linkIMMINENT THREAT CLAIM DEBUNKED: The Administration has claimed that it never depicted Iraq as an imminent threat in defending itself against accusations that it misled the public before the war. But the evidence is clear that they did, in fact, depict an imminent threat (see Jules Witcover's column on this, or the 10/16 version of the Progress Report for a rundown). And the new poll reflects that: "An overwhelming 87% said that, before the war, the Bush administration portrayed Iraq as an imminent threat, while a majority (58%) believes that the administration did not have evidence for this and only 42% believe that it was the case."
Jules Witcover writes from The Baltimore Sun's Washington bureau and appears Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays.
linkWASHINGTON -- When I wrote in my previous column that President Bush, in defending his Iraq invasion by citing the horrors of Saddam Hussein, "seemed to have forgotten those missing weapons of mass destruction he insisted earlier posed such an imminent threat," the e-mails poured in.
<snip>...State of the Union speech of 2003: "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 sounds to me as if he was saying the threat could well be imminent, so we'd better not take a chance and hit Saddam Hussein before he hits us.
<snip>In his speech in Cincinnati Oct. 8, 2002, the president called Iraq "a grave threat to peace" that "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons" and "could bring sudden terror and suffering to America."?Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?" That sure sounds to me like the perfect rationale for waging a pre-emptive war, and the sooner the better, as propounded in Mr. Bush's National Security Strategy paper and implemented in the subsequent invasion of Iraq.
<snip>Rumsfeld, describe(ed)..the threat as "immediate" in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee Sept. 18, 2002, three weeks before Mr. Bush's Cincinnati speech?.saying he didn't know "precisely how close he is to having a deliverable nuclear weapon," Mr. Rumsfeld added: "But those who raise questions about the nuclear threat need to focus on the immediate threat from biological weapons." Later in the same testimony, he observed that "no terrorist state poses a greater and more immediate threat to the security of our people, and the stability of the world, than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."?.the president, Mr. Rumsfeld and other architects of the war insisted before launching it that deliverable weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq and were the reason it had to be waged pronto. <snip>
10/16 version of the Progress Report IMMINENT THREAT ARGUMENT:..the Administration repeatedly said Iraq was an imminent threat. On 5/7/03, 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 11/14/02, 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. Rumsfeld said on 1/29/03 "The President has stated that he considers the Saddam Hussein regime a danger to the United States ." And Vice President Cheney said on 1/30/03 that there was a "grave danger posed by the outlaw regime in Iraq," adding that Saddam "threatens the United States of America ."
linkQ 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. And I may point out to you, as you may know, there is a news conference at Department of Defense today at 2:00 p.m. to discuss one element in this.
And so we have always had confidence, we continue to have confidence that WMD will be found. He's had a long period of time to hide what he has in a variety of different places, and there is a whole protocol of the search that is underway, that is being conducted in a very methodical fashion.
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/t01292003_t0129sd.htmlDoD News Briefing - Secretary Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers
Q: Thank you. Do you believe Iraq represents an imminent threat to the United States?
Rumsfeld: You know, that is a question that is coming up quite a bit, and it's an important question.
Clearly, it's been -- what's been going on there has been going on in large measure for some 12 years. In a different way, it's been going on since the inspectors left -- free play for them.
Every day, every week, every month that goes by, let alone years, their programs are maturing, and their relationships exist, and they have intelligence agents around the world, they have relationships with terrorist networks, and they have opportunities to do things.
Now, at what moment was the threat to -- for September 11th imminent? Was it imminent a week before, a month before, a year before, an hour before? Was it imminent before you could -- while you could still stop it, or was it imminent only after it started and you couldn't stop it, or you could stop one of the three planes instead of two or all three? These are very tough questions.
And plans change. We know that the al Qaeda plans sometimes took a year to develop, and they were -- the cells existing around that waited impatiently until the time was perfect, and then they acted.
We have -- we know we have imperfect knowledge of everything that goes on in the world. We know that. We know that an attacker can attack at any moment they want. And we know the lethal effect of an attack might not be 300 people or 3,000 people, but 30,000 people. How do we, how do you, how do all of us, how do the people in the world decide the imminence of something? And I would submit that the hurdle, the bar that one must go over, changes depending on the potential lethality of the act.
Q: But as you see it now, do you believe that Iraq does present an imminent danger, imminent threat?
Rumsfeld: The President has stated -- our job here is to be prepared to do what we're asked. The President has stated that he considers the Saddam Hussein regime a danger to the United States and a danger to the region; that it has weapons of mass destruction, that it is developing still more, and that it has linkages to terrorist activities; and that every other effort has been exhausted -- the diplomatic, the economic, limited military activity in the Northern and Southern low -- no-fly zones; and that the string is running out.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
