND he's guilty of fighting a preemptive war. He painted a picture that led us to believe there was an imminent threat because it would scare folks into supporting the war. But what they ended up supporting was indeed a preemptive doctrine that now relieves * from the burden of proof to show imminent danger in this war AND Future wars.

His intentional ommission of the word "imminent" proves that. The word is a legal trigger that - if he used it in selling - would make this war just like all the other wars. They didn't want Iraq to be like other wars, they want to pave the way for future preemptive wars where imminent danger is not an issue - and now he has major bipartisan support for this on record - which will only strengthen his case for the next war.

We're all eager to prove that Bush lied about the dangers, but don't fall into the semantics trap by even trying to refute that he didn't call it imminent - because you'd be missing out on the best arguement you could make against this dangerous policy he successfully sold to Congress. which is...he intentionally fought a war KNOWING there was no actual imminent threat, and he played on hyperbole and fears to do it.

BFEE is trying to have it both ways, and we're letting him if we don't keep hammering him on preemption. Don't lose sight of that, because it is the heart of the debate and our strongest argument.

[DemBones DemBones]

50. OK, this makes sense. You're saying that if he had said that Iraq

was an "imminent" danger, we would have been justified in going to war, just as we'd have been justified in going to war if they'd attacked us. What's the basis for that justification, for saying that a war is justified under those conditions? International law? And where can I read the law(s)?

[rucky]

51. Bush Says it Himself...right here

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/print/nssall.html

George W. Bush
THE WHITE HOUSE,
September 17, 2002

(snip)

For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.

We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction—weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning.

(end snip)

You can find good legal analysis about his endrun around int'l law in favor of preemption here:

http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/

[spindoctor]

53. Most of the world just interpreted it that way

Including rightwing talkshow hosts that now make a big ordeal over the fact that he did not say that Iraq was an imminent threat.

He certainly fooled me.

Did he also not say that the UK thought Iraq was an imminent threat?

PM Blair mentioned something about a 40-minute risk. The words clear and present danger also still linger in my memory. Did he not say that either? Was I just imagining that too? If he did say that, is that significantly different than "imminent threat"?

I heard this dumb-ass comment first on Friday afternoon, coming from some live talkshow broadcasting from Texas. I couldn't get through unfortunately.

Because let's face it. If half the world is under the impression that those words were used, and the other half does not contest it until 8 months after the fact, then it is simply a moot point.

It does however indicate that all hope on finding any WMDs is now definitely lost. Or did Mr. President never say that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction/Weapons of Mass Murder in Iraq?

[blm]

39. Bush said "immediate and direct threat" according to Corn.

Not exactly apples and oranges the way the White House is trying to spin it.

[jayfish]

46. HERE IS YOUR ANSWER!

Sorry about the all caps but usually when I'm late in posting to a thread of this length I feel I'm not getting good visibility.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A17424-2003Jul19¬Found=true

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

-SNIP-
"I think there was new information in there, particularly about the 45-minute threshold by which Saddam Hussein has got his biological and chemical weapons triggered to be launched," Fleischer said. "There was new information in there about Saddam Hussein's efforts to obtain uranium from African nations. That was new information."
-SNIP-

Isn't it strange that they seem to attribute the boldest lies to British Intel? It's almost like both the pre and post-war propaganda was spun up as one big tale with plausible deniability as it's center point.

Jay

[spindoctor]

54. What you say?

It's almost like both the pre and post-war propaganda was spun up as one big tale with plausible deniability as it's center point.

Nahhhhhhh...they wouldn't.


...



Would they?

[jayfish]

56. Of Course We Know The Answer.

It's just too bad that the "liberal" media can't (see won't) seem to make 2 from 1+1.

Jay

[caledesi]

49. He called Iraq an "imminent danger" Is danger threatening? Duh.

THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS

Bush Calls Iraq Imminent Threat

"Trusting in Hussein's Restraint 'Is Not an Option,' President Says

By Maura Reynolds, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON -- A somber and steely President Bush, speaking to a skeptical world Tuesday in his State of the Union address, provided a forceful and detailed denunciation of Iraq, promising new evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime poses an imminent danger to the world and demanding the United Nations convene in just one week to consider the threat.

Link: http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/iraqimminent.html

[maggrwaggr]

55. if he didn't, then WHAT was his argument?

that WAS his whole argument.

If they're trying to change the argument now it only makes them look like fools. which of course they are.