Andrew Sullivan has an "imminent threat watch" in which he cites papers and politicians whenever they claim Bush described Iraq as an imminent threat. Sullivan claims it's a total lie, and Bush never said Iraq was an imminent threat. He claims that Bush said exactly the opposite. For example, Bush said the following in his State of the Union:
That seems to indicate that Bush was clearly saying Iraq was NOT an imminent threat, but we should attack before the threat becomes imminent.
On the other side, Josh Marshall wrote this piece for The Hill in which he claims that, perhaps in slightly different words, the administration DID claim Iraq was an imminent threat.
I'm not particularly impressed with the Ari quotes. Ari could have been saying yes to other aspects of the questions rather than the specific 'imminent threat' line. It seems clear that neither Bush nor anyone else in the administration said "Iraq is an imminent threat." But did they try to leave that impression in so many words?
I don't know, but in my view, that's not really the point. The key issue is that they have tried to redefine the concept of imminent threat so that it includes, well, a non-imminent threat as well. It is generally considered acceptable under international law to attack another country if they pose an imminent threat to you. Israel attacked Arab countries who were massing troops in apparent preparation for an attack, for example. But with Bush's new policy, laid out in the now-infamous National Security Strategy, they said we can engage in "preemptive" attacks if it looks like a country may be a threat in the future:
In my view, this is the key issue. Should we preemptively go to war even absent an imminent threat?
And this is where I think Sullivan is wrong is when he criticizes Clark for saying the following in a debate:
Sullivan:
Clark didn't claim Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat. It's possible to be against the war in Iraq because it wasn't an imminent threat, without claiming Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat.
Check outthis piece in Spinsanity about the issue.
Quote:
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.
That seems to indicate that Bush was clearly saying Iraq was NOT an imminent threat, but we should attack before the threat becomes imminent.
On the other side, Josh Marshall wrote this piece for The Hill in which he claims that, perhaps in slightly different words, the administration DID claim Iraq was an imminent threat.
Quote:
Last October, a reporter put this to Ari Fleischer: Ari, the president has been saying that the threat from Iraq is imminent, that we have to act now to disarm the country of its weapons of mass destruction, and that it has to allow the U.N. inspectors in, unfettered, no conditions, so forth.
Fleischers answer? Yes.
In January, Wolf Blitzer asked Dan Bartlett: Is [Saddam] an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home.
Bartletts answer? Well, of course he is.
A month after the war, another reporter asked Fleischer, Well, we went to war, didnt we, to find these because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isnt that true?
Fleischers answer? Absolutely.
---
Heres how Vice President Cheney described the threat in August 2002: What we must not do in the face of a mortal threat is give in to wishful thinking or willful blindness.
A month later, Bush called Iraq an urgent threat to America.
The next month, he described the threat like this: Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. 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.
Or Fleischer two days after that: Another way to look at this is if Saddam Hussein holds a gun to your head even while he denies that he actually owns a gun, how safe should you feel?
Or the president justifying war as it got under way: The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.
Fleischers answer? Yes.
In January, Wolf Blitzer asked Dan Bartlett: Is [Saddam] an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home.
Bartletts answer? Well, of course he is.
A month after the war, another reporter asked Fleischer, Well, we went to war, didnt we, to find these because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isnt that true?
Fleischers answer? Absolutely.
---
Heres how Vice President Cheney described the threat in August 2002: What we must not do in the face of a mortal threat is give in to wishful thinking or willful blindness.
A month later, Bush called Iraq an urgent threat to America.
The next month, he described the threat like this: Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. 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.
Or Fleischer two days after that: Another way to look at this is if Saddam Hussein holds a gun to your head even while he denies that he actually owns a gun, how safe should you feel?
Or the president justifying war as it got under way: The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.
I'm not particularly impressed with the Ari quotes. Ari could have been saying yes to other aspects of the questions rather than the specific 'imminent threat' line. It seems clear that neither Bush nor anyone else in the administration said "Iraq is an imminent threat." But did they try to leave that impression in so many words?
I don't know, but in my view, that's not really the point. The key issue is that they have tried to redefine the concept of imminent threat so that it includes, well, a non-imminent threat as well. It is generally considered acceptable under international law to attack another country if they pose an imminent threat to you. Israel attacked Arab countries who were massing troops in apparent preparation for an attack, for example. But with Bush's new policy, laid out in the now-infamous National Security Strategy, they said we can engage in "preemptive" attacks if it looks like a country may be a threat in the future:
Quote:
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.
...
To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.
We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries.
...
To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.
In my view, this is the key issue. Should we preemptively go to war even absent an imminent threat?
And this is where I think Sullivan is wrong is when he criticizes Clark for saying the following in a debate:
Quote:
CLARK: I've been against this war from the beginning. I was against it last summer, I was against it in the fall, I was against it in the winter, I was against it in the spring. And I'm against it now. It was an unnecessary war. There was no imminent threat.
Sullivan:
Quote:
No member of the administration used the term "imminent threat" to describe Saddam Hussein's Iraq. No one.
Clark didn't claim Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat. It's possible to be against the war in Iraq because it wasn't an imminent threat, without claiming Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat.
Check outthis piece in Spinsanity about the issue.
