The Eminent "Imminent": The Passion of the GOP

mofangongren · June 29, 2006, 10:01am

My view is that it doesn’t matter whether Bush ever said “imminent”. He and his administration did everything possible to pump up the scare-factor for the Iraq invasion, trying to tell Americans that we had to do something NOW! NOW! NOW!

I would tend to say that Bush’s hyperbole went well beyond the word “imminent”, a term used by some of his spokesmen who were representing him to the American media and public. These professional communicators were never corrected, disciplined or otherwise “put in their place” for use of this statement.

In the years since the invasion began, the American public has decidedly moved away from their initial position of support for the president and his policies. The war has slid down into a quagmirish conflict, and the candid views from a recent Baghdad embassy cable show Iraq’s slide is far worse than most of us ever suspected.

Perhaps an intelligent discussion can be had on this topic. There are some who say “imminent” has a special meaning in international law, but relying on that has nothing to do with the status of what average Americans were being told in the weeks leading up to the invasion. Average Americans had the daylights scared out of them, and they don’t have to go running to wonkish texts to look up words that may or not be used with special coded meanings. They rely on the plain meaning of words, and when the president, his spokesmen and his top cabinet secretaries tell them that Iraq is gunning for America with the worst weapons known to humanity their ears perk up. The fact is that the majority of Americans think Bush misled them about the justifications for the war.

I pose a simple question: Does the “I” word even matter? For some of the above reasons, I think it doesn’t. However, I think it would be a great opportunity for folks to discuss why they think this word is relevant to the American people.

Tigerman · June 29, 2006, 10:12am

Can you provide a cite to a quote by Bush saying that Iraq “is gunning for America”?

If you truly desire an “intelligent” discussion, you need to start off being accurate with your allegations.

mofangongren · June 29, 2006, 10:32am

Sorry that I’ve got you running scared again. I didn’t mean to shock you. Let’s start out with a simple question: Does the word “imminent” matter for the American people?

I don’t think it does. The fact is that the majority of Americans think Bush misled them about the justifications for the war, and this is not about wonkish “legalese”. It’s about the emphasis that Bush and his administration put on the danger that America was supposedly in.

Tigerman · June 29, 2006, 11:13am

Maybe not to those Americans who are informed of the issues by cartoons. But, to those of us Americans who read grown-up literature, and who understand the issues being debated, the word [color=red]imminent[/color] matters.

Of course you don’t. Your understanding of the issues is derived from cute cartoons. How could we possibly expect you to understand the issue?

When the debate is a legal debate, the legal meaning of terms is important. Of course, those who look at cartoon books can be expected to use Humpty Dumpty logic in their silly cartoon arguments.

On that I agree. And we have already established that Bush did not characterize the threat posed by Iraq as [color=red]imminent[/color]. Hence, the big, grown-up debate regarding whether or not the US could justify the use of force where no [color=red]imminent[/color] threat was present.

Thanks for playing, mofangongren. Now, put away your cartoon books. This is a grown-up debate about a grown-up issue.

mofangongren · June 29, 2006, 11:26am

What cartoons are in this thread? I guess you’re determined not to try to discuss the issue in an adult manner because this issue has you seriously on edge.

First off, this thread is not a high-stakes game. I’ve opened up this thread to give folks a chance to discuss these issues free of rancor. I thought it would be helpful to focus matters a bit.

Second, you’ve clearly come to this thread with some baggage about “cartoons”. Lighten up a little. Don’t be a “gloomy gus”.

Getting back to my basic question: Does the “I” word even matter to normal Americans? I don’t think so. Why do you think it would?

jdsmith · June 29, 2006, 12:17pm

I believe this thread was split from another.
Mayhap???

jds

My opinion is that “imminent threat” given the context in which Bush and his staff talked about/around it is that a time frame should be taken into consideration.

Was Iraq in 2003 an “immediate imminent threat?” Hmm…probably not.

A threat 5-10 years down the road given that nothing else changed? Yes.

A threat 15-20 years down the road if nothing changed? Most probably.

But, it’s neither here nor there now…we can’t uninvade Iraq.

mofangongren · June 30, 2006, 2:56am

Realistically speaking, Iraq was not a real threat to us. Beyond their not having WMDs or the capabilities for delivering them, we had them right where we wanted them. In the period before the invasion, Iraq was jumping through hoops to satisfy the demands of the U.S. … and yet we invaded them anyway.

The option ultimately exercised with Libya existed at that point for Iraq – a final tradeoff by which Iraq would get economic normalization in exchange for getting on our side in the war on terror. Considering our ability to reach practical accomodations with other military strongmen (Musharraf in Pakistan, our good boil-em-in-oil buddies in Uzbekistan, etc.), considering that Saddam didn’t tolerate Muslim fundamentalists in his territory, considering that a strong, wealthy secular Iraq on our side would have created an economic force for modernization and change as an alternative to the caliphates being bandied about by the fundamentalists, we could have probably gotten a lot done.

But we didn’t follow that option. Instead, Iraq was invaded despite their cooperation with our demands – which of course led to much greater suspicions as to the reasons for the invasion and a cynicism about our ambitions in the region. Basically we demanded that Iraq comply, Iraq did, and then we invaded anyway – instead of behaving like the “world’s policeman” we were more like a street thug who shoots people after they’ve handed over all the valuables demanded. As an American who loves his country, it pained me to see Bush’s government do that. My America wears the white hat, dammit!

Vague wars against substances (drugs), circumstances (poverty) and methods (terror) are not won via crude implements or shortcuts. It takes long-term, consistent effort to remove the elements that support them – in the case of the “war on terror”, the invasion of Iraq was handled in a way that increased suspicions of America overseas instead of decreased them. In the past, I’ve likened this to fighting cockroaches in a clean, vermin-free kitchen by sprinkling lots of cornflakes all over the floor.

Domestically, without a good real rationale for an invasion that the Iraqis’ cooperative attitude had eliminated any “necessity” for, the Bush administration slid quickly into frantic hyperbole. False connections to Al Qaeda were hyped, wild tales of “yellowcake” that could’ve been sorted out by any 13-year-old with internet access were promulgated as fact, and Iraq was falsely made out to be uncooperative as matters went into the final moments before the panzers went rolling. For years, Americans labored under various pollable false versions of reality – those who listened to Fox News as their predominant source were found to have demonstrably worse understandings of the rationales and background facts of the war. Gradually Americans started to figure things out – that the promised WMDs were not there, that Iraq had not posed a threat, that the 10,000-page account of Iraq’s WMD programs that Iraq had provided to the UN was still the “most comprehensive” despite months of post-invasion digging through Iraqi records, that Iraq had no real connection to 9-11, and so on.

The word “imminent” doesn’t really mean anything to the American people. Bush spread a lot of alarmist hokum without using the word himself, and the key to his administration’s credibility problem is not whether or not our “MBA president” used some arcane legal term or not. The real issue is that Bush, his top cabinet secretaries and his spokesmen sent a consistent message of danger that simply didn’t exist. They then used the trust of the American people as a blank check to act like thugs. No wonder nobody believes him anymore.

Tigerman · June 30, 2006, 3:05am

Well, maybe it doesn’t mean anything to those Americans who were reading cartoons rather than paying attention to the grown-up debate.

I love watching you backpeddle.

It appears that you’re no longer maintaining that ridiculous assertion that Bush characterized the threat posed by Iraq as [color=red]imminent[/color].

Could you confirm that for us, so that we can get that out of the way?

mofangongren · June 30, 2006, 4:03am

Again with the strange references to cartoons. Are you sure you’re in the right thread? Given the tendency for Fox News watchers to have their facts wrong about the Iraq war, I think the bigger threat to public undrestanding is (in order):

The numerous false statements of Bush and members of his administration; and
Fox News reporting.

Of course Bush used the term “imminent” – his spokesmen were kind enough to do it for him without correction, without being fired or disciplined, and in their roles as his professional spokesmen. Likely Bush personally had difficulty pronouncing the word correctly. However, despite his public speaking problems, Bush was apparently careful to ensure that the American people regularly heard that Iraq posed all sorts of dangers that went beyond merely imminent.

You clearly somehow think it matters to the American people whether Bush said the “I” word. Let’s see what else you think:

Was Iraq “the most dangerous threat of our time”?
In the weeks before the invasion, did we receive any threats from Iraq?
Did Iraq make any specific threats about use of WMDs against the United States or any other nations during the months or even the decade prior to the 2003 invasion?
For precisely how long did the “people of the United States and our friends and allies” live at the mercy of “an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder”?
On what day did Iraq issue the threats to the United States that Vice President Dick Cheney referred to?
What were the actions and words that SoD Rumsfeld referred with regards to the threats being made by Iraq?
What statements and actions beyond Iraq’s complete and swift compliance with all UN and US demands had created the “unique urgency” that Bush referred to?
When Bush stated that Saddam posed a “much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined,” what reaction did he anticipate among the American public? (As a bonus question, did Bush envisage any gigantic robots capable of shooting killer bees at us?)
When Rumsfeld declared that no terrorist state posed a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, what reaction did he think the American people would have to such a statement?
When Cheney said that Iraq posed a “mortal threat” to the United States, what reaction did he think the American people would have to such a statement?
If the Bush administration were more truthful with the American people, would its credibility improve or disintegrate?

jdsmith · June 30, 2006, 4:18am

[quote=“mofangongren”]Again with the strange references to cartoons. Are you sure you’re in the right thread? Given the tendency for Fox News watchers to have their facts wrong about the Iraq war, I think the bigger threat to public undrestanding is (in order):

The numerous false statements of Bush and members of his administration; and
Fox News reporting.

Of course Bush used the term “imminent” – his spokesmen were kind enough to do it for him without correction, without being fired or disciplined, and in their roles as his professional spokesmen. Likely Bush personally had difficulty pronouncing the word correctly. However, despite his public speaking problems, Bush was apparently careful to ensure that the American people regularly heard that Iraq posed all sorts of dangers that went beyond merely imminent.

You clearly somehow think it matters to the American people whether Bush said the “I” word. Let’s see what else you think:

Was Iraq “the most dangerous threat of our time”?
In the weeks before the invasion, did we receive any threats from Iraq?
Did Iraq make any specific threats about use of WMDs against the United States or any other nations during the months or even the decade prior to the 2003 invasion?
For precisely how long did the “people of the United States and our friends and allies” live at the mercy of “an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder”?
On what day did Iraq issue the threats to the United States that Vice President Dick Cheney referred to?
What were the actions and words that SoD Rumsfeld referred with regards to the threats being made by Iraq?
What statements and actions beyond Iraq’s complete and swift compliance with all UN and US demands had created the “unique urgency” that Bush referred to?
When Bush stated that Saddam posed a “much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined,” what reaction did he anticipate among the American public? (As a bonus question, did Bush envisage any gigantic robots capable of shooting killer bees at us?)
When Rumsfeld declared that no terrorist state posed a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, what reaction did he think the American people would have to such a statement?
When Cheney said that Iraq posed a “mortal threat” to the United States, what reaction did he think the American people would have to such a statement?
If the Bush administration were more truthful with the American people, would its credibility improve or disintegrate?[/quote]

Look, I’m not denying anything you say here. Of course what they said had an impact on the public, BUT was any of it illegal? Were they wrong to say these things? It was not just the public that heard these things, but the Congress and, like it or not, they agreed.

I said this before, you can’t un-invade Iraq. So what is the point of all this?

And I LOVE the cartoons BTW.

mofangongren · June 30, 2006, 4:37am

Jdsmith – We can’t un-invade Iraq, but there are a few factors worth considering:

Did the Bush administration mislead Americans about the supposed dangers posed by Iraq? My answer is yes, and that’s in line with most Americans.
Does the Bush administration get some sort of retroactive slack for this hype 3 years later just because Bush used or didn’t use some “magic word”? No, I don’t think so.
Was something done illegally? I think that would be worth an investigation to find out what was going on here.
Is there a current danger? Yes. With the Bush administration making noises about invading Iran, I think there is a serious danger of the Bush administation misleading people about new rationales. Fool us twice, shame on us.

Tigerman · June 30, 2006, 5:13am

Magic word? Like abracadabra?

Is that what your cartoon books call it?

No, no. It is a legal term, and it was used in the context of a legal argument regarding a legal issue.

I know that it would be wonderful if the issues of our times were sufficiently simplistic that we could rely on funny, colorful cartoon books to explain them to us. But, in the real world, as opposed to the cartoon world, issues can be terribly complex. And words have meanings. And grown-ups have to understand the meanings of the terminology used in discussing the issues, in order to understand the issues and opposing arguments. There is nothing “magic” about it. Serious study and consideration is required.

You know, mofangongren, cartoon books are really not the best source of information to rely on if you want to understand the grown-up issues.

mofangongren · June 30, 2006, 7:00am

What court was Bush practicing in front of? Please provide the location of the court and the date when Bush used this term to practice law.

If the only answer you have is “the court of public opinion,” then I’m afraid you lose again. Normal, average Americans only care that Bush and his administration used the strongest possible terms to hype the dangers posed by Iraq. Bush’s own professional, appointed spokesmen made sure that Americans knew that the dangers were “imminent.” The White House stood by those spokesmen, never chastising, correcting or firing them for using that word. Most Americans have come to their own conclusion that Bush was a liar. Lying about sending Americans to their death is as low as it gets.

Thanks for playing.

Tigerman · June 30, 2006, 7:38am

Huh? Are you telling me that it is forbidden to debate legal issues outside of a court of law?

That’s an odd notion. Did you get that from one of your cartoon books?

Anyway, the debate, even though you apparently missed it, took place in the UN (that organization has something to do with international law) and in the US Congress (that’s where we make our laws).

Again, I find it odd that you think it not appropriate that our elected executive and elected legislators and the UN discuss legal matters. Wherever did you get that silly idea? Cartoon books?

Well then, fortunately for me, that isn’t my only answer.

That’s simply incorrect, mofangongren. The “strongest possible term” to describe the danger posed by Iraq is the word [color=red]imminent[/color], and you’ve already acknowledged that Bush didn’t describe the threat as [color=red]imminent[/color].

The widely acclaimed and well-respected site, Spinsanity, has already illustrated and explained why that argument is simply a crock of doo doo.

So, that’s all your left with. A crock of doo doo.

No wonder you’re such a bitter, complaining bloke. A crock of doo doo. I almost feel pity for you. Almost.

mofangongren · June 30, 2006, 8:00am

So are you trying to say that “imminent” actually has any meaning with regards to average American citizens? I think it doesn’t. What do you think?

With regards to Bush’s “legal arguments,” please demonstrate that all the quotations attributed to him, his designated spokesmen, and his cabinet secretaries took place in the UN, a court of law, or other “legal” venue. Oh, that’s right… he wasn’t really making “legal” arguments.

Twice in one day, Tigerman… you’re really slipping fast and falling hard.

fred_smith · June 30, 2006, 8:50am

Yes, that is certainly how those of us who are following this discussion would characterize it. You really have Tigerman on the ropes MFGR. Why not put him out of his misery and finish him off in one coup de grace?