Now that Smirky is playing word games with the word "imminent"

[killbotfactory]

As in, he never said Iraq was an imminent threat, blah blah blah, therefore he didn't mislead anybody, etc...

Does anyone still believe that there's only a "wrinkle of difference" (Kerry's words) between the IWR (which allowed Bush to wage war at his discretion) and Biden-Lugar (which would have made Bush state that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US, and multilateral action impossible, before any unilateral invasion was made)?

[ProfessorPlum]

1. good point nt

.

[isbister]

2. Didn't bush do that anyway? n/t

[killbotfactory]

3. Huh?

If Bush had to go on record with stating, flat out, that Iraq was an imminent threat and working with the UN was impossible, wouldn't he be in deep doo-doo right now?

[bahrbearian]

4. I think he conveyed all of that ,

how could anyone believe it any other way, and he still keeps out of the doo-doo.

[killbotfactory]

5. Of course he did.

You don't warn of mushroom clouds over American cities and not convey an imminent threat.

If Biden-Lugar passed, he'd have no wiggle room. He would be in clear violation of the resolution.

What they are trying to do now is use the language of the IWR to cover his ass.

[isbister]

9. doo-doo from who?

Our Congress is controlled by republicans. They all have decided that their best course of action is to put the interests of their party over the interests of the country.

Bush's prewar statement, as required by the IWR:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html

[HFishbine]

12. Whoa!

Thanks Isbister. I had seen this before but forgot just what was in it. In his determination of the reasons for war, Bush concluded that attacking Iraq was consistent with:

"the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

So much attention on the WMD falacy, shouldn't this be getting a little more attention? Afterall, it is the most blatant lie.

[rucky]

6. He didn't say imminent on purpose

He wants preemptive war - before the threat becomes imminent.

Don't fall into the trap of trying to prove him wrong.

[GumboYaYa]

7. Bush's own words damn him.

Here is language from the National Security Strategy of the United States (signed by Bush):

For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.

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. (Emphasis added)

Here is a link:http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html

* * * * * * *

In essence the White House policy is that a gathering threat constitutes am imminent threat for purposes of satisfying the conventions of interantional law that require an "imminent threat" for a preemptive invasion.

[HereSince1628]

8. IWR Sec 3. a. 1 and b. 1

3a1 = "defend the national security of the United states against continuing threat posed by Iraq;"

Isn't a continuing national security threat a _current_ threat as in it's a threat "now?"

#b1 = "reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq"

Same argument as above...

[killbotfactory]

10. That's the whole problem, there's different levels of threats

And Bush is playing word games and using the vague language of the IWR to cover his ass.

[isbister]

11. And bush used 'em all

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html

bush didn't have to cover his ass because the republican Congress is there to do it for him