Tim Blair

Tim,
you are running different threads together on "imminent" here.

My use of the word referred to a cartoon by Steve Bell who works at the Guardian in the UK. "Imminent" in this context means the magic figure of 45 minutes Hence the fight about is about the symbolic 45.

Your post is about President Bush and how the US viewed the threat posed by Saddam Hussein to them. Imminent in this context means less 'the missiles are on the way' than 9/11. As the Americans keep saying 9/11 changed everything and Saddam was linked to 9/11.

In Australia it was differnt again.

People would actually have to research what Pres. Bush *really* said, that's too much work. It's been accepted as dogma that Bush lied. Anyone who believes otherwise is just part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

This is Jornalism/Reporting made easy. No muss no fuss no time consuming research. Just know the current 'mantras' and you're all set. Current Mantras include: Bush Lied, All About Oil, Iraq is Another Vietnam, We Need the UN, At Least Under Saddam Iraqis Had Electricity and Water, This War Is Going To Bankrupt The US, Soldiers Are Unhappy, Iraqis Want US Out Now, Empire Builders, and the absolute whiner .. The US Is Disliked by France and Germany Because We Went To War Unilaterally.

STOP THE SPIN - IT'S PREACHING TO THE CONVERTED & INCITING DERISION FROM THE SKEPTICS

Non-ratbag Leftists may have good reasons for supporting Bush, Howard and the recent Gulf War.
But belief in Iraq's plans to hold and use WMDs cannot be part of them. Nor, by implication, can retrospecctive attempts to spin the White House's claims about WMDs into some sembelance of credibility.
I accept that Bush did not use the construction "imminent threat".
So What?
However, he did claim that Iraq had an "ongoing WMD program" was an ultimate threat to US security. That was false or misleading.
Given the paucity of actual WMD's found, the pathetic nature of potential WMD's found (botox in the fridge Weapons of Mass Rejuvenation?)and the exaggerated claims about Iraq's current state of militarism ("clandestine program to make enriched uranium for nuclear bombs", launch an attack in 45 minutes") it is fair & reasonable to conclude that the White House misled the public on the substance of the rationale for going to war.
An existence proof of this is: if Iraq had WMDs' or was planning to make them, why, in the nine month overture to the war, didn't it ramp up production or import and why didn't it use them in the war?
There is no point in having a WMD arsenal, or program, unless you are going to use it when the regime faces a life or death threat.
Citizens of a state are not insurance lawyers going over the fine print of a contract. They weare inundated with phrases like "Iraq's WMD's" and "911 terrorism" that suggested Hussein intended to use such weapons, or the threat of such weapons, against the US and it's allies.
That claim was false.
A political agency, the Office of Special Plans, was set up inside the Pentagon to feed false stories about Iraq's WMD program to the President and the Press.
Hussein neither had, nor was seriously intending to produce, WMDs on a scale that would pose a threat to the US or it's allies. Whether he would in the future, had sactions been lifted or inspections stopped, is entering the realms of metaphysics.
That is the reason why the professional, not political, members of the US national security apparat concluded that Hussein was not a threat of any major kind to the US, or it's allies, sufficient to justify a $200 bill + preventative war. And that is the reason why the professionals are speaking out against the spin doctoring of the WMD claim.
In short, Bush is innocent of the "imminent threat" misedemeanour, but was guilty of the "misled the public on overall threat" felony.

(PS there might be other justifications for the war, ie to bring democracy to the middle east, or to recruit Iraq as a suitable Gulf client state. But these are seperate to WMDs or terrorism.
I woudld suggest that pro-war or pro-Bush folks concentrate on that, and just hope people forget about WMDs so long as Iraq looks up)

Jack, I think you are overstating the case somewhat. We still have 90% of the known armament storage areas to go through. That there is a special plans group in the pentagon set up to deceive the president is a serious charge. Can you substantiate that? By fact rather than "everyone knows"? The preliminary report also shows that Saddam had the capability to ramp up quickly. Whether Saddam intended to use WMD on US military or not is still unknown, we do know that a number of Saddam's commanders were 'turned' prior to the actual war. That he could have (and probably would have) turned some of these WMD over to terrorists is and was a very real and frightening possiblity. There are still a number of unknowns out there like: Is there really an Iraqi freighter sailing the high seas, and, if so, where is it and what is it carrying; or did that convoy of transit trucks into Syria exist and, if so, what did it carry?

We were still finding out details of the Nazi regime for several years after the defeat of Hitler. It took us 4 years to turn over control to the Germans. We've been in Iraq, what six months? It is much too early to start calling people liars.

The Chinese are still getting all pissy about the chemical weapons the Japanese hid in Manchuria, and poor dumb construction workers are tripping over.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2003-10/16/content_1127346.htm

FDR lied - people died.

Tim didn't even give us Rocky's best whoppers:

After the "no immediate threat" clip from the SOTUS

Tony, if you listen to that as an average American person would, you and -- at least myself included, that is talking about the danger of an immediate attack.

and later:

And the whole problem was that there was a danger of attack. If the word imminent threat wasn't used, that was the predicate; that was the feeling that was given to the American people and to the Congress, whose vote the president clearly was trying to argue or to convince during the course of that State of the Union message.

Apparently, I and millions of other red-state Americans lack the sophistication to ignore the plain meaning of words and infer an alternate meaning. Not enough diversity training and whatnot.

Thanks for the translation help, Gary.

When you folks say, "Bush claimed the threat was imminent," you're actually saying, "Americans believe Bush said that Saddam was connected to 9/11."

Still trying to suss out the meaning of "symbolic 45" though.

Jack, very interesting. Please provide a link of a single intelligence agency prior to the war in Iraq that refuted the claims of an Iraqi WMD program. If EVERYONE in the know thought Saddam had a program saying the claims are overdone are silly.

ISTR David Kay's report mentioning a WMD program... and efforts by the Iraqis to erase the evidence.

If you don't mind my saying so, arguing over the meaning of "imminent" is nonsense.

This is what the President said on March 17, in his "get out of town now, Saddam" speech:

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

"The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

"The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other."

He added: "We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities. "

We were told that the country had to act immediately, and that we couldn't wait for any other course of action.

There's a lot like that, all conveniently located on Whitehouse.gov.

This is this weeks left's "big lie" Next week it will be something else. They lost the debate before the war in Iraq, and they want a do over.

What they are really arguing, in effect, is that Saddam should still be in power. That his sons should still be operating their plastic shredders, have "special relationships" with high school principles, still operating their torture chambers, kiddie prisons and still executing anyone they felt like.

For a group that claim to care more about the Iraqi people than the evil Republicans, they have to ignore a lot of good. They have to make up stories about how "everyone knew" Saddam was only kidding about having WMDs, and how Bush said imminent threat, and all that.

If you are arguing you got fooled into doing the right thing by the Iraqi people, you are admitting you are a fool. Too foolish to recognize the right thing when presented. And too foolish to support it for your own reasons, instead of your misunderstanding of Bush's spoken words.

Oh well, let me know when the next round of ankle biting commences.

The AP is a self-appointed Ministry of Truth. All these journalists are just like Winston Smith, daily re-writing history.

To me, this is just so sad. They have such a great thing, these reporters get to go out, talk to people, do some research, write it down and get it published. Wow! What a great toy!

What do they do with this great toy? They're like a 9 year old boy, who takes a laptop given to me and uses it for a boat anchor. Thoughtless, destructive, little, brats! That's what they are. Their time is almost gone, it's still painful to see.

Jack Strocchi

You make several notes worthy of comment, but your last note seems to be the most important. You say that there might be justifiable reasons other than WMD's and terrorism, but that the two are unrelated. It is undeniable that Saddam had WMD's and that he had irrefutable links to terrorists. We know for a fact he had ties to Palestinian terrorist groups and very actively supported them. We know for a fact that he had large quantities of WMD's and was willing to use them not only on Iranians, but his own citizens. Since it is without argument that Saddam had sophisticated programs to develop WMD's and that the production time for chemical and to some extent biological weapons is relatively short (months), Saddam is easily linked to the Bush allegations that he was a growing threat and we could not wait for the threat to become imminent.

Like most people often have two reasons for doing something, a reason that sounds good and the real reason, Bush had two reasons to invade Iraq. The reason that sounded good was Iraq disobeying UNSC resolutions, and the real reason was reforming the Arab/Muslim world.

Knowing this irks the left. Knowing that the reason that sounds good is virtually unassailable pisses them off even more.

But imagine if FDR had committed to war in 1940 along with the pretext of "reforming the European and Asian world". It would have gone over like a lead balloon.

I have being reading all the pro and con of whether we had justification for going into Iraq and if there "are, were, could have been" WMDs and the parsing of words when the primary questions should be - 1. Is the intelligence community, worldwide, totally misinformed about these weapons? If so, why? 2. Where were all these CIA guys and weapons inspectors prior to the war? (There were a few but not many) 3.How were they able to convince Congress and President Clinton years ago? 4.Why should we believe them when they say that NK, Iran, Syria and others have WMDs. They were only wrong on Iraq? If indeed, our agencies are so poor that we can't believe a word they say then that is the problem not in that the President believed them as did previous presidents? But I find it hard to believe that all the intelligence agencies in the world are merely stupid (or maybe, it is just ours) and that the Bushies are so smart they are the only ones that really knew it! And knowing they would be found out after the war went ahead and had a war anyway? Some logic would be appreciated occasionally.

Jack,

All of your questions about WMD ignore the fact that every major intelligence organization plus the UN believed that Saddam had WMD. I guess that the "Office of Special Plans" fed them "false stories" as well. Or is it a vast Jewish conspiracy? Perhaps the Jews have a mind control ray they beam from space and only people with tin-foil hats aren't susceptible?

However, he did claim that Iraq had an "ongoing WMD program" was an ultimate threat to US security. That was false or misleading.

Apparently, you missed this.

Given the paucity of actual WMD's found, the pathetic nature of potential WMD's found (botox in the fridge Weapons of Mass Rejuvenation?)and the exaggerated claims about Iraq's current state of militarism ("clandestine program to make enriched uranium for nuclear bombs", launch an attack in 45 minutes") it is fair & reasonable to conclude that the White House misled the public on the substance of the rationale for going to war.

The White House never mentioned a 45-minute WMD attack capability.

So when the FBI exercises a search warrant and raids a counterfeiting operation, finds a fair amount of counterfeiting machinery in various states of repair but no counterfeit currency, then it is fair and reasonable to conclude that the FBI lied to the judge. Y-oookaay...

You'd almost think that folks who spout this stuff would mutter a disclaimer like "but I sure hope we find all that missing material before it is used on innocent civilian populations." Except for the ones who've bought the fairy tale that "WMD never existed." In that case, I've got a nice parcel 30 miles south of Pensacola that they've just gotta see...

And ditto what Rabidfox said about armament storage searches.

An existence proof of this is: if Iraq had WMDs' or was planning to make them, why, in the nine month overture to the war, didn't it ramp up production or import and why didn't it use them in the war?

Ask Saddam Hussein. We're not mindreaders around here.

There is no point in having a WMD arsenal, or program, unless you are going to use it when the regime faces a life or death threat.

So now you're saying *you* can read Mr. Hussein's mind?

Citizens of a state are not insurance lawyers going over the fine print of a contract. They weare inundated with phrases like "Iraq's WMD's" and "911 terrorism" that suggested Hussein intended to use such weapons, or the threat of such weapons, against the US and it's allies.
That claim was false.

Forgive my suspicion, but cite source, please.

A political agency, the Office of Special Plans, was set up inside the Pentagon to feed false stories about Iraq's WMD program to the President and the Press.

But the loyal opposition doesn't seem too concerned. Perhaps some of that $87 billion isn't going to Iraq, eh?

Hussein neither had, nor was seriously intending to produce, WMDs on a scale that would pose a threat to the US or it's allies. Whether he would in the future, had sactions been lifted or inspections stopped, is entering the realms of metaphysics.

After leaving the realm of mindreading...

That is the reason why the professional, not political, members of the US national security apparat concluded that Hussein was not a threat of any major kind to the US, or it's allies, sufficient to justify a $200 bill + preventative war.

They did? Cite source, please. My understanding is that intelligence services function to gather and interpret information vital to national security and that the politicians incorporate that into a rather intricate decision-making process which may take into account other factors beyond the realm of the intelligence agencies. But, according to you, politicians have abdicated their decision-making responsibility's to unelected intelligence officials who also, on the side, produce cost/benefit analyses of proposed military actions. Somebody tell that to Bush, Blair, Schroeder, Chirac et. al. as they will be happy to know that they will have fewer gray hairs at the end of their terms than would otherwise have been the case.

And that is the reason why the professionals are speaking out against the spin doctoring of the WMD claim.

Don't know who these "professionals" are but it is certainly traditional for the CIA and White House officials, from any Administration, Democrat or Republican, to clash over the uses of intelligence.

In short, Bush is innocent of the "imminent threat" misedemeanour, but was guilty of the "misled the public on overall threat" felony.

The American public will give him a light sentence, I'm sure. Perhaps 4 years tacked onto his current 4 year sentence?

(PS there might be other justifications for the war, ie to bring democracy to the middle east, or to recruit Iraq as a suitable Gulf client state. But these are seperate to WMDs or terrorism.
I woudld suggest that pro-war or pro-Bush folks concentrate on that, and just hope people forget about WMDs so long as Iraq looks up)

You may be right about this. Stopped clock and all that...

"The reason that sounded good was Iraq disobeying UNSC resolutions, and the real reason was reforming the Arab/Muslim world."

LOL! Good luck ... the Brits tried that too, about 100 years ago, and it never worked. Besides, when you're talking about the "Muslim world," you're talking about over a billion people, many times more people than live in the "Western Judeo-Christian world." Perhaps the reason this was never overtly stated was that it offends the sensibilities of those who would rather have the US exist as a constitutional republic, not an empire. If this is
"unassailable," it's amazing that the White House hasn't come out and said it. Maybe because it smacks of the most pernicious aspects of European/Western empire, the "white man's burden."

I think Jack needs to check his facts -- he seems to have missed the 1980s, the 1990s, and Mr. Kay's interim report -- and also the meaning of "false and misleading." Incorrect intelligence estimates (uh, that's why their called "estimates") are not false, or misleading, or lies. They're simply incorrect. Such incorrect estimates are almost the norm when dealing with "hard targets" like a closed police state and secret weapons programs.

The CIA (and the IAEA, much more so) were wildly off the mark in UNDER-estimating Iraqi nuclear weapons progress prior to the first Gulf War; however their estimates were not deliberately "misleading," and they weren't "lies," they were just wrong. The key findings of the estimate on Iraq -- publicly released -- reportedly did not change much since 1998. They also were consistent with the conclusions of other major intelligence agencies and the UN itself, based on the inspections process. These findings appear to have been incorrect, though it's too early to be definitive about it (there's still no publicly released hard info on what may have transpired with existing WMD just prior to the war, and a mostly ignored part of Kay's interim report -- the extensive, systematic destruction of selected documentation by the Iraqis that continued up to the fall of Baghdad -- is at least suggestive ... why would regime operatives risk capture or worse to destroy records unless they were of huge import?).

Mark indirectly puts his finger on one legitimately complex factor bedeviling the whole discussion of "imminent threat." While the focus of Tim's post, Snow's well-researched interview, Andrew Sullivan's debunkings, etc. is to combat rather crude revisionism -- and they're absolutely correct, and it's hard to believe anyone pretends to disagree -- there's another layer to the onion.

Based on consensus intelligence estimates (enough of a consensus that finding Iraq in "material breach" of its UN obligations was easy for the Security Council in November), Iraq was deemed to have existing WMD capacity. Therefore, logically, Iraq could have been deemed an "imminent threat". This wasn't so much implied by Bush as implicit in the situation itself.

Separately, based on common sense and its history and capacity and resources, Iraq was clearly potentially a serious threat in the future, absent regime-change, because it could readily continue or reconstitute WMD activities. The "one year or five years" Bush wording cited in Mark's post goes to this point. The longer-term problem was the one emphasized by Bush. He didn't discount the implicit imminent threat -- how could he? -- but instead logically argued that the risks imposed by uncertainty over the timing of a threat left pre-emptive action as the only prudent course.

The idea that Iraq might be an imminent threat was implicit in the consensus view that it retained WMDs of some kind. The idea that Iraq might be an emerging threat was solidly supported by common sense and the facts of the situation. There's nothing mutually exclusive or even contradictory about these two ideas.

> Maybe because it smacks of the most pernicious aspects of European/Western empire, the "white man's burden."

Pernicious in what sense? On an absolute or relative scale?

The previous attempts produced some overrated literature, gave work to some folks who couldn't make it in the mother country, produced lots of drinking songs&stories, and is now motivating tons of revisionism.

And, despite all the bad, it did better by the natives than they'd done for themselves, or did later.

When a Westerner doesn't turn the natives into saints in three days, he's a devil. When said natives accomplish even less in several hundred years, they're angels.

Jack-

If you have read Kay's complete report it is obvious that a WMD program existed - his search has not found any weapons - but has found the programs. If you wish to feel no WMD's were there, you can, no facts yet could be produced to the contrary. But to suggest no programs existed as I believe your post did is factually incorrect.

To further discount that programs existed is asking us to disagree with every public piece of intelligence info from every agency in the world. To accept the Wilson explanation for no WMD's is to accept the word of what is apparently a professional hack, with partisan sympathies. I am doubting your above ideology line you have used in the past. You are beginnning to parrot DNC talking points.

I would prefer a discussion on since there were programs, where did the weapons go - Syria scares me more each day, they are clearly backing the insurgency in Iraq and are known to have been involved in smuggling out of Iraq truck convoys of material - what was in the trucks? WE know most major terrorist groups have HQ's in Damascus. Why do you think there was absolutely no retribution to Israel for the attack in Syrian territory recently? Washington and others know where the WMD path leads. AS a Ledeen frequently says - FASTER PLEASE.

Smog: This time the US have a bit more at stake than the British did. And particularly this time the Arabs have more money to throw around on things flying lessons and idiot recruitment.

You might make the same case for Japan in WW2, saying that the Portugese tried it, or that Commander Perry tried it, let's just turn it into a glass parking lot.

If I were one of the billion in the "Muslim World", I would be praying that the US succeeds. If one of those nutballs manages to get a nuke inside the US, do you want to imagine what the response will be?

Tongue Boy wrote above: "The White House never mentioned a 45-minute WMD attack capability."

Beg pardon? He said: "The danger to our country is grave. The danger to our country is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqi regime is building the facilities necessary to make more biological and chemical weapons. And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given." (Remarks, September 26, 2002). Does attributing it to the British absolve him of any responsibility for spreading this as "fact"?

Mark:

Thanks for catch. My wording was imprecise. That should have read: "The White House never contended that Iraq had 45-minute WMD capabilities." He didn't spread it as fact; he was merely repeating an intelligence assessment of an allied country. It is an intelligence assessment because it is not a known fact like the density of lead or the half-life of uranium-235 but more like guesstimating how many ankle bites it takes to turn a victory into a defeat.

"He didn't spread it as fact; he was merely repeating an intelligence assessment of an allied country."

Sorry, that doesn't fly. He wanted us to accept it as a fact. If he didn't, he wouldn't have said it.

Okay, for anyone who insists that "The White House never mentioned a 45-minute WMD attack capability", here's a September 26, 2002 Press Release from the White House, which reads in part:

"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."

No squirrelly "I heard it from the Brits" in that one.

The one Rockefeller line which hasn't gotten much attention:

"If the word imminent threat wasn't used, that was the predicate; that was the feeling that was given to the American people and to the Congress, whose vote the president clearly was trying to argue or to convince during the course of that State of the Union message."

Senator Rockefeller claims that President Bush, in the January 2003 State of the Union Speech was attempting to influence Congress' vote.

Congress voted to authorize war with Iraq in October 2002, three months prior.

Mark,

You said, "If you don't mind my saying so, arguing over the meaning of "imminent" is nonsense." Then you quote extensively from the President's "get out of town now, Saddam" speech.

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

[This is the only contention not proven]

This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

[TRUE]

"The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

[TRUE]

"The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other."

[Note the words "one day, nuclear" and "could fulfill"]

He added: "We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities. "

[AGAIN NOTE - "In one year, or five years" and "Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment" and "We choose to meet the threat now . . . before it can appear . . ."

Mark, you then wrote, "We were told that the country had to act immediately, and that we couldn't wait for any other course of action."

[TRUE - The only other alternate on the table was continued inspections backed by a hundred thousand U.S. troops sitting on Iraq's border. We could have left those troops sitting there, to this day, while the inspectors continued to search for proof that Saddam had or had not disarmed. We now have Kay's report showing that Saddam had not disarmed according to UN Resolution 1441. That was what Hans Blix told us last winter, so Kay has merely added details to what the UN already knew. So that left us with what other course of action - exactly? Perhaps we could have let the troops sit on the Arabian Peninsula for year after year after year while the U.S. population slowly tiring of an interminable strategy of containment. How long would this nation have left its soldiers sitting in the desert with no purpose? Probably not too long. Then, when we redeployed our troops after Hans Blix stated that Saddam was in non-compliance, we would have given Saddam a diplomatic victory and a free hand to do whatever he wanted. How were these better courses of action than a free Iraq, deposed Saddam, ended weapons programs, closure of rape and murder centers, and the chance of a free and prosperous Iraq?]

Everything the President said in this speech, except for the possession of WMD, was true. Saddam had the facilities to produce biological and chemical weapons. President Bush was quite clear that he was unwilling to wait for Saddam to provide his terrorist allies with WMD, "in one year, or five years." Therefore, "we choose to meet the threat now . . . before it can appear."

I understood this argument, and accepted it, way back last year.

I'm not sure what you are claiming - that you did not understand President Bush's position, or that you did understand it, but you didn't agree with it?

Bush was relying on intelligence, yet no one in the intelligence community has been fired or even much scrutinized as far as I can make out. So, while Bush sticks by his "intelligence", he has real and continuing problems until real WMD (or the evidence of their destruction/redisposition)in large quantities are found.

The big question is, why hasn't anyone lost his/her job for 9/ll? Knowing that might go a long way to explaining why Bush sticks by the "intelligence" agents who provided the information on WMD.

Shamers and Blamers: The left of today has actually become the right of yesterday. Shaming and blaming was once the perogative of the right. Love your neighbor, but only if he's on your side. If not, be sure to spend all your time and energy pointing out what he's doing wrong. Ideas and Ideals? Shit! That requires energy, effort and sacrifice. Who needs that when when you can simply make yourself feel bigger by pointing out the flaws in others.

It is now the left that finds itself reduced to shrillish, incoherent demands for absolute perfection by members of The Other Side(TM). They have become what they once despised.

Okay, last one. You can read all of them for yourself at Whitehouse.gov (at least until they take them down).

Presidential Remarks 2/20/03:

"It's important -- it's very important for our citizens to understand the significant change that took place on September the 11th, 2001. Obviously, it changed a lot of people's lives and we still mourn for the families who lost life. But it used to be that oceans -- we thought oceans could protect us, that we were guarded by the oceans; and that if there was a threat overseas, as a result of the protection from the oceans, we could decide whether to be involved or not. It might affect us overseas, but it couldn't affect us at home. And therefore, we have the luxury of kind of picking and choosing gathering threats.

"That changed on September the 11th, 2001. Because the stark reality of 2001 is that America is now a battlefield, that the war has come home. And therefore, this nation must also confront not only shadowy terrorist networks, but the gravest danger in the war on terror, outlaw regimes arming to threaten the peace with weapons of mass destruction.

"After Secretary of State Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council, the world knows that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, even though he said he didn't, and that he is not complying with the United Nations demands to destroy them. He is actively deceiving the inspectors. He is actively hiding the weapons. And so the Security Council, earlier on, gave Saddam Hussein one final chance to disarm, and he's throwing that chance away."

Was he being unclear about what he wanted to convey?

On President Bush's claim that "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Note the words "by this and other governments." The term "other governments" refers to Britain obviously, but also to France, Germany, Russia and the non-state entity United Nations. Many, many web sites have lists of quotes from senators, representatives, President Clinton, Hans Blix, Senator John "Jay" Rockefeller, etc. all claiming that Saddam Hussein had WMD. I also remember reading about coalition troops capturing Iraqi soldiers carrying gas masks. Obviously someone in the Iraqi military thought they needed them.

Here's the issue then:

1. Everyone thought Saddam had WMD, including Iraqi soldiers. That leaves us wondering about potential international intelligence failures. Or it may mean that the WMD is still hidden in Iraq. Or it may mean that the WMD was destroyed. Or it may mean the WMD was moved out of Iraq. What it doesn't mean is "Bush lied" because if Bush lied then so did French and German politicians, Hans Blix and Senator Rockefeller. That's a whole lot of lying going 'round and we shouldn't be trying to pin it all on Bush.

OR

2. Everyone thought Saddam had WMD, except for Bush, who through Satanic or Godly powers, knew what nobody else on earth knew. Okaaaay!

I'll go with option 1.

The point is, everyone with any access to intelligence information thought that Saddam had WMD. EVERYONE. So I give Bush a pass on his claim that Saddam had WMD. If you don't then I want to hear you loudly proclaim that EVERYONE - and start naming them, I don't want to hear you just say Bush - lied.

Mark, in regards to your two citations. I'm sure you noticed that they are on the same day, and that the press release draws liberally from the remarks made. It is an easy conclusion to make that the press release is dependent on the Remarks, which cited British Intelligence.

In short, if I were a historian, I would conclude that the press release was based on the remarks, part of which cited British Intelligence. If C is from B which is from A, then C is from A (QED).

But, that doesn't change the fact that the White House made the claim (and, by the way, I don't think the attribution to British intelligence changes the fact that the White House made the claim).

Look, if you all want to ignore statement after statement made by the President, the Secretary of State, and other Administration officials, that's you're prerogative. Just don't call people liars because they remember what the President said at the time the order was given to move in.

People, please stop trying to convince Mark about the "imminent threat" issue. Mark's blog is obviously a cover for his real identity. Only a high-ranking member of the VRWC could pretend to be such a pigheaded moron, as his comments only serve to push more people away from the left and towards the right. Keep up the good work, Mark. Soon you will have more and more targets, as more and more Republicans are elected by the rest of us- which is the whole point of the VRWC, right? Genius.

I am stunned. Is that you, Perle? Wolfie? Rove? As long as I've got you, a question: How did you get Gray Davis to act like that? Did Clinton receive Viagra intravenously, or through the air ducts? How long ago did Greenspan pass away?

"He didn't spread it as fact; he was merely repeating an intelligence assessment of an allied country."

Sorry, that doesn't fly. He wanted us to accept it as a fact. If he didn't, he wouldn't have said it.

I guess I'll have to do this in crayon.

Intelligence assessments are not facts. Intelligence assessments are the best guesses at facts, given the murkiness of information available from, in this instance, a closed, totalitarian society. Mr. Bush was giving information from an intelligence assessment. Feel free to argue that Mr. Bush should be more careful about disseminating information from an intelligence assessment; I might even join you in that argument. But there can be no argument that these two statements constituted a central rationale that persuaded the US and its allies to launch war against Saddam Hussein's regime. War was not launched because Mr. Bush disseminated one, in retrospect overly cautious, intelligence estimate.

Not only did Bush LIE about the WMD but even worse, he lied about Saddam Hussein. It's totaly obvious, we can't find him so he NEVER existed!

Its worse than anyone thinks. This is my blog where I showed how often this lie has been repeated. I guess I need to update it. Sigh.

http://mysite.verizon.net/res1uo0x/id40.html

Oh and here's a shock. Dowd got it wrong, too:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/16/opinion/16DOWD.html?ex=1066881600&en=2ccd85b4ce9f37b4&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

And UPI has Powell himself making this point:

"I don't think I used the word 'imminent' in my presentation on the 5th of February."

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20031015-092839-7463r

And if you check the transcripts he is right. He did not utter those words.

This one fact is quickly becoming the biggest journalistic scandal since Jayson Blair. If they can't get the easy stuff right, how can we trust them on the hard stuff?

Just for the record, a better link than the one you provided to what I've written on the subject is this, where I cite examples of the Administration using and responding to the term "imminent" and try and explain how the term, as a term of law, was mixed with its more prosaic meaning to justify the policy of pre-emption. I also discuss it here and here. Perhaps people will still disagree with the conclusion I reach, fair enough, but they might at least see that the position wasn't arrived at casually and that in reaching it I show some evidence of an ability to write and read.

Tim, set up a futures market with bets on whether we find WMD or not. This will make us ante up or withdraw from the argument: put dough where mouth is.

If you can set it up legally, I'll send in $100 bucks on 'we'll find them'.

I guess the first thing to do is to define 'them' then take offers and calculate odds, announce odds, offer another round of offers, close the betting and then take the dough. It'll be fun.

We'll let you keep some of the dough for your effort and "Timblair" will flourish and be famous. You'll get more dough than Glenn, ha ha.

Do it!

The Revision Thing

A tangled web
We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003

HOW MANY WMDs CAN DANCE ON A PIN-HEAD

Tongue Boy seems to have got his eponymous appendage lodged up the White House's orifice.
There is no need for a point by point refutation of Tounge Boy's lame attempt at fisking.
He needs analysis alright, but not the kind that intelligence operatives provide.
First he believes anything White HOuse spin doctors feed him. HE sources his current authority about SH's WMDs with David Kay. This guy is another political hack, a pro-war booster who emerged from the right wing echo chamber when the non-partisan UNMOVIC did not deliver the "unclean bill of health" for Saddy, as requested by OSP.
What kind of mind reader does one have to be to predict that, if a heinous dictator is alleged to have a deadly cach of weapons, and said party is presented with a deadly threat by his deadliest enemy, then it is logical to assume that said dictator will use such weapons?
This is common sense, not mind reading!
(an attribute in short supply amongst the Hussein WMD-true believers)
After all, what are WMDs, or effective plans for them, for?
A cute party trick? Practical jokes? Fancy dress?
At a certain point, belief in Husseins WMDs ceases to be an empirical proposition and descends into devils-dancing-on-a-pin-head metaphysics. It tells us more about the internal psychology of the believer than the external reality of the world.
This belief system is akin to that bought into by 17th C witch-burning Puritans of Salem, who were likewised convinced that diabolical forces were amongst them, in league with the devil, conjuring up all sorts of malign, but invisible, entities that were going to bring the state to it's knees.

Face it tougue boy, and et al, have been suckered.

The Bush admin spins every policy for all it's political worth. It's not for nothing that they are called the "Mayberry Machiavellians".

I don't give shit if they find WMD or don't. Saddam had it coming. I f it had of been an elected governemnt that was dethroned, then I'd be pissed. However, it wasn't - perhaps you could spend some energy on trying to motivate dole blugdgers to accept the fact that getting paid for work is better than taking my bloddy taxes rather than this stupid "you lied/misled/spun/sexed up" crap fest.

Jack: " If a heinous dictator is alleged to have a deadly cach of weapons, and said party is
threatened with a deadly threat by his deadliest enemy, then it is logical to assume that
said dictator would use such weapons? This is common sense, not mind reading."

Actually Jack, its not common sense. First off, your assumption that Saddam would have
used WMD against his " deadliest enemy " if he had them, has already been disproved,
during the 1991 Gulf War. Even you, with all your obtuse reasoning, can't deny Saddam
had chemical weapons stocks then. Coalition troops actually destroyed some of these
munitions in former Iraqi held positions after routing the Iraqis out of Kuwait. And we
know the U.N. inspectors destroyed tons of the stuff later in 1991.

The simple equation you have devised, that WMD possession + " Deadliest enemy" =
automatic deployment and usage of WMD is coffee shop level analysis. The fatal flaw to
your argument is simple. Your equation is only valid if the WMD have any reasonable
prospect of affecting the outcome. They didn't. Saddam knew it, and the Americans knew
it. Both knew it in 1991, and it was even more evident in 2003. If Saddam thought his
WMD had any chance of turning the tide in 1991, he would have used them.

Chemical and biological weapons are terror weapons, rather than effective battlefield
weapons. Saddam knew his WMD would have little if any effect on troops from the most
powerful, technologically advanced military in the world, exhaustively trained and
completely equipped to counter the use of these weapons. They do however, work great
against unprotected civilians and under-protected third world armies.

If Saddam's WMD had the potential to kill or devastatingly injure thousands of coalition
troops, there would have been no invasion. By the very act of invading, the Americans
and British were telling Saddam his WMD were no deterrent to regime change.

The other element that debunks your logic is the fact that using WMD would completely
validate the American and British reasons for going to war, and at the same time unravel
the considerable support Saddam had garnered in western democracies, both within the
governments and sizable portions of the populations of these democracies.

Do you recall the French announcing, just days before invasion, that any use by Iraq of
WMD during the fighting would completely reverse France's position, and result in
France committing troops to combat immediately? What France was really saying to
Saddam was clear; " We've gone out on a big limb to try to save your ass. Don't even
think of using any WMD and making us look like assholes." The only battle Saddam had
a hope of winning was the battle for world opinion, which involved ensuring that 1)
WMD were not used; and 2) that no stocks or production assets were found after regime
change.

The most believable scenario is Saddam still possessed a " modest" WMD capability (as
described by DR. David Kelly in the pro-regime change document tendered as an exhibit
at the Hutton Inquiry)on the eve of invasion, but destroyed all obvious, and most less-
obvious components and stocks, to discredit Bush and Blair. This destruction likely
occurred just prior to UN inspectors being re-admitted in late November 2002, or anytime
between then and March 2003, when combat commenced.

I think too many people conflate the Administrations sense of urgency to deal with a threat before is becomes imminent with that threat being imminent. The two are very different.

Mike brings up an important point that Seekers of Truth would prefer to ignore: chemical weapons are not effective against a prepared, advanced military. Their only effect would be to slow the pace of operations somewhat. This is why chemical weapons were not used in WWII against American or British troops, although the Italians used them against Ethiopians and the Japanese against Chinese.

Apart from World War I, when they were first used, chemical weapons have only been used against technically inferior targets which were incapable of retaliating in kind. Asking why Saddam didn't use them in the knowledge that Hitler didn't either indicates a fair amount of self-deception.

Hey, just remember where Rockefeller is coming from. His family used to be blue-blood Republicans until Gerald Ford dropped Vice President Nelson Rockefeller from the (surely doomed) 1976 Republican ticket and replaced him with Bob Dole.

The old guy threw a hissy, left the party, and swore never that no Rockefeller dollar would ever find its way to the GOP. Since then, the Rockefellers have been Democrat sugar daddies.

Oh yeah, given that the Rockefellers are real oil people, how happy do you think they'll be when Iraqi oil flows and breaks the back of OPEC's pricing cartel?

"We will not allow the world's worst regimes to threaten us with the world's worst weapons"

Imminence appears to be a second order issue. Let's answer the first question first. Was there a threat at all?

Erm - well: No there wasn't. Imminent or otherwise. Just no frigging threat at all.

Given the profound absence of the alleged threat, the question of imminence is rendered entirely moot. I trust this will be the final word on this irrelevance.

We need to shut down this blogmire immediately and by any means necessary. It's clear, and all the intelligence we have to hand says so, that this blog is in grave danger of becoming imminent. We can't let that day come to pass. We must act now.