I'm tired of this "The Pres never said Imminent Threat" Crap

[LincolnMcGrath]

Maybe not in the 03 SOTU, but I have heard audio of him saying it. I'm sure it was during one of his almost daily tax payer funded campaign stops he has made over the last three years.

[krkaufman]

1. Regardless of what he said

No matter what he said, the lack of an *imminent* threat makes the invasion and occupation illegal -- relative to international law. (I believe; sans verification)

[wtmusic]

4. Absolutely--Article 51 of the UN Charter

specifically forbids military action unless in response to an 'armed attack'. The charter is not only international law but US law, by virtue of the Constitution which makes any international treaties the law of the land as well.

[ma4t]

12. be careful

Following that logic then the U.S. invasion of Haiti during the Clinton administration was every bit as "illegal" as the invasion of Iraq. In fact even more so because there was not even a fig leaf of a U.N. resolution regarding Haiti vs. several regarding Iraq. Speaking of the Haiti invasion wasn't it also a "unilateral" action? I don't recall France, Germany, Russia, the U.K. or any of the other likely suspects taking part in that operation.

As my aunt used to say, "It's time to tell the truth and shame the devil." The overwhelming majority of those against the war in Iraq are opposed because it was done by Mr. Bush, not because it violates any principle they hold dear. Why do I make this claim? Because none of those who are so vocal in opposition to the Iraq war had anything to say against the Haiti invasion. There was no group like "Not in Our Name" or ANSWER formed to oppose the Haiti invasion, no congressmen went to Haiti to argue against the war, there were no protest marches, no one made it into a campaign issue. Why? Because that was Mr. Clinton's war. It's time to face facts; those on the left are every bit as hypocritical on the war as they think those on the right are.

If anyone takes exception to my conclusions it will be easy to prove me wrong. Just provide a link to any news story about a congressman making a trip to Haiti before we invaded similar to the trips several made to Iraq. Alternatively, show a link to a news story about any massive protest march similar to those organized by ANSWER, or name a single candidate for federal office who made the illegality of the Haiti invasion a campaign issue. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

[John BigBootay]

14. Wow! I'm shocked this one is being ignored...

I was looking forward to hearing the refutation.

[Brotherjohn]

19. Jeezus. Do a basic Google search before you spout off.

Read this:
http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N94/312/22/PDF/N9431222.pdf?OpenElement
In case you don't have Acrobat Reader, then read this:
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/UN-Security-Council-Resolution-940

If you're that unfamiliar with the U.N. and International Law, what the poster was referring to were cases where the U.N. charter (which IS U.S. Law, BTW) states are legitimate reasons for war when the U.N. Security Council does not specifically authorize it.

U.N. Security Council Resolution 940 specifically authorized the formation of a multinational force "to use all necessary means to facilitate the departure from Haiti of the military leadership, consistent with the Governors Island Agreement, the prompt return of the legitimately elected President and the restoration of the legitimate authorities of the Government of Haiti."

The U.S. and 4 of 11 Carribbean nations supplied troops to this multinational effort. The U.N. Security Council approved the resolution 12-0, including France, Germany, Russia, and the U.K. (with Brazil and China abstaining).

Maybe THAT's why there was no "ANSWER" and no massive protests, no campaign issue and no trips by opposing Congressmen.

Of course, it's not all just about "international law". It's about whether the war was worth it, what the costs of that war were, and whether we were deceived into thinking the war was necessary. We were misled into thinking this war was necessary, we went against international law and public opinion (that was just a part of it), and we initiated an unnecessary, unprecedented pre-emptive war which has exacted and will continue to exact untold costs on the United states.

[HootieMcBoob]

22. in fact that's what the right wingers were so up in arms about

they didn't like the idea that the US was there (in Haiti) working with the UN.

[ma4t]

28. I'm still spouting

OK, let's see.

The U.S. plus 4 Caribbean nations equals multinational; the U.S. plus 34 nations equals unilateral. Right.......

You correctly point out that there was, in fact, a U.N. resolution calling for the use of "all necessary means". Was there similar language in any of the U.N. resolutions regarding Iraq?

As to why there was no "ANSWER" and no massive protests over Haiti, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. However; I think anyone would be hard-pressed to make an intellectually honest case that Haiti was any less "unilateral" or "pre-emptive" or "unecessary" than Iraq. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the Iraq war was multi-national or necessary; just that the same arguments the protestors made prior to Iraq were equally valid prior to Haiti. For some reason thought, they were silent on Haiti. It looks to me like a classic case of "whose ox is being gored".

[Brotherjohn]

29. Point by point response:

"The U.S. plus 4 Caribbean nations equals multinational; the U.S. plus 34 nations equals unilateral. Right......."

I wasn't making the case that the force in Haiti was more or less "multinational" than that in Iraq. I was making the case that there was a specific U.N. Resolution authorizing a multi-national force in Haiti, whereas you said there was not.

Let's be realistic: "multi-national", in good causes and bad, is always going to mean "mostly the U.S." simply because we have the strongest military in the world. That being said, in Haiti, at least the "multi-national" force included neigbhbors of the country concerned. There was some relevance to them being there (even the U.S., as we had streams of refugees pouring onto our shores). Iraq's neighbors wanted nothing to do with Bush's 2003 war. They obviously didn't feel threatened. Bush got the U.K. and Australia to jump on board, but the bulk of his "coalition" was made up of states such as Eritrea, Latvia, Micronesia and Palau.

"You correctly point out that there was, in fact, a U.N. resolution calling for the use of "all necessary means". Was there similar language in any of the U.N. resolutions regarding Iraq?"

Yes. Resolution 678 in 1990 set deadlines for Iraq to comply with Res. 660, and authorized member states to use "all means necessary" to enforce 660. This triggered the Gulf War, in which there was a TRUE multi-national coalition (perhaps the closest we'll ever get, and Bush I's biggest success). Bush II tried to use this 12-year-old Resolution as justification for war in 2002, but the U.N. and the world weren't buying it. Resolution 687 (after Gulf War I) declared a formal cease-fire of ALL parties, and ther UNSC decided to remain siezed of the matter" (which, in plain English, means they decide what to do next). Resolution 1441 (2002) gave Iraq a last chance to prove it was complying, a chance which, it turns out, was necessary, since we didn't know if they were complying either (since U.N. Inspectors left in 1998). Res. 1441 laid out specifics for allowing U.N. Inspectors back in, and very specifically DID NOT include a deadline NOR an authorization for use of force in this latest situation. I say specifically because several UNSC members who voted for it made this a condition of their voting for it.

"I think anyone would be hard-pressed to make an intellectually honest case that Haiti was any less "unilateral" or "pre-emptive" or "unecessary" than Iraq."

See above. The UNSC specifically did NOT authorize use of force, and most member nations (including most in the UNSC) were on record as saying that they were against it (at least until the inspectors finished with their work and the U.N. made a decision). Bush II therefore went to war specifically against the wishes of the U.N. Security Council and most member nations... not to mention against the will of most of their populations (even the ones in the "coalition", such as the UK). That is what makes Iraq more unilateral.

As to whether it was more "necessary", that, again, deals with the relative costs and benefits of Iraq and Haiti. Knowing what we know now about the "threat" from Iraq (and what MANY were already saying before the war), I do not think it was at all necessary, given the extensive costs in lives, reputation and dollars. One can make a case that Haiti was unnecessary, but the costs were relatively microscopic, and at least we stemmed the tide of refugees to our shores.

[ma4t]

30. I think we agree more than disagre

Thank you for an informed, reasoned response.

It seems to me that we agree on more points than we disagree. Like you I agree that in today's world "multinational" means "mostly the U.S.". It seems that both the Haitian invasion and the Iraq war (which one could make a credible argument that it is a continuation of the Gulf war) were sanctioned by U.N. resolutions.

The main point that I was trying to make is that those who make arguments against the Iraq war based on preemption, unilateralism, or lack of threat are basically full of it if they did not make those same arguments against the invasion of Haiti. I can't conceive that any rational person would claim that Haiti represented a larger military threat to the U.S. than Iraq and if the stream of Haitian refugees was a justification for invasion then why do we not now occupy Mexico? The most likely explanation I can see for all the furor now and the lack of concern during the Haitian invasion is that one war was authored by Mr. Clinton and the other by Mr. Bush. Sorry, that's just the way I see it.

Quite frankly, I think that any use of military force should have the strongest possible justification. I'm amazed that so many questioned why we needed to be in Iraq had no question at all about Haiti. Then again maybe I'm not so amazed after all.

[Brotherjohn]

31. I think we agree on some, but as to the "unilateral" issue...

... the fact that there was a clear, specific U.N. resolution on Haiti means that Clinton's action in Haiti was NOT unilateral. That is NOT ambiguous or open to debate at all. The U.N. Security Council unanimously and specifically authorized it. Number of nations participating is not what makes it uni- or multi-lateral. Whether it is sanctioned by the body of nations is what determines that.

As to how necessary it was, etc, no I do not think it was a military threat, nor did the U.S. claim as much then. It was a relatively limited action at relatively limited cost, to re-install a democratically elected government that had been removed by military force, in our back yard. The reasons for the action did not deal with a direct "threat" to us, but with restoring a democracy and stability to the region. If Bush had made that case to the U.N. re Iraq, and the Security Council had approved it, I would have been fine with it.

One could, perhaps, make an argument that the Iraq war is a continuation of the Gulf War (and Bush in fact has). But one could also make a credible argument that it is not at all, and that is where most nations lie in this argument, as well as the U.N. Security Council. The U.N. itself, most members of the U.N. Security Council, and most member nations, specifically said they were against this action. There was no new authorization for use of military force by the U.N., and the UNSC declared a formal cease fire 12 years prior. If you want to say they can make a credible case based on a 12-year-old resolution where the governing body responsible for the resolution says that there is NOT a case for military action now, then go ahead. I don't think that is very credible, however.

[LincolnMcGrath]

32. CEASE THIS THREAD JACKING IMMEDIATELY

:pals:

[Brotherjohn]

34. Okay. I'm sorry. I get sucked in. To your original point...

... yes, he said it was imminent... whether using those direct words or not is irrelevant. He repeatedly said that it was a threat about which we could not wait. That, by definition, is an "imminent threat". Not to mention posts by many below quoting Bush and admin officials using words like imminent, immediate, and (my favorite) Cheney's "mortal threat".

"No! It wasn't imminent! It was just a threat that, if we did not take care of immediately, would KILL us!"

I think your original post was a sequel of sorts to my earlier one ("I’m tired of this “same policy as the prior administration” crap!"; http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1056144). Feel free to go over their and hijack it as "retribution". I deserve it.

[LincolnMcGrath]

37. Yah, I got the idea from your thread

:yourock:

[Brotherjohn]

38. I guess we're all tired of a LOT of crap.

[niceypoo]

41. We were invited into Haiti

We were invited into Haiti by the elected president of that country. The GOP backed the military government that he was elected to replace, thus they were against it.

[tkmorris]

26. Edited: white noise

[bryant69]

5. Intenational Law is a lot like Mice Voting to Bell the Cat

It doesn't really work unless the cat agrees to it.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[wtmusic]

6. The cat has agreed to it

Six American delegates not only signed the UN Charter in 1945, but wrote most of it.

[DarkPhenyx]

2. To hell with International Law!

Are we going to let IL tell us what we can and cannot do under our constitution?

That would be one of the many brain dead arguments that I've heard them use.

[qb]

3. Sure, Bush & everyone else clubbed us over the head

with endless "Imminent Threat" innuendo, but that's okay, because he didn't actually SAY it. Rethuglicans are such slime.

[never cry wolf]

7. Here is what they actually said

http://www.angelfire.com/creep/gwbush/remindus.html

[Merlin]

18. WOW! This is EXTRAORDINARY! Do not miss this, folks! n/t

.

[rocktivity]

8. Well, if the threat WASN'T imminent,

then we HAD no grounds on which to invade! Sorry, Georgie, we've got you coming AND going?

rocknation

[mistertrickster]

9. They're right, he ISN'T the Pres . . . but didn't he say "imminent peril"

I'm pretty sure he did.

[zbdent]

10. Rather amusing to go back to the congressional record online

and look up "imminent threat" during the Clinton years.

Usually used when the Republicans wanted to block any kind of military aid (to countries with human rights violations) that Clinton proposed.

[SoCalDem]

20. 137,000 references here

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22imminent+threat%22&btnG=Google+Search

[Brotherjohn]

11. This is a case of "damned if they did, damned if they didn't".

If he never said it and he tries to stand by that, then he's admitting, whether he wants to or not, that the war wasn't necessary at all (and arguably illegal... international law and all that above).

If he said it, then he lied and/or was horribly incompetent... either of which would be a case for impeachment. At best, he made a horrible miscalculation that has cost untold damages, dollars, and death.

Besides which, whether he actually said the word imminent or not is irrelevant. He (and everyone in his administration) repeatedly IMPLIED it over many months. "Mushroom cloud", anyone?

[LincolnMcGrath]

15. 45 minutes?

[SoCalDem]

13. Remember "Subliminal Guy" from SNL?? That's what they did

People hear what they THINK you said, as much as what you said..

That's why none of this is accidental.. They set this up.. and they knew that people would think what they wanted them to think, and yet if it blew up in their faces, they had the "plausible deniability thing"..

What a bunch of evil bastards.. They scare simple people out of their minds and then play word games on them too :(

[LincolnMcGrath]

16. Linguistic Framing Read this

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml

[truizm]

24. Interesting article...

Know any good introductory books on Linguistics?

[buycitgo]

17. here are some quotes......how close can they cut it?

Last October, a reporter put this to Ari Fleischer: “Ari, the president has been saying that the threat from Iraq is imminent, that we have to act now to disarm the country of its weapons of mass destruction, and that it has to allow the U.N. inspectors in, unfettered, no conditions, so forth.”

Fleischer’s answer? “Yes.”

...........

In January, Wolf Blitzer asked Dan Bartlett: “Is an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home.”

Bartlett’s answer? “Well, of course he is.”

..........

A month after the war, another reporter asked Fleischer, “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?”

Fleischer’s answer? “Absolutely.”

.........

“What we must not do in the face of a mortal threat is give in to wishful thinking or willful blindness.” Dick Cheney (August, 2002)

from Josh Marshall/The Hill cache
http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:rXcecjP5-UcJ:www.hillnews.com/marshall/110503.aspx++bush+called+Iraq+imminent+threat&hl=en&start=2&ie=UTF-8

from the above link, Marshall does a good job of demonstrating what junta apologists are up to:

“No member of the administration,” conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan recently wrote, “used the term ‘imminent threat’ to describe Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. No one. … Clark is repeating a lie that has been thoroughly exposed on the Internet and elsewhere, a lie that even The New York Times has stopped repeating.”
......

Critics like Sullivan want to put the onus on Democrats to untangle these silly word games if they want to talk about what we all know happened in the run-up to the war. But that’s just not how it works. Just as they can’t undo what they did, the White House and its supporters can’t undo what they said. There’s no use denying it. It was only a year ago. We were there. We remember.

Also.....I'm sure I saw a link here somewhere, too, that referenced monkeyboy actually using the word imminent WRT Saddam.

[buycitgo]

21. here's one from Rumsfeld

Testifying before the House armed services committee, he added:

"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.---september, 2002

please parse the difference between "immediate" and "imminent"

[prolesunited]

23. Depens on what the definition

of sex is and the meaning of is is? They used to go after Clinton when he parsed things, but I guess that only counts when it comes to BJs, not bombing and invading another country.

[Paranoid_Portlander]

25. Maybe Bush said "eminent" threat.

He probably doesn't know the difference between eminent and imminent.

[buycitgo]

27. emimem?

his favorite white rapster?

slim shady for dumbo?

[kaitykaity]

33. We should have a contest. . .

How many different right-wing media whores spouted
the exact same lie in the exact same way?

I heard Brit Hume say it.
I heard Bob Novak say it.
I thought I heard David Brooks say it.

How do we break the uniformity of message, the repetitive
use of a big lie.

[GumboYaYa]

35. It's a big lie. Read this from the National Security Strategy

of the United States (signed by George W. Bush and available in full here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html):

We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction—weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning.

The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian population, in direct violation of one of the principal norms of the law of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses on September 11, 2001, mass civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and these losses would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons of mass destruction.

The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction— and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.

The United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging threats, nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression. Yet in an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek the world’s most destructive technologies, the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather.

* * * * * * *

You see, Bush argues that possession of WMDs by a leader like Saddam by itself constitutes an "imminent threat." It is right there in black and white and available on the White House website, yet no one in the press has called them on this one.

[LincolnMcGrath]

36. Thanks GumboYaYa

:yourock:

[goddess40]

39. Here's a link to quotes by * and his keepers

http://billmon.org.v.sabren.com/archives/000172.html

Here's a list of the bush administration quotes about Iraq.

Even if the jerk didn't say it he danced all around it and never corrected the media that was saying it.

[Sparky McGruff]

40. I don't know if he can pronounce "imminent threat"

But he did tell us "the next warning we may have could come in the form of a mushroom cloud"

I'd say that a threat of nuclear war against the US or allies would constitute an "imminent threat"

Hair splitting from the corrupt right.

[Schmendrick54]

42. If there was no imminent threat, ...

why did we need to invade before we could procure enough body armor for all of the soldiers? How many of the 500+ dead would still be alive if we waited long enough to get the additional kevlar inserts?

Why hasn't the press asked Smirky McChimp about this?

Just wondering.

Regards,
Schmendrick

[LincolnMcGrath]

43. Great Point

And welcome to DU Schmendrick54