Imminent Threat

The recent "meme" amongst the right is that the administration never claimed that Iraq was an "imminent threat." When pressed with evidence of the administration's tactics to make Iraq look like an imminent threat, however, the argument devolves to, "the administration never said the words 'imminent threat.'" That is, as long as the administration did not use those exact words every argument making a similar point is fully excused.

Now, it's clear that the right's argument is just silly. Who cares if the exact words weren't used when administration officials were talking of "gathering" threats (a synonym of "imminent") or not waiting for "mushroom clouds"? It's just absurd.

For example:

QUESTION: The question, though, is it the President's view right now that the threat from Saddam is a very imminent one, that he could strike out at any moment and has intention to?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think, from the President's point of view, it remains a very grave threat.

But I thought I'd do a quick search to see if it was actually true that the administration never called Iraq an "imminent threat."

I hit the White House web site and did a search for "imminent."

And wouldn't you know, in the 90 hits (not all relevant, such as "imminent bankruptcy"), the administration officials never once say, literally, "Iraq is an imminent threat." Of course, never do they say, "Iraq is not an imminent threat." Indeed, other than the President's statement in the SOTU where he says other people say we should wait until the threat is "imminent" (and then goes on to explain how, essentially, it should be considered "imminent" in a Post-9/11 world), when asked, no one in the administration has ever denied that the argument for war was about imminence.

This is not to say that the results didn't provide plenty of evidence that the Administration signs on to the whole idea that Iraq was an imminent threat.

For example:

QUESTION: 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.

MR. FLEISCHER: Yes.

Feel free to check the context here. It adds nothing to Ari's confirmation that indeed, the President was saying that Iraq was an imminent threat.

Similarly, the following press briefing:

QUESTION: Well, we went to war, didn't we, to find these -- because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn't that true?

MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely. One of the reasons that we went to war was because of their possession of weapons of mass destruction. And nothing has changed on that front at all. We said what we said because we meant it. We had the intelligence to report it. Secretary Powell said it.

Go and check the context. Nothing there.

And another briefing where Helen Thomas gives Ari hell:

QUESTION: There is no imminent threat.

MR. FLEISCHER: This is where -- Helen, if you were President you might view things differently. But you have your judgment and the President has others.

Then there was the President's letter written September 19, 2003 expressing the actions being undertaken as part of the war on terror, which the invasion of Iraq has repeatedly been linked to:

In furtherance of our worldwide efforts against terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the United States, our friends and allies, and our forces abroad, we continue operations in other areas around the globe.

So our war on terror is an "effort against terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the United States...." Iraq is attacked as part of our war on terror. Logically, Iraq is an imminent threat. ... I feel like I'm insulting everyone's intelligence laying this out.

Of course, the first question will be, "why didn't he mention Iraq in that letter? Doesn't that mean it wasn't an imminent threat?" Ask yourself which of the following options is more likely: Iraq is the one opponent in our war on terror that isn't one of the "imminent threat" nations, isn't part of our war on terror, or he is including it as part of "operations in other areas around the globe." For example, the letter from a year earlier also talking of "imminent threat[s]"

And another:

Q You don't deny the President --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- that the President took.

Q -- told the American people that there was an imminent, direct threat?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President made it very clear that we need to act to confront threats in a post-September 11th world before it's too late, before those threats reach our shores and it's too late.

The first response from the freeper crowd is, "he didn't say 'imminent threat'! He said 'before those threats reach our shores and it's too late' which doesn't mean imminent ... right?"

The implication being that McClellan is denying that Iraq is an imminent threat through his careful wording. The problem with the freeper-type argument comes further in the same press briefing where, when asked whether Iran is an "imminent threat", he demonstrates what a "no" looks like:

Q Scott, two questions. First, on Iran. Can you clarify, does the President believe that Iran represents and imminent threat to the United States?

MR. McCLELLAN: We've never said that. We've said that we have serious concerns about their nuclear activities, that there is no reason other than that they would be pursuing nuclear weapons, for them to have those -- to have nuclear energy.

Q But the threat is not imminent to the United States.

MR. McCLELLAN: We've never said that.

Looks bad for those who want to interpret McClellan's earlier statements as a denial.

Here's what another implicit endorsement looks like:

Q But it's definitely fair to say that there was significant debate and a number of questions about how imminent the threat was and if it was imminent enough to actually go to war against Saddam Hussein, right before the war. And what Democrats are saying is that the evidence the President gave at the State of the Union and others gave elsewhere now doesn't really hold up, in terms of how imminent the threat was.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, not at all. And, in fact, I'm glad you brought that up. Because I've talked about the large body of evidence relating to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and I won't go back through that. But it was something that was well documented by the United States and by the international community. And, remember, there was a congressional resolution passed last year stating very clearly in an overwhelming way the support for the steps that we were taking.

We live in a post-September 11th world now. Those vivid and tragic events of September 11th brought to light the threats that we face in a very real way and we are going to address them. The President will not ignore growing threats, because we cannot afford to wait and see American lives lost because of the threats that exist.

One has to assume McClellan is a total idiot if he says he's talked about the "large body of evidence relating to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein" if that threat wasn't an "imminent" one. That is, if that evidence wasn't to demonstrate an "imminent" threat, what type of threat was it and why didn't he say it was a different type of threat? Those are the types of hoops you have to jump through to maintain that the White House wasn't saying it was an "imminent threat." I must say, righties must be exhausted.

Similarly was this earlier exchange with Ari:

Q But if, indeed, the threat was imminent before we went in, in the middle of March, why not have as many people as possible on the ground, regardless of their affiliation, to find these weapons? Because the last thing that you want is to have them get into --

MR. FLEISCHER: Because the coalition is leading this effort and will continue to do so, for those reasons.

Once again, no denial of the underlying "imminent threat." Ari must be pretty stupid too.

More of Ari's stupidity or acknowledgement that the threat is "imminent":

Q Some of those who have been reluctant to go along with us have, in essence, asked the question, what's the urgency, what is a sign that this is an imminent, like, immediate threat?

MR. FLEISCHER: And in that point what the President would tell you is that, one, Saddam Hussein has committed to giving up the weapons of mass destruction, and if the United Nations is to have a meaningful place in our world, the United Nations resolutions vis-a-vis Iraq to give up the weapons of mass destruction must be enforced. Otherwise, the world can never rest easy because he'll continue to have them.

Two, September 11th changed everything for the United States and, indeed, for this President. While the notion of containment may previously have made some sense prior to September 11th, September 11th changed everything because it shows that we are indeed a vulnerable country, that threats to us cannot be contained. As the President said in his State of the Union speech, imagine if any of the hijackers on September 11th had not only driven their planes into buildings, but were armed with a vial, a canister, a crate of a biological or a chemical weapon. The damage done to our country would have been massive. The risk remains and the risk is nowhere greater than under Saddam Hussein.

And another,

Q Can you substantiate the credibility of the President's statement that Iraq is capable of, or direct an imminent attack on the United States? And I have a follow-up.

MR. FLEISCHER: The President does believe that Iraq is a direct threat to the United States as a result of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, particularly biological and chemical weapons.

Here's an interesting bit. A little while back, the White House, through the National Security Council, issued a paper titled "The National Security Strategy." In it, the White House lays out its criteria for engaging in a preeminent attack on a foreign nation. It goes on at length to qualify when it should be undertaken, and to that end, describes particular qualities of nations that are suitable:

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.

What this paper is arguing that while the standard of "imminent threat" is appropriate, there needs to be an adaptation of the concept to include nations, which apparently, resemble Iraq, and the threat that they pose. This paper makes clear that the White House would redefine "imminent threat" to include dangers that one would also call "gathering." Thus, everytime "gathering" is used rather than imminent, it actually indicates that while the White House deems the danger "imminent" in a Post-9/11 world, it understands that it hasn't fully affected the redefinition.

President Bush explains why we need this new definition:

Saddam Hussein is a threat to our nation. September the 11th changed the strategic thinking, at least, as far as I was concerned, for how to protect our country. My job is to protect the American people. It used to be that we could think that you could contain a person like Saddam Hussein, that oceans would protect us from his type of terror. September the 11th should say to the American people that we're now a battlefield, that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist organization could be deployed here at home.

White House Link

And as Condi Rice explains the National Security Strategy:

And new technology requires new thinking about when a threat actually becomes "imminent." So as a matter of common sense, the United States must be prepared to take action, when necessary, before threats have fully materialized.

Thus, if "imminent threat" is the standard for "preemptive actions" and we invaded Iraq as a "preemptive action" then Iraq is an imminent threat according to Bush Administration calculus. Again, sorry for insulting the intelligence of the non-idiots out there.

Interestingly, the paper "endorses" the fact that "imminent threat" is synonymous with "gathering danger" if the Thesaurus wasn't enough for you (look it up). Consequently, the following statement by the President is an argument for "imminent threat":

The House of Representatives has spoken clearly to the world and to the United Nations Security Council: the gathering threat of Iraq must be confronted fully and finally ....

State Department Link

Or is it just a coincidental choice of words?

Of course, the use of "gathering" and to claim that it doesn't count as a claim of "imminence" is disingenuous when the White House is attempting to redefine "imminent." The legalistic stance is that "if we wanted to say 'imminent' we would" and thus the freepers have ammunition to claim that the Administration never used the literal words "imminent threat." However, that's a difference without meaning when one party is attempting to redefine the words.

What the White House is attempting to create is similar to, for example, what shock-DJs do to get around FCC rules. Instead of violating rules against using "fuck" on the radio, shock-DJs use "friggin'." If ever fined by the FCC, they merely have to point to the literal word used, rather than the meaning obviously intended to convey. It's juvenile and disingenuous, but it works.

However, in contrast to shock-DJs who, I imagine, rarely describe the methodology and purpuse for the coding, the White House has done so with its National Security Strategy paper.

And on that recoding:

Q A direct and imminent threat to the United States. That's what sold Congress.

MR. McCLELLAN: It was a grave and gathering threat, and the President is --

Somebody tell the White House that if they want to pussy foot around "imminent threat" they should stop using synonyms. To wit:

Entry: imminent
Function: adjective
Definition: at hand
Synonyms: approaching, brewing, close, coming, expectant, fast-approaching, following, forthcoming, gathering, immediate, impending, in prospect, in store, in view, ineluctable, inescapable, inevasible, inevitable, likely, looming, menacing, near, nearing, next, nigh, overhanging, possible, probable, threatening, to come, unavoidable, unescapable

Thesaurus.com ... I looked it up for you. I'm such a nice guy.

In any case, the Thesaurus definition is evidence of the whole irony of the situation. While the White House attempts to redefine what exactly is an "imminent threat", they use a word that is actually the synonym for "imminent."

I should note that the redefinition is of the term of art "imminent threat." The irony only functions in the reductive and literalistic sense of making comparisons amongst things like Thesaurus entries. Of course, the literalistic sense is the one that is adhered to when the righties try to argue that the White House never used the words "imminent threat." If one looks at the meaning of "imminent threat," one can see numerous examples of the White House conveying that meaning. If one looks literalistically at the use of "imminent threat," then the White House has been much more defensible.

Another example of this in-progress, redefinition:

QMy question -- I don't know if you've addressed this in the past, but is the President at all concerned in all of this talk about intelligence that some of his supporters and some of the people in this country may feel misled at all about the imminence of Saddam Hussein's threat or -- as opposed to whether or not the threat could be contained? Because that was really the debate, whether or not Saddam Hussein could be contained or whether he was an imminent threat. Some of the things that you're talking about go straight to the argument about imminence. So does the President feel or is he concerned that Americans might feel misled?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, the President was very clear when he outlined the grave and gathering threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his regime. The reason we acted was because it was real and because of the new threats that we faced in a post-September 11 world, the potential nexus between outlaw regimes and terrorists or terrorist organizations, where the damage would be far greater and far more tragic and horrific than anything we've imagined before, if that came to bear.

Link

Yet another of the subtle, redefinitions, however, in this case, to contradict a question that said that the threat sounded "non-imminent," Ari went so far as to use the "gathering" synonym to contradict the implication of the reporters question:

Q The subsequent question I have for you is, the President in his speech two nights ago described the Iraqi threat as one that could be one to five years into the future to obtain either a nuclear weapon or something that could strike us, a non-imminent threat. In the President's mind, is he in this action, setting a precedent that the United States could now act, either preemptively or preventively, depending on how you define it, against a threat that is not an imminent one against the United States?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, here's how the President approaches this. He believes, number one, based on the reviews conducted by the attorneys, that there already exists a legal basis both in international law, as well as in domestic law, for the use of force to disarm Saddam Hussein. And that is also found in Security Council Resolution 678 and 687, as well as 1441. The President also believes that there is a gathering threat from Iraq, that with the failure by Saddam Hussein to disarm of his weapons of mass destruction presents a threat to the security of the United States. And therefore, he has come to the conclusion that after exhausting the diplomacy, that military force must be used if Saddam Hussein does not get out of the country.

That summarizes it for him. In terms of precedents, et cetera, David, I think some people have made the case -- and different people will have different historical views of these things -- but you can look at the Cuban missile crisis, of course, where there was a decision made without the United States being "attacked" to conduct a quarantine or an embargo, which, of course, international lawyers will tell you is an act of war.

And so I think you're going to find the historians, legal scholars will have differing conclusions about these matters. But the conclusion the President reaches is that Iraq's failure to disarm presents a threat to the people of the United States and, therefore, he is prepared to use force.

In addition, Ari conventiently ties the international law aspect of the Security paper as well.


So what does this all mean? It means, first of all, that the White House is very careful in its use of language. That shouldn't come as a surprise, but it's noted. Second, the White House has endorsed the idea that Iraq was an "imminent threat" through both confirmation ("absolutely") or non-denial of the premise when asked about the "imminent threat." Third, the White House gets that it can't really make the argument for an "imminent threat." As a result, officials are trying to redefine broadly what constitutes an "imminent threat" to national security in order to jam the war with Iraq into preexisting norms of international law.

Lastly, it demonstrates you have to be a disingenuous asshole to claim that the White House wasn't trying to convey the idea that Iraq was an imminent threat.

UPDATE: Went from Merriam to Thesaurus.com.
posted by A_B at 3:48 AM