The loaded questions for Holsclaw...

Do you believe that anyone who feels that Bush Admin did argue Iraq as an imminent threat is ignorant?

Do you believe that any non-ignorant person who argues that they believe that the admin implied that Iraq is an imminent threat is lying?

If you don't feel comfortable calling a lot of people stupid or liars, how do you expect to win your $100?

Another questions for Holsclaw...

Can you honestly say with a straight face that nobody in the Bush administration ever even implied that there was an imminent threat from Iraq?

The two paragraphs quoted illustrate perfectly the Bush technique: say something vague then change the subject and glaze the mind's eye with irrelevancies and inconsistencies.

Obviously, what the administration wanted was to take Saddam out. Via faith based intelligence fed to them by Chalabi they "knew" he was an imminent threat, but they cy'd their very ample a's. They leave the clear impression here, as elsewhere, of an imminent threat whithout using the those two words, in fact denying them (a technique Bush uses a lot - denying the very thing he is doing or about to do).

But when you add it up it can only mean one thing: better take Saddam out now 'cause he's just about ready to nuke us and it would happen too quickly for us to prevent.

***

Parsing the two paragraphs just a little closer, note Bush mentions that the US cannot trust the "sanity and restraint" of Saddam. Bush then provides a list of horrors. They prove conclusively that Saddam, while surely evil, is fully sane and completely able to restrain himself. Note that his victims are all far less powerful than he and he destroys them utterly.And none of them are American and he did not atack a state, or even threaten to, after Bush/Iraq I.

That strikes me as eminently logical, if thoroughly obscene, behavior. You don't pick fights with people you can't destroy and you destroy completely those you can.

In short, Saddam, in all likelihood, was not preparing to attack the United States, had not attacked the US, and had not aided in US attacks. He was a sane monster.

We were sold a bill of goods, folks, but an Administration that is skilled at only one thing: composing elaborate lies.

I can't believe how close this all sounds to Clinton debating the meaning of words. And then you dismiss a thesaurus, as if it's the actual word "imminent" that is required, that no other word in the language can express the same sentiment.

Then you interpret Bush's message being that it's not relevant if the threat is imminent or not - which I agree with. Which should eliminate any need for thesaurus-bashing.

Basically, they gave millions of people the impression Iraq was an imminent threat. Whether that was accidental, purposeful, or the "evil liberal media's" fault, there's no way the WH was not aware of the public's (mis-)understanding. Most likely, as "good" (conniving, effective) politicians, they went with the misinterpretation because it served their purpose, while they believe(d) they were in the clear legally regarding the "imminent threat" phrase.

Hoo boy. I just read it a second time.

Holsclaw's rebuttal to the Rumsfeld quote is that "immediate threat" is so different from "imminent threat" that anyone who would confuse the two is some kind of word-twisting scoundrel who would "take a kernel of truth and apply so much distortion as to turn it into a lie. "

Are we really back to arguing what the meaning of is is?

The only question left to answer at this point is how long is Holsclaw going to hang around and make a fool out of himself...

This is especially not a context where 'immediate' is interchangeable with 'imminent'. The French have an immediate capability to attack us with nuclear weapons, but no one in their right mind would argue that the French nuclear capability is an 'imminent threat'.

You're right that the phrase "immediate capacity" is in no way equivalent to "imminent threat." One phrase merely indicated capacity, whereas one clearly indicates a present threat that could strike at any time.

But if someone described France as an "immediate threat", and used the term "immediate" to support the argument that we need to attack France right now to deal with this "immediate threat", then "immediate" and "imminent" seem exactly interchangeable. Both words indicate a present threat that could strike at any time. Right?

Holsclaw doesn't like Roget, so let's go to Webster. Try these Sebastian:

im·mi·nent
About to occur; impending: in imminent danger.

im·me·di·ate
3. Close at hand; near: in the immediate vicinity.
4. Next in line or relation: is an immediate successor to the president of the company.

Yeah, a "contextless range of somewhat similar meaning words." Right.

And it's Rumsfeld, not Rumsfield.

I can't help but think that the mere fact that this debate is taking place shows a serious lack of clarity in the administration's rationale for going to war. As far as I am concerned, no matter who wins the $100, Bush failed to articulate the reason for war in an unambiguous way. I think giving unambiguous reasons for something as fundamental as going to war is pretty much essential to being President.

For those who are convinced there was no argument for war under Bush's statements, what would you have done?

I ask this not sarcastically but sincerely. Where would be now with Iraq if we did not go ahead with the invasion? How would the world view us? Would we be better or worse? Would bowing to France's wishes have given the US more resoect in the world?

i would love to hear the rational arguments that play out in the diplomacy scenario. While I am still of the view that going to war was the right move and the arguments sound, I also can be convinced otherwise.

If this is a debate, then it should be judged on content of the argument and not on how you stand on the subject. I occasionally judge Lincoln Douglas debates at High School meets. So far Holsclaw appeared to do well by addressing each of Schwarz contentions. Schwarz also did well countering Holsclaw's contentions and made his own. Of course, writing it down and having the ability to look at your opponents argument makes this easier. So if this continues as it has so far, I don't see how either can win since the subject matter is so subjective. Holsclaw is arguing about what the Bush administration actually said, and Schwarz is arguing about what the Bush Administration implied. This really boils down to what you want to believe.

Loaded questions for appalled moderate -
Aren't you straight-out calling a lot of people stupid or liars when you say that the Bush administration lied to you about the non-existent imminent threat?

Doesn't asking those loaded questions of Holsclaw imply that everyone who agrees with him is stupid or a liar?

"If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late," Bush said. "Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

From the State of the Union Address. The pretext of the first sentence that Bush is assuming that a threat will emerge; an imminent threat

Where would we be?

U.N. investigators would still be turning in reports that they could find no WMD.

Hussein would still be contained.

We'd be hundreds of billions of dollars richer.

Several hundred American families wouldn't be grieving.

Thousands of GIs would still have their eyes, their feet, their peace of mind.

Thousands of Iraqis would be alive.

Al Queda's ranks wouldn't be swollen with new recruits.

The world would see America, still, as a shining city on the hill, a beacon for peace-loving people -- a country that leads by virtuous example.

That's a start.

Also 25+ UN workers and about a dozen journalists would still be alive.

I am sorry Sebastian, but I don't think you can make the 'complete fabrication' charge stick.

Although many others may disagree, I would give you credit for having made a very strong case for the following claim:

The thesis that Iraq posed an imminent threat was not an important part of the Bush administration's arguement in the runup to the war. Any discription of the Bush arguement for the war as being wholely or largely dependent upon the claim of an imminent threat is not supported by a careful consideration of the totality of the record.

In support of this claim, it is appropriate to look at any quotes about 'immediacy' in the context of the entire debate at the time. Your arguements about the SOTU and the fight over the language of the congressional resolution become, in my opinion, dispositive. The administration was careful, and vocal, in denying that an imminent threat was a necessary part of their case for the war.

However your bet was that such a discription is a complete fabrication. To disprove this, Sebastian need only show how there is a reasonable kernal of truth in that claim. This, his citations have done (again in my opinion.) Claims of current threat, or at least the high probability of a current threat, were made. They may have been few in relation to other, less explicit claims, they may have been explicitly downplayed, but they are there.

".. that the Bush administration argued in the runup to the war that there was an imminent threat from Iraq" may be an incomplete and misleading statement, but it does have at least some support and is thus not a complete fabrication.

As I argued on the last thread, the more important question is such talk helpful to the current debate. I would agree with you that it is not, that by focusing on a minor point while ignoring the major point it is a best a distraction from the real issues and often a disreputable rhetorical 'strawman' type arguement.

It is enough to argue that given a careful look, your opponent's arguement is not well supported by the evidence as a whole. You don't help yourself when you go on to claim that is arguement has no support whatsoever. It's the difference between "you are wrong" and "you are lying"

mrp:

The children's prisons will still be operating.

The mass graves would still be buried... and most likely new ones would be dug in the future.

Millions of Iraqis would have no voice in their government, nor any hope of such a voice, nor a life without the Ba'athist yoke and heel on their necks.

Thousands of other Iraqis than the ones you say would be alive (most of the dead, by the way, being Ba'athists and murderers, though surely innocent people also died. But don't pretend they're all innocent victims of American Aggression, either.) would be dead, or missing tongues, or greiving for a raped and murdered daughter or wife. One raped and murdered on state orders, mind you.

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children would still be learning that Saddam Hussein is the Perfect Man, and would be lacking food because he preferred to buy palaces and weapons over feeding them wiht the money the UN handed over to his sole control.

Indeed, where would we be?

Where would we be?

U.N. investigators would still be turning in reports that they could find no WMD.

Despite the existance of hidden WMD facilities (described last week by the Kay report) which Sadam could turn on as soon as the attention waned.

Hussein would still be contained.

At a great cost (to us and to the Iraqi people), as long as we could keep attention on that part of the world. Tyrants are much better at winning a waiting game than democracies.

We'd be hundreds of billions of dollars richer.

Hundreds? the $87 billion would have to be ofset by the cost of maintaining an active blockade / threat, or less Saddam would not remain contained. Without the exageration, you are right, we would have saved money in the near term.

Several hundred American families wouldn't be grieving.

Thousands of GIs would still have their eyes, their feet, their peace of mind.

Thousands of Iraqis would be alive.

Tens of thousands of other Iraquis would be dead, tortured, and/or in jail. This would continue for years. The nation would be living in fear. The man-made drought would continue in the Marshes. Healthcare spending would be a fraction of what it is now. Uday would be happily raping and torturing for the sport of it.

Al Queda's ranks wouldn't be swollen with new recruits.

And your evidence that they are now so swollen is ??? I haven't seen anything other than speculation. I do know that many, including their less replacable leaders, are being killed in Iraq now. We won't know for a while where the balance is, but it is by no means a fact that the invasion has made Al Queda better off.

The world would see America, still, as a shining city on the hill, a beacon for peace-loving people -- a country that leads by virtuous example.

Much of the world has not had this view for decades.

That's a start.

And an end

The world would see America, still, as a shining city on the hill, a beacon for peace-loving people -- a country that leads by virtuous example.

You can't be serious!

But anyway, add another:

Hundreds of Iraqis would still be tortured right now.

Hundreds of Iraqis would still be imprisoned, unjustly, right now.

Or thousands?

I can't help but think that the mere fact that this debate is taking place shows a serious lack of clarity in the administration's rationale for going to war. As far as I am concerned, no matter who wins the $100, Bush failed to articulate the reason for war in an unambiguous way. I think giving unambiguous reasons for something as fundamental as going to war is pretty much essential to being President.

Or it shows that the Administrations critics have mostly succeeded in clouding the truth and in spreading lies.

"If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late," Bush said. "Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

From the State of the Union Address. The pretext of the first sentence that Bush is assuming that a threat will emerge; an imminent threat

A threat that will emerge is not the same as an imminent threat. That seems to be the whole point - that Bush argued that a threat would certainly come, so it was foolish to wait until it was imminent, because that would be too late.

"For those who are convinced there was no argument for war under Bush's statements, what would you have done? I ask this not sarcastically but sincerely."

Sickles, I would have given Hans Blix the "months, not years" that he was requesting to continue inspections. All I, personally, wanted was for every option to be expended before resorting to war (killing thousands of human beings).

Think back to March: all of France/Germany/Russia/China's vetoes (real and threatened) were over the issue of how much authority the US had to act militarily in the face of Iraqi defiance. The US wanted automatic triggers to authorize a US military attack. France (and Russia, and Germany, and China) wanted the US to come back for that authorization AFTER Blix were to signal non-compliance. Bush evidently decided that was not possible. I disagree.

Why not wait? We coulda gotten the sort of broad-based coalition we got in '91. It wouldn't have cost you and me $150 billion, and it would've gotten us more foreign participation, therfore saving American lives. Also, if that coaliton involved Arab nations (as in '91), then this wouldn't be perceived in Iraq as solely a western/white/Christian occupation of an Islamic country (perhaps averting the sort of reports we're seeing today from the UK's International Institute of Strategic Studies, that the Iraq war has SWELLED Al Qaeda's ranks, and making recruiting a breeze for them).

On the downside, Bechtel and Halliburton would not get so many of the reconstruction contracts. I know, bummer, huh?

Why President Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998, without additional UN discussion!

Interesting! How does this compare with current administration policy?

Discuss.

Fock: Any eventual threat is imminent? An evnetual threat of unknown timing is thus "imminent" (ie, due VERY soon)?

That's very interesting logic, especially when the President appears to have clearly stated he doesn't consider the threat imminent in that (normal, expected, contextual, correct) sense of the word.

What sort of threats are not imminent, by that categorisation? Only those that are precisely known with great surety to be not-imminent.

I repeat. "An [imminent] threat will emerge [at some unknown future date]" is not the same as "imminent threat NOW". To say that Hussein's Iraq would eventually threaten the US directly is to say that it does not do so NOW; and to say that we are not sure if they do so now, is to say that we do not KNOW if they do now, but it certainly is not the same as a claim that they do.

Bush is saying, in a perfectly clear manner, that we can't know if Iraq's threat is "imminent" until it's too late. That's very, very different from saying it's "imminent" now. Claiming otherwise, while you might have your own intellectually honest reasons for doing so, sounds to me an awful lot like scrambling for a toehold for recrimination, in most cases.

And, well, as has been said in this very thread, it doesn't seem to matter what the Administration said so much as how you (generic you, to all who argued in such a manner to any extent) felt about what they said, or were able to infer from what they said... so why should what you say matter more than how I feel about it? Or do different rules apply between Them and You, and You and Me?

I prefer to apply the rule that what is said and reasonably inferred with all context matters more than what I can convince myself to infer, strain for redefinition, stretch to cover what's conveneitn, and "feel" in any other way about what was said. If we debate unreasonable inference, and "feelings" about what people say, we might as well just give up, because no rhetorical style can overcome a hostile audience or post-facto redefinitions.

Patrick:

That's a very fair reponse, thank you.

i suppose you're right that we could have waited until we waited back from Blix, but would he have taken only a few months? I'm not sure about this. If he was still ambiguous, would you then have delivered "serios consequences" to Hussein? Or would you have waited longer? How much longer? Do you trust France to do the right thing? Or is what France, Germany and russia want "the right thing" and we should wait for their yea or nay?

And if you had waited, would the American people had been with you in the face of it? Perhaps, but perhaps not. They could have seen it as weakness in the face of UN obfuscation. Or they could have seen it as finding out better facts before taking action.

Either way, in what situation would you have finally committed a military action?

Heck, that one is easy, Sickles

The bombing raids were short lived and achieved the desired destruction at relatively low cost in lives and dollars.

The invasion and occupation is relatively long lasting, and has cost (and we're still counting) a great many lives and dollars.

Some in this string have questioned the relevance of this debate. The context here is that the Kay report showed quite clearly that there was no imminent threat from Iraq's WMDs, since they did not exist. So Bush is now saying that the Kay report justifies the war, since he reported that Iraq wanted to have WMDs. But if Bush actually justified the war based on an imminent threat, he owes us an apology, because the imminent threat was not there.

IMO, the debate in entertaining. But in the public perception, they now are hearing that there are no WMDs, and that will change the way some think about Bush's march to war.

Look, it doesn't matter what you call it, there was no compelling necessity to take preemptive, unilateral military action. For God's sake, we faced much more imminent threats during the fifty years of cold war. There was nothing threatening to the United States from Iraq that wasn't and still is threatening from Syria, Iran, North Korea, Libya, and the Palestinians. We are no safer today than we were two years ago, no thanks to Dubya. There are plenty of weapons out there for terroists, Iraq was not the exclusive source. And of course, to say that we had to act because he was sooooo bad is rubish. Hell, we supported him when he was gassing his own and supplied him with weapons. Don't tell me he was any worse than those criminals we supported in El Salvador or a hundred other places around the world over the last fifty years. This was purely an unnecessary war that has cost unnecessary lives and caused unnecessary grief for hundreds of families of the dead and wounded, not to mention the damage to our economy and standing in the world. This has been a disaster from the beginning, and all the more so because it was pushed off on us under false pretenses by a small group of very disturbed men who found themselves with too much power and the opportunity presented by 9-11 to abuse it.

A bit off topic since it doesn't deal with who will win Dan's debate, but am I the only one bothered by the conservative position that there never was and never needed to be an imminent threat? In the absence of collective world opinion in the form of a United Nations mandate, an imminent threat is the only possible justification for launching a preemptive war against someone who has not attacked you.

How forgetful we are.

The only thing that was imminent was the summer months in MOPP outfits.

We all knew that then.

And there was scant chance of turning back the huge military buildup that began well before any official decision was made. That gets into tactical decisions, surprise, etc., but it seems clear the decision had long-since been made.

"i suppose you're right that we could have waited until we waited back from Blix, but would he have taken only a few months? I'm not sure about this."

Maybe not. He SAID he would, but maybe not. If not, well, at least we'd have clear high-ground in the international community. We could legitimately claim that we'd played by the rules, jumped through all the hoops, done everything reasonable to get Iraq disarmed.

"Or would you have waited longer? How much longer?"

I dunno. How long did it take to compile the '91 coalition? Is there some reason why it'd be significantly more difficult/lengthy to repeat the feat in '03?

"And if you had waited, would the American people had been with you in the face of it? Perhaps, but perhaps not."

Yeah, but remember Bush said he was gonna do what was right, no matter what the polls told him, no matter how big the protests (which he referred to as "focus groups").

"Either way, in what situation would you have finally committed a military action?"

*If Blix declares that Iraq is non-compliant and removes his inspectors.
*If Blix's inspectors get kicked out without cause.
*If we find incontrivertable evidence of chemical or biological or nuclear weapons (not a "program," not an unprocessed vial of something, but actual weapons, with an actual delivery capacity.
*If we can legitimately say we've exercised every possible option, I suppose I'd have to commit a military action.

But I did not, and I still do not, believe we could say that. And (morals aside), I think it has made us less safe, not more so.

To siqifald and marc and bob monq:

Here we are again. You continue to tell us the horrors that Saddam Hussein imposed on his citizens, as after-the-fact justification for Bushco's taking war to Iraq based on the false evidence of an immediate threat.

Childrens prisons. Gassing people. Yadda yadda yadda. Terrible things.

I don't know how we can say it any more clearly:
The war wasn't sold on humanitarian reasons. The war was sold to the first world by telling us that first world countries were in immediate danger.

So stop saying that the end (as good as you may think it is) justifies the deception.

The gist of the pro-Iraq war position seems to be "There was no immiment threat; there didn't need to be: SH was a Bad Man and that justifies invading Iraq."

'Tis a lovely thing, to hear conservatives cry out for the liberation of the oppressed. I particularly enjoyed hearing Rummy/Powell et al. go on and on about the prisons and murders and such, seeing as how SH was doing all that back in the 1980's, when he was our Fair Haired Boy. Don't remember hearing a peep about human rights from Rummy/Powell back then.

There are Bad Men in charge in a lot of places. Among them, N Korea -- which, again thanks to the imitable Bush concept of diplomacy, is a lot more of a threat now than when Bush took office. Shall we in fact invade there next?

Or how about Burma, where the winner of the last Presidential election has been under house arrest for about 3 years now, and members of her party imprisoned and gunned down.

Or how about Syria. Or, gosh, Saudi Arabia, Land of terrorist education centers and training camps and where Sharia makes women's lives a living hell.

Or Tajikistan - whoops, no; they're an ally at the moment.

Or China -- whoops, no; we make an awful lot of money off China, don't want to upset that applecart.

Sorry, ducks. Human rights are not and never have been a compelling reason for any Republican to go to war or for a conservative to support one. Never ever. I don't buy that it was a good enough reason to do so now.

I esp. don't buy it in view of the fact that the Taliban, who we drove out of Afghanistan with such fanfare, are back in Afghanistan, and the Bushies have, again, not said word one about the return of the oppressive, murderous theocracy there.

Ok, let me ask this question.

If Iraq is an imminent threat what the heck does that make countries like North Korea and Pakistan? I mean its not like they aren't trading and selling things like advanced missle technology (Iraq only wanted it), have access to nuclear material, and in Pakistan's case demonstrated the technology. Pakistan has a history of hiding and/or ignoring terrorists within its borders so it seems far more likely a terrorist might get WMDs there that from a country under UN sanctions with inspectors running around...

Oh, did I forget to mention the tens if not hundreds of thousands of people in North Korean prison camps tortured on a regular basis? Heck, even if your not in prison your probably dieing of starvation anyway! We don't have all those service men and women in South Korea because its a cool vacation spot you know. Of course N Korea does lack oil and comes with powerful neighbors you'd have to actually talk to instead of lecture at so it wouldn't be a "simple" operation like Iraq.

Given his choices, Bush went for the easiest targets Afganistan and Iraq instead of the real threats like the radicals in Saudia Arabia / Egypt and real tricky situations WITH WMDs like N Korea.

For the record I don't advocate the invasion of any of these countries because it would a dumb thing to do, but I contend that they and other countries like Iran are clearly more imminent, immediate, growing threats than Iraq is.

Sickles, President Clinton made the wrong choice in '98, although he appears to have finished off Saddam's WMD production capabilities. The problem with the inspection process (and please note, the inspectors were not kicked out by Saddam, but pulled out by the U.N. in advance of the U.S. attack) at that point was that is was co-opted by the CIA. Saddam was paranoid that the inspections of palaces and party offices and such where being used to gather intelligence for an assassination or coup attempt. And the U.S. was using the inspections to gather intelligence on Iraq. So Saddam had a valid point and until the U.S. addressed it, the inspection process couldn't be seen just about inspecting. Read Scott Ritter's Endgame. It isn't a great book, but it does provide a first hand account of the inspection process from someone who actually led the inspections, which is invaluable. He is very critical of U.S. policy towards Iraq during the Clinton years.

Where would we be today without the war?

We'd still have hundreds of thousands of troops in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the rest of the Gulf, sitting in the sand "containing" Saddam, costing us billions of dollars, without any hope of EVER leaving.

Many MORE Iraqis would be dead by Saddam's regime - by torture, execution, etc - than have been killed by US forces.

Iraqi women would continue to be subject to officially sanctioned rape.

Iraqis would still be oppressed. They would not have freedom of the press, freedom of religion, etc. No independent newspapers. No shiite celebrations. No satelite dishes.

Baathists would still control the entire political process; there would be no freely elected officials.

No schools for ordianry Iraqis would be rebuilt, but palaces for Saddam would continue to be lavishly spent on.

Millions of children would not have been vaccinated.

Iraqis would have less electricity than they do today.

Saddam would still be making payments to Palestinian suicide bombers.

Saddam would still be committing genocide against the Marsh Arabs.

And, perhaps most importantly, there would not be any hope that there could be a liberal democracy in the heart of the Middle East.

But, in the anti-war freaks' world, all of these things are preferable to the war.

Okay, fine if you really want to parse language it's true that an impending threat isn't the same as an imminent threat. And although I think Bush tried to have it both ways, he did say right before my quote that we shouldn't wait until it's an imminent threat. But every press report said he argued it was imminent threat, so that's why I picked that.
How about this
"Saddam Hussein is a threat to our nation." Not will be a threat, but is one now. That's even greater than imminent. From www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html

The question is so narrowly drawn as to make the affirmative case nearly impossible. On the substance, however, I say bravo for Mr. Holsclaw. As he shows, any discussion of the issue and of the central term in question that is divorced from actual contexts is meaningless and ripe for manipulation, and the remarks of those who criticize him as somehow engaging in Clintonesque word games are unjustified: The debate would be impossible - or just a virtual shouting match - without clear, relevant definitions of the critical terms.

There is, however, one other argument that Mr. Holsclaw might have made that rests wholly on events rather than on verbal analysis: The Bush Administration demonstrated through its behavior that it did not believe the threat to be truly imminent ("about to occur without delay" being the principle relevant definition in MY Webster's).

If they had at any time believed a serious threat from Iraq to be truly imminent, then either a) it would have already been too late (as Bush's SOTU and other statements explain) and/or b) there would have been no time to consult Congress, introduce and debate resolutions at the UN, await the results of inspections, carefully build up an invasion force, and offer a last ultimatum: It would have been "come as you are" to intercept or destroy the threat, if possible. If armies are massing on the border (or an ally's border), or if VX is being handed over to terrorists, a president would be expected to do whatever was necessary to eliminate the danger. Congress and the rest of us would have been informed afterward - possibly as envisioned in the "national emergency" section of the War Powers Resolution.

Regardless of any statements among many thousands that may have strayed beyond the most careful propositions regarding the state of knowledge of Iraqi arms and intentions, and regardless of whether the administration believed there might be or even probably was a potential imminent threat (or the imminent threat of an imminent threat, etc.), the Administration did not act as though the threat it was seeking to combat was a truly imminent one.

Because there is a high cost of action without adequate preparation, and a high advantage to acting with adequate preparation and on one's own timetable, Bush chose to wait rather than to act against a potentially imminent threat. If there is another mass terror event on the scale of 9/11, or larger, the president will be less likely to wait for John Kerry to finish reversing himself or for the French ambassador to finish his poetry reading.

ETC you are comply off base...

I can't help but think that the mere fact that this debate is taking place shows a serious lack of clarity in the administration's rationale for going to war. As far as I am concerned, no matter who wins the $100, Bush failed to articulate the reason for war in an unambiguous way. I think giving unambiguous reasons for something as fundamental as going to war is pretty much essential to being President.

WRONG- In fact I have not heard anything more wrong the entire day on all these comments.

Bush did not fail to make the case clear, Indeed consider he said this:

"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."

Yet what we are witnessing is the liberals trying to twist his words. THIS WAS USED AS EVIDENCE ON BOTHS SIDES. Obviously Bush addressed this EXACT issue but the liberals twist and distort his words, run them thru a thesaurus and say "well he IMPLIED..."

I can't help but think that the mere fact that this debate is taking place shows a serious twisting of the President's words.

ETC If you were President you could not make words any clearer that the liberals would not twist and distort.

The liberals twisted the truth then and they are twisting it now. They did not want to bring freedom to the people of Iraq then and they don't like that Bush did it.

It really is that simple.

In the end this debate is about pre-emption vs waiting for a certain, verifiable threat. There are many who are uncomfortable with this policy of pre-emption and nothing in their minds will ever justify such action.

This is the world post 9/11. We will vote on the policy makers next November. It's that stark.

It seems to me that the debate over the use of the word "imminent" is missing the point, for those of us who care about more than rhetoric-parsing.

After all, the very quotations from Administration officials that Holsclaw cites, in support of his contention that they never claimed an "imminent" threat, do contain claims of a "direct", "grave", and "growing" threat.

And there is no better evidence for these claims than for the maybe-claim of an imminent threat. Paranoid speculation about the indefinite future not only can't support "imminent", it can't support "direct", "grave", or "growing" either.

So the fact remains that we were led to war on the basis of brazen lies about the threat Saddam's regime supposedly posed to American security, lies which have been shown up by the war and its aftermath; and nitpicking over the terminology used in the lies is a silly distraction.

Sickles, you're an idiot. Shut up.

What this all seems to come down to is that the "imminent" side of the argument is taking any evocation of any eventual threat as being an implication of an "imminent" threat. So maybe the question could be refined to "Under what conditions can an existent threat not be considered 'imminent'?"

Hey Al?

If all of those crimes of Saddam against his citizens plus the establishment of a democracy in the Middle East were such noble reasons to make war, why didn't George W. Bush have the courage of his convictions or balls to make that case?

Why?

If the prowar side was not arguing an imminent threat, then why did they talk about WMDs that could be used on the US in 45 minutes?

Dan -- Can you cite a source on the claim that the Administration was asserting Saddam had WMD that could be used on the US in 45 minutes? I'm not aware of any such statement.

It sounds like a confused regurgitation of the argument about the British intelligence estimate that Saddam might have WMD that could be deployed in theatre in as little as 45 minutes.

>

There was and is overwhelming evidence that Saddam's regime posed a serious threat to vital US interests - including, most obviously, the stability of the world energy market. The immediate and long-term strategic challenge posed by Iraq under Saddam's regime has been clear since Gulf War 1, and remained enough of a matter of international consensus to justify 12 years of sanctions and the famous 17 UNSC resolutions.

As has been pointed out by many, the Bush Administration was criticized prior to the war for providing too many justifications for act. This "problem" reflected the multiple dimensions of the Iraqi threat in the short, medium, and long term, within the "war on terror" framework and within larger frameworks which preceded 9-11, but which 9-11 helped remove from the realm of "paranoid speculation."

During the '90s we entertained ourselves with notions of the end of history and the frictionless spread of New Economic perpetual motion all over the globe. Many warned of events like 9-11 - and were dismissed as fearmongers or Tom Clancy-wannabes.

A responsible national leader has to think about more than today's headlines, and has to form policy, especially war policy, with an eye to the next generation, not just to the next couple of months. Iraq under Hussein and Sons was a problem that had to be solved sooner or later, and sooner rather than later.

Here's a Washington Post article from July 20, 2003 siting two occasions that the 45 minute claim was used by Bush in this country without CIA clearance.
Hope this helps.

Jakevan, I fear you have fallen into one of their semantic traps. Bush (once again) said he was citing British intelligence. Parse, parse, parse. And never underestimate the capability of this WH to torture words to fit their needs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17424-2003Jul19?language=printer

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

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

Gee, I guess that ends it.

Heh, what does this show? Bush argued that Iraq could use its weapons in 45 minutes without checking with the CIA first? Geez, what a scandal.

mrp:

Bush did. If you didn't hear them, maybe you were instead hearing his nonexistent statements that Saddam was an "imminent threat"...

mrp, reread the article a little more carefully. It states "...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."

Bush did state it as fact without attributing it to the Brits at least on one occasion and then supposedly it was(at least back when the article was written) it was on the WH web site without attribution.

So I see. Thanks. Useful.

You know, it's also unfair for Shakespeare critics to charge that Antony ever called Brutus a "dishonorable man" during the funeral oration in Act III, Scene ii.

Stop parsing. The president indeed argued that Saddam was an imminent threat, even if he didn't come out and say the words. The repeated motifs of fear, the tone, months of hype, months of scaring the hell out of the American people, months of playing "Sublimnal Man" with alleged links between Osama and Saddam -- the president and his stooges didn't have to come out and say the words "imminent threat" to deliver the desired impression to the American public. The argument was made, and now it's falling apart. Admit it.

For people looking for the White House's "45 minute" quote, it's available here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020926-19.html

"The danger is grave and growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons and is rebuilding facilities to make more. It could launch a biological or chemical attack 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime is seeking a nuclear bomb -- and, with fissile material, could build one within a year."

And I went through every instance that "imminent threat" was used in conjunction with Iraq during White House press conferences and such (i.e., everything in whitehouse.gov's archives) and posted the results here: http://anonymousblogger.blogspot.com/2003_10_01_anonymousblogger_archive.html#106611772314623690

MRP said "Childrens prisons. Gassing people. Yadda yadda yadda. Terrible things."

Thank you, MRP, for showing your compassionate side.

Wonderduck wrote to thank me for showing my compassionate side.

The "yadda yadda" referred to the continued litany of those who proffer humanitarian reasons for the war, despite the deep irony and contradiction.

You know, if the Bushes hadn't lied about babies thrown out of incubators and so many other things, citizens of the world might be more impressed by WH arguments.

Good post Anonymous Blogger, and I think one result you point to at your site is worth cutting and pasting here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030507-12.html

"QUESTION: Well, we went to war, didn't we, to find these -- because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn't that true?
MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely. One of the reasons that we went to war was because of their possession of weapons of mass destruction. And nothing has changed on that front at all. We said what we said because we meant it. We had the intelligence to report it. Secretary Powell said it."

There you have it.

You have Ari Fleischer, the President's Press Secretary, responding yes, "absolutely" that "we went to war... because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States."

As an earlier post noted, we also have the White House web site and Mr Bush stating that Iraq could launch a biological or chemical attack within 45 minutes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17424-2003Jul19?language=printer). That sounds like an imminent threat to me.

There are literally DOZENS more spectacular examples from Anonymous Blogger's site: http://anonymousblogger.blogspot.com/2003_10_01_anonymousblogger_archive.html#106611772314623690

Check them out. It's pretty clear who's coughing up $100.

Game over Sebastian.

"The president indeed argued that Saddam was an imminent threat, even if he didn't come out and say the words."

You mean even though he expressly stated that Saddam was not yet a threat.
Seems odd to argue that X is true, while at the same time stating that X isn't true. Who is doing the parsing? Bush didn't say it but he implied it. Right.
The left is lying. Admit it. Bush never said Saddam's threat was imminent.

Holsclaw won this debate hands down. Those who don't understand that are ignorant of the meaning of the word 'imminent' in international law. It has always been understood to mean that mobilization is actually underway. Possession of armaments, threats to use them, evidence of aggressive intentions, do not constitute imminent threats. The ability to launch a biological attaqck in 45 minutes would not be an imminent threat. That is why this word was thought important. The Bush administration was arguing that the nature of modern wmds makes the traditional test of imminent threat untenable. What they said was that we can't be sure whether there the threat is imminent AND THAT DOESN'T MATTER. This could not have been said more clearly. How can anyone say Bush somehow said there was an imminent threat? What they mean is they got that impression because they don't understand such distinctions as that between 'imminent' and 'major' threats, don't understand what the president was talking about, and have seized upon the idea that some kind of cheap debating point might be scored if they can twist his words around. Actually we still don't know whether the threat was imminent, in the traditional sense, and won't know that till the Kay report is completed. But we already know enough to see that Bush was right - the question did not matter. By the way, the low point in these arguments was probably reached by mrp, who says theBushes "lied about babies thrown out of incubators" and that shows they can't be trusted in anything. He is referring to a false atrocity story spread by the Kuwaitis back before the first Gulf War, twelve years ago; its attribution to the first Bush administration is a canard ceaselessly repeated by leftwingers. The 'Bush lied' crowd would have more credibility if they were not such obvious liars. Holsclaw won this debate hands down.

Anonymous Blogger has done a wonderful job here: this is a must-read">http://anonymousblogger.blogspot.com/2003_10_01_anonymousblogger_archive.html#106611772314623690">must-read link.

Not only does anon assemble many pertinent quotes, his analysis of the rhetorical devices used by the Bushies is outstanding. We are having this disagreement because of the Bush Administration's frequent and purposeful use of ambiguous language. (The straightforward way in which the Administration denied that Iran is an imminent threat is worth the click all by itself.) I'd like to go into some of their patterns as a supplement to Anon's work.

(1) Meaningless quibbles. Some of the Administration quotes, for instance Rumsfeld's "immediate threat", Rice's "mushroom cloud", and Bush at the SOTU posit that Saddam might be an imminent threat, or that he is a threat of some "lower" level like "growing", but we don't really know. Just like you shouldn't eat a mushroom if it "might" be poisonous, I don't think it matters if we treated Saddam as an imminent threat or if we treated him as a threat of unknown gravity who therefore had to be treated as an imminent threat. The attempt to deny this retroactively is mere quibbling.

(2) Weasel words Besides the "might be imminent" claims, a look at the Kay Report shows words like "suitable", "possible", and "BW-applicable". Maybe this phrasing is a consequence of the fact the only truly unequivocal claim of the Administration—that Saddam had WMD and we knew where they were—turned out to be totally wrong. Kay himself, faced with the rusty canvas trucks, said that the idea they were for meteorological balloons "didn't pass the laugh test." Unfortunately, the company that sold these trucks for exactly that purpose identified them, and Kay was left to point out they had been cleaned so thoroughly we can't tell if they had been used for CW. To return to the weasel words, my son's school's chem lab is also "suitable" for the manufacture of WMD, and by Kay's standards the rotten food in my kitchen is BW-applicable. (The one vial of botulism is of a common although dangerous microorganism that can be found in back yards.) Weasel words like "suitable" are substituting for any evidence that the facilities or equipment actually were used for WMD, or even that there was a program to do so.

(3) Innuendo by juxtaposition. Except for VP Cheney's recent goof, the Administration never, AFAIK, explicitly stated that Saddam was materially involved in 9/11, but they somehow managed to leave 70% of the United States with that misimpression. And that's a natural consequence of constant juxtaposition of Saddam and Osama, as if they were close allies. Until Bush was asked point-blank if he had any evidence of Saddam's complicity in 9/11, I don't think anyone in the Administration had ever explicity denied it either. (Why bother, when you can say it's "possible" or "might" have been, or simply evade the question and talk about Saddam's WMD and terrible cruelty.) It's probably the long-delayed questions of this nature that drove Bush to the friendlier confines of small regional news outlets.

Exploring this "imminent threat" question might be just the springboard we need to strip away all of these evasions, obfuscations, and deceptions.

Doyne, I'm sorry, but your post is absolutely incomprehensible:
"Holsclaw won this debate hands down. Those who don't understand that are ignorant of the meaning of the word 'imminent' in international law. It has always been understood to mean that mobilization is actually underway. Possession of armaments, threats to use them, evidence of aggressive intentions, do not constitute imminent threats. The ability to launch a biological attaqck in 45 minutes would not be an imminent threat."
Okay, so according to you (without citation, but moving on) "imminent" means "mobilization is actually underway."

So, explain to me then, please (and I'm being completely serious), the following:
Undeniably, Bushco claimed Iraq could launch a bio/chem attack in 45 minutes. Let's say they had good reason to believe this was true (I don't think that; I think they are lying liars, but let's pretend). In other words, our intel pointed to this scenario: Iraq had its weapons program so far advanced that it could, within an hour, launch a devastating attack. It's reasonable to construe Iraq's acquisition of this capability as an offensive, "threatening," tactic, right? So, Iraq has, if you will, "mobilized" itself to the point where it can deliver a massive bio/chem attack within 45 minutes. Isn't that, even according to your definition, imminent?

And in any event, this is 2003, not 1914; "mobilization" isn't terribly relevant a concept. Wars aren't fought by a railroad schedule, and munitions not carried largely by horse and carriage; we fly shit around the world, very rapidly, and we lauch very, very rapid and very very destructive missiles. If you have acquired that technology--and, according to our Pres, Iraq HAD, as it was supposedly capable of attacking within 45 minutes--then you can be said to have "mobilized."

Seriously tho, I really don't see how the claiming Iraq could launch a bio/chem attack within 45 minutes IS ANYTHING BUT a claim of an imminent threat.

Andrew,

Agreeing with you, I'll point to the bitter irony, ala Miracle on 34th St, that our court system would concur that your son's school's chem lab is a wmd lab.... Several prosecutors are using the Patriot act to charge operators of meth labs with WMD violations. Our administration and their minions know no shame.

Okay, let's see if we can get at this this way:

Anonymous blogger says:

And wouldn't you know, in the 90 hits ..., the administration officials never once say, literally, "Iraq is an imminent threat."

Clearly, AB is confirming that he was mistaken, and the Administration really never once said "Iraq is an imminent threat."

"But no!" you say, "that's not what he meant!" And, of course, you're precisely correct. But that's exactly the position you put yourselves in by the continued argument that even though the continuing thread of the whole Administration position has been that the attack was justified even though there was no imminent threat, because the cost of "misunderestimating" Saddam and finding out about an imminent threat by it becoming an actual attack were too great.

This whole argument -- the more general one, not just the specifics of the local debate -- lies in this one point: the anti- side says "but Iraq wasn't an imminent threat" and the Bush administration agrees! Now they're arguing -- for what sure look to me to be purely political, rhetorical gains -- that even though the Bush administration agreed that the threat was not imminent, they must have implied it was imminent ... and therefore, since it wasn't imminent, they were lying. So we get into this whole business of parsing things interminably trying to come up with some tortured exercise in logic to show that Bush was implying A when they were saying not-A.

Maybe that's of interest in settling a $100 bet -- although I vote Drezner keep the $100 himself, because there's no way he's ever going to be able to make a decision without another six months of listening to whiners saying he was biased, one way or the other -- but however it might be settled, it's merely a vacuous debating point.

The real issue, though, would be worth discussing: at what point in the growth of a threat is it appropriate to act in self-defense? It might be that Bush's action was precipitous -- but there are a lot of examples of times in the last hundred years in which earlier action could have saved millions of lives and a world of hurt.

That debate would be a lot more illuminating.

It's always breathtaking to see the fruit of propaganda campaigns ripen and spread their seed.

Doyne says the Bush pere lie about the babies being thrown from incubators is a Kuwaiti rumor. Bushwah. From Snopes and Columbia Journalism Review:

Atrocity rumors are never new; they are merely retooled as circumstances change. In the ramp-up days towards the Gulf War, we were told Iraqi soldiers had rampaged through a Kuwaiti hospital, grabbing premature babies up out of incubators and tossing them to the floor to meet their deaths on the cold, hard tiles. Never mind that this apocryphal hospital was never pinpointed nor the grieving families of these infants located, the story spread like wildfire, inflaming passions against the Iraqis and stiffening resolve to fight them tooth and nail if it came down to that.

[Columbia Journalism Review, 1992]
"I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns. They took the babies out of the incubators ... and left the children to die on the cold floor." This was the story told by "Nayirah," the fifteen-year-old Kuwaiti girl who shocked a public hearing of Congress's Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990.

Nayirah's testimony came at a time when Americans were wondering how to respond to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on August 2. Her story was cited frequently in the congressional debate over war authority, which was approved by only five votes in the Senate. President Bush mentioned it often as a reason for taking firm action. It was a major factor in building public backing for war.

As many are now aware, the incubator story was the centerpiece of a massive public relations campaign conducted by Hill and Knowlton [a PR firm] on behalf of a group called Citizens for a Free Kuwait, for a fee of $11.5 million. After the war, the group revealed that it was financed almost entirely by the Kuwaiti government.

(And the girl who testified was the daughter of a diplomat living in Washington D.C.)

http://www.snopes.com/military/stamp.htm

Come on, Bushies. Do some homework.

I'm sorry. I meant to include links that detail the alliance between Hill & Knowlton and Bush I in the runup to the Gulf War.

http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/cohen1228.html

It is the height of naivete to think the Kuwaitis cooked the story up without consultation from Bushco I.

If the threat was not imminent, why was Bush so opposed to the Canadian and French proposal to delay any military action for 4-6 weeks? In other words, if Bush only believed that one day in the future the threat would become realized, why was he so opposed to giving the UN inspectors some additional time to continue their inspections?

Obviously these questions are rhetorical. The entire impression given was that time was of the essence and the threat both imminent and real that Saddam could supply Al Qaeda or others with WMDs that could be used against us. In fact, it was so much of a threat, that Bush was willing to forego an international coalition and do it unilaterally. How any normal person could interpret these actions as conveying anything other then an imminent threat is beyond me.

"The war wasn't sold on humanitarian reasons."

Another anti-war lie... there were multiple arguments for the war and one was, indeed, undoubtedly, humanitarian.

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)

Humanitarian reasons are best described as rationalizations. We knew all the humanitarian stuff about Iraq for the past 20 years. It wasn't new information. Heck, we supported Saddam when he was "gassing his own people."

Listen, very few people wanted to invade Iraq in August 2001, and a lot more wanted to do so in January 2003. We did not obtain any new information in the interim.

This is all very simple. The only relevant event here is the terrorist attacks on 9/11.

The anti-war crowd saw that Saddam was not responsible or connected to 9/11, and called bullshit.

The pro-war crowd felt that we needed to respond to 9/11 in a powerful way. We needed to change our outlook. Invading an easy target and getting rid of Saddam was the easiest way to go. He probably had some bad weapons, and heck maybe we could even establish a democracy there and bring peace and stability to the region. Wouldn't that be awesome? (I'm not being sarcastic, it really would be awesome.)

That's all there is to the pro-war/anti-war debate. Why all the agony?

It amuses me to no end to see the Right end of the political spectrum resort to word parsing, post-modern deconstruction, careful contextualization, framing, and inverted pretzel-logic in order to debate the meaning of the word is....

Har.

It also present an extremely interesting Catch-22, as follows...

IF the administration argued that Iraq WAS an imminent threat...then they lied, and are guilty of numerous crimes against the American People including lying to Congress under oath...as well as numerous crimes as described in the various international charters, conventions, and accords regarding the Starting of Wars based on Lies....You know...Nuremberg stuff....

On the other hand...

IF the administration never implied, stated, gave the impression, or encouraged the belief that there was an imminent threat...then they are, by definition guilty of Crimes Against the Peace as a result of engaging in aggressive war absent a demonstrable imminent threat or clear and present danger....Not to mention violation of the War Powers Act and violation of the Spirit, if not the Letter, of the Iraq War Resolution...

In reality, the administration, as laid out in several of their position papers, was trying to redefine the meaning of imminent with respect to engaging in pre-emptive or preventative war...

Imminent, in their eyes, should mean:

"could credibly be a threat in the near future"

as opposed to what it really means:

"WILL BE a definite threat in the immediate future"

Charlie, the question is not whether an Administration official said the literal phrase "Iraq is an imminent threat". If someone did (they surely did come close), that completely settles the question. The converse, however, is false. The Administration could still have made Saddam out to be an imminent threat using other words. (That innuendo can be libelous, by analogy, even in the absence of a specific accusation is well-settled.)

That the Administration gave many vague replies in no way diminishes the possibility that they claimed Saddam was an imminent threat. Here, for example, is one of the examples culled from anonymousblogger's masterful compendium.

QUESTION: The question, though, is it the President's view right now that the threat from Saddam is a very imminent one, that he could strike out at any moment and has intention to?
MR. FLEISCHER: I think, from the President's point of view, it remains a very grave threat.

By the way, Charlie, no one has presented a single quote like this: "Q, the threat isn't imminent, is it? A, No." So your claim that the Bush Administration agrees that the threat wasn't imminent is based entirely on speculation.

Do you really think if Ahmad Chalabi had been correct and Iraq was swimming with WMD, we wouldn't have heard, "Look, Il Magnifico Bush saved us from an imminent threat!"

I'll tell you a secret: I knew Bill Clinton had sex with Monica Lewinsky, and I didn't waste even one second of my life writing long pseudo-scholarship that since no one had asked about it using the word "fellatio", the Clinton Administration was telling the truth. But if I wanted to, I could probably put together a much better argument than yours.

As far as the humanitarian stuff, some was new and some wasn't, but that's besides the point. The argument that "you can't attack for humanitarian reasons unless you were always concerned about it" or "unless the information is fairly recent (as if Saddam suddenly stopped doing this)" has been particularly troublesome.

Charlie,

Interestlingly enough, people like to know whether their government is lying to them in order to get them into a war. You might just consider it "intermina[ble]" parsing and meant for "purely political, rhetorical gains," but that's where you and most of us differ.

And while you say, this is just a "tortured exercise in logic to show that Bush was implying A when they were saying not-A" that assumes Bush was not saying "A." But that's the whole point of this discussion, isn't it? Whether or not the Bush administration was saying "not-A", when to a whole lot of people, it sounded just like "A."

I should note that, in my blog posting, I let everyone see exactly what a "not-A" looks like in comparison to an "A."

"If the threat was not imminent, why was Bush so opposed to the Canadian and French proposal to delay any military action for 4-6 weeks?"

Because a 4-6 week delay would put us into the hot season and would mean a 7-9 month further delay. The UN couldn't get its act together in the the 5 months between October and March. The UN simply wanted to delay another 6 months and not coincidentally bleed America of 6 months of deployment with no result.

SH, more parsing.

I agree that the only thing truly imminent was the hot summer and the MOPP suits. And I agree that it was because of this that the admin lied its way to war.

The threat will not be imminent for 4-6 weeks. But we cannot successfully attack then as it will be too hot. Therefore, though the attack is not imminent now, we must attack tonight.

If that's the argument, I think I am justified in deciding that you believe the threat is imminent regardless of your words.

If you give me the choice: attack now and win, or attack later and lose, well, that's no choice. That's your postulating that the threat is now severe and imminent.

Well, no. There were two imminent matters spelling trouble for Bushco. The pending contracts between Russia and Iraq for oil, and the fact that U.N. inspectors were reporting continually that no WMD were being found (which meant that soon WMD could not be used to make war). Those two were imminent threats to Bushco.

Was the Death Star in Revenge of the Jedi an imminent threat? It wasn't operational. And yet the rebels couldn't wait until it became operational. It was imminent, and so, according to our Admin, was Iraq, regardless of their vague and ambiguous words.

MON MOTHMA
The Emperor has made a critical error and the
time for our attack has come.

MON MOTHMA
The data brought to us by the Bothan spies
pinpoints the exact location of the Emperor's
new battle station. We also know that the
weapon systems of this Death Star are not yet
operational. With the Imperial Fleet spread
throughout the galaxy in a vain effort to
engage us, it is relatively unprotected.

A volley of spirited chatter erupts from the crowd. Han turns to
Leia as Chewie barks his amazement.

ACKBAR
You can see here the Death Star orbiting the
forest Moon of Endor. Although the weapon
systems on this Death Star are not yet
operational, the Death Star does have a
strong defense mechanism. It is protected by
an energy shield, which is generated from the
nearby forest Moon of Endor. The shield must
be deactivated if any attack is to be
attempted. Once the shield is down, our
cruisers will create a perimeter, while the
fighters fly into the superstructure and
attempt to knock out the main reactor.

There's a concerned murmur.

ACKBAR (cont)
General Calrissian has volunteered to lead
the fighter attack

As far as the humanitarian stuff, some was new and some wasn't, but that's besides the point. The argument that "you can't attack for humanitarian reasons unless you were always concerned about it" or "unless the information is fairly recent (as if Saddam suddenly stopped doing this)" has been particularly troublesome.

Oh really? It troubles you? It keeps you up at night, as you wonder why all the anti-war people hate America and love evil? Wow, what a burden of goodness you carry on your shoulders. Please.

The idea isn't that "you CAN'T attack unless you've always been bothered by it." The idea is "you've known about this all this time, and you've never done anything about it, in fact you've encouraged it. So now when you suddenly declare that we're going to shift gears, pardon me if I'm suspicious when you bring this up as a major reason, because that doesn't seem believable."

The "summer approaching" argument is ridiculous.

The troops were going to be in the region for the summer regardless of whether or not they attacked in March or in April or in May.

The climatological counter argument is also quite easy:

Why the hell would any sane commander order an attack at the beginning of the worst of the sandstorm season (the spring), when satellite surveillance, air cover, radio communications, troop mobility, and machine susceptibility were all guaranteed to be at their worst?

IF Iraq had had a decent military with high moral, good (alternate) communications, better commanders and good strategies in place...our troops would have been mincemeat by the end of March...with stretched and vulnerable supply lines, poor air cover, and bad communications lines...in fact all of those DID occur, and the only reason that those factors did not influence the outcome is the plain fact that the Iraqi military was totally lame.

Regardless, the troops DID spend the summer there, in their armor, hot, dehydrated, fatigued, and so on...

I would argue that spending the summer in camp, in friendly territory, close to adequate supplies, not under fire...is MUCH better than spending the sandstorm season AND the summer season on full combat footing.

mrp is onto something: Waiting for the inspections would have gutted the fabric of lies that were the pretext for the military buildup in the first place...and would have made the "go" decision that much harder to support or defend...

And might have even resulted in the end of he sanctions regime.

The end of the sanctions regime would have led (in my opinion) to the toppling of the Hussein Regime by the Shi'ia -- the sanctions were the only thing keep Hussein in control, through his control of the Oil-for-food-and-medicine import and dispersal programs.

Toppling of Hussein by the Shi'ia, with subsequent contracts for the French, Germans, Russians and subsequent ties to the Iranians was the reason to take Iraq sooner rather than later.

Arguing that before the UN, or trying to sell the US populace on that strategy as a justification for war...well, that was not going to happen...

Here what I find baffling.

Although people are stating that Bush didn't say that Iraq was an imminent threat, there was little to zero evidence of Sadaam being a "gathering" threat.

not Drezner writes: "mrp is o