L.A. Times Repeats the “Imminent Threat” Canard
How many times do we have to go through this, folks?
Our venerable L.A. Times editorializes this morning:
If the Iraqi people’s freedom was once seen as merely a bonus from an unavoidable war, that freedom has moved to center stage as the war’s primary justification. That’s because contrary to what Bush said in a previous State of the Union speech, we now know the threat posed by Hussein was not imminent.
Sigh.
Once more, with feeling:
President Bush did not say in any State of the Union address that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein was “imminent.” In fact, he said the exact opposite:
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
So where did the editorialist get the idea that Bush had said in a State of the Union speech that Iraq posed an “imminent threat”? Perhaps from reading his own fact-challenged paper. The day after Bush’s 2003 State of the Union speech, Times reporter Maura Reynolds penned a story titled — you guessed it — Bush Calls Iraq Imminent Threat:
A somber and steely President Bush, speaking to a skeptical world Tuesday in his State of the Union address, provided a forceful and detailed denunciation of Iraq, promising new evidence that Saddam Hussein’s regime poses an imminent danger to the world and demanding the United Nations convene in just one week to consider the threat.
I guess it’s a little late to seek a correction of that 2003 story. But I have written the L.A. Times Readers’ Representative seeking a retraction of the statement in this morning’s editorial.
P.S. Please understand: I do not deny that officials in the Bush Administration have made statements along these lines. As the Spinsanity folks note, Ari Fleischer agreed with reporters’ characterizations of the threat as “imminent,” and Rumsfeld characterized the threat as “immediate.”
But Bush himself, by contrast, “argued that Iraq was an enemy for which the concept of ‘imminent threat’ was insufficient.” And one of the places where he did so was in his 2003 State of the Union address.
P.P.S. Thanks to alert reader Ken K.
UPDATE: Welcome to Instapundit readers. If you are interested in media bias, especially at the L.A. Times, please consider bookmarking the main page.
[…] Trainer — Patterico @ 5:07 pm
Regular readers will recall that I recently wrote the L.A. Times to complain about an editorial which made the […]
Patterico's Pontifications » L.A. Times: Our Mistake in Repeating the Imminent Threat Canard Is “Not Correctable” (0c6a63) — 2/9/2005 @ 1:07 amIn their world, they talk and you listen. They don’t listen. We can correct them a hundred times on “WMDs were the sole rationale for the war,” and “imminent threat” and “Bush lied about Niger,” “about WMDs,” about whatever, and they will never hear. They can’t learn, but exposure by the new media can cause them to lose their credibility, their readership, their students, and their electoral offices until eventually they become an insignificant remnant. Unfortunately, its going to take a lot of chipping away. Too bad there is no billionaire willing to buy out one of California’s five big lefty newpapers, fire the leftists, and take the paper statewide. Such a paper could gain 40% of the market in every city and 80% in the red counties. Is there any way to put a buyout together from small investors? I’ll put in a thousand.
Alec Rawls (b439d7) — 2/3/2005 @ 10:16 pmIt’s simple really, they’re [LA Times et. al] trying to lay down a trail of breadcrumbs so future historians will find and use their version instead of the facts.
Mark (630173) — 2/3/2005 @ 10:57 pmYep. Bush said that we can’t wait until the threat is imminent. Being imminent means it is going to happen.
That combined with Iraq responding to the 18 UN resolutions with
“maybe we have nukes, maybe we don’t”, makes me really not have
a problem with Bush going in.
That said, all this is the far past. The Kennedy/Pelosi/Reid
spamboy (91b3b2) — 2/3/2005 @ 11:15 pmchorus is absolutely ridiculous, and I am glad they are damaging
their party so much. They are wrong on so many other issues the
less respectability they have the better.
The MSM’s problem is their memes bounce around so much that Dan Rather and the LAT just can’t keep track of what’s real anymore.
Sad.
TallDave (553f66) — 2/4/2005 @ 12:05 amGreat job, as usual. And it is a (never too late) reminder that I have an unfulfilled New Rear’s resolution about updating my blogroll.
Tom Maguire (1d5378) — 2/4/2005 @ 12:07 amGreat post. I’ve got a similar analysis on my No Oil for Pacifists blog.
No Oil for Pacifists (cea493) — 2/4/2005 @ 12:23 amThe dog trainer’s editors only listen to the voices in their heads. They gave up on reality a very, very long time ago; it just wasn’t satisfying to their worldview. So much easier to listen to what really isn’t there…
kschlenker (be3b07) — 2/4/2005 @ 1:30 amA while ago I joked about how the LA Times Food section would look if it had the same bias – add a splash of basil and chutney to your dish to keep your guests’ minds of Bush’s mess in Iraq. This has finally happened in the Wednesday article about what to fix for your Super Bowl party.
The commander in chief’s nemesis, pretzels, along with tortilla chips and black bean salsa, should be served first, while the choking risk is lowest and everyone’s sitting up straight, before sacks, fumbles, interceptions and blown field goals assume cataclysmically throat-tightening proportions.
Ladainian (91b3b2) — 2/4/2005 @ 1:50 amThey should have also mentioned that “Bush lied”. The irony of the left is that if you ask them about the lies they inevitably return to the Yellow cake-Africa story. Funny, but I thought Bush simply believed bad intel, along with many other democrats. When you point the left to Joe Wilson’s chronicled misrepresentations-his wife’s role in getting the job, his reporting of forged documents that he stated ‘he had seen’-but actually had not-you get the idea that he is a inveterate liar- “Justoneminute”-(a blog) has a excellent list of his multiple misrepresentation, BUT if the left believes they can say that Bush is a liar (It’s a slam dunk, Mr. President) when he presents info he believes that is later put in doubt, then clearly the left has also lied-in using the faulty intel of Joe Wilson.
mark (61ec47) — 2/4/2005 @ 8:52 amProps for quoting Buffy.
peter (1755e4) — 2/4/2005 @ 9:14 amThe “Imminent Threat” Canard
Dean's World (11ee8e) — 2/4/2005 @ 9:15 amSince this week we’re reminding people about false statements about the Iraq liberation, this seems timely: Patterico punctures, for about the eleventy-seventh time, the
Read here, “Iraq, Libya, . . . Almost Had Islmic Nuke.”
rpd1 (42e3f7) — 2/4/2005 @ 6:36 amSorry link broke for:
“Iraq, Libya, and N. Korea almost built Islamic Nuke”
Link Here
How about a preview button?:–)
rpd1 (42e3f7) — 2/4/2005 @ 6:43 amYou folks are a bunch of geniuses here.
JFisher (478558) — 2/4/2005 @ 6:49 amI think Mark is right. The left has to decide if Bush is a liar or a moron and stick to it. Meanwhile, the right can keep pretending that Bush never promised us WMD’s in Iraq, AlQaeda-Saddam connections, that we’d be greeted as liberators, cheaper oil, etc. In fact, as I recall the State of the Union in 2003, Bush said something like: “Clearly, there are no WMD’s in Iraq, Iraq has no connection to the terrorists who attacked us, and Saddam has effectively been contained (and a good business partner to many of my sponsors). However, I firmly believe that Iraqis are uniquely deserving of democracy, so I would like to spend 200 billion dollars and 1,400 American lives on an indefinite occupation that, while it may or may not destabilize the region, certainly will provide my administration with numerous photo ops of people voting, me in a flight suit, etc. Remember 9/11 and let’s roll.” And he has been true to his promise.
Cody (97833e) — 2/4/2005 @ 7:26 amhttp://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n03/wein01_.html
It’s not like Bush is lying about a looming crisis RIGHT NOW or anything.
Cody (97833e) — 2/4/2005 @ 7:28 amI love how the Republicans stressed the WMDs and instilled a lot of fear in the American people when trying to justify this war. Now that everyone knows the WMDs were never even there, the Republicans have to downplay their fuckup and say that it never really was that important, that Hussein was a tyrant and needed to be removed. Well what about Iran and South Korea and all of the other dictators that need to be removed. Quit being a bunch of sheep and taking everything this administration feeds you as the truth. As the past indicates, you will eventually find out that there were a lot of lies squeezed in there as well.
David C. (21828c) — 2/4/2005 @ 7:38 amI’m not too hopeful, based on this post and the previous comments, that any of the following evidence will be viewed with minds that can comprehend, but here’s for trying:
Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
– George W. Bush, speech to UN General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002
The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq.
– George W. Bush, Nov. 23, 2002
So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons
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.
– George W. Bush, address to the U.S., March 17, 2003
The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.
– George W. Bush, address to U.S., March 19, 2003
You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons….They’re illegal. They’re against the United Nations resolutions, and we’ve so far discovered two [the labs were later judged to not contain any such weapons, that they most likely were used for weather balloons]. And we’ll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong. We found them.
– George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 31, 2003
The backpedaling begins:
We never believed that we’d just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
– Donald Rumsfeld, Fox News interview, May 4, 2003
U.S. officials never expected that “we were going to open garages and find” weapons of mass destruction.
– Condoleeza Rice, Reuters interview, May 12, 2003
I just don’t know whether it was all destroyed years ago – I mean, there’s no question that there were chemical weapons years ago – whether they were destroyed right before the war [or] whether they’re still hidden.
– Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne, press briefing, May 13, 2003
I don’t believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons. [SEE NEXT QUOTE]
– Donald Rumsfeld, Senate appropriations subcommittee on defense hearing, May 14, 2003
We believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.
– Dick Cheney, NBC’s Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
They may have had time to destroy them, and I don’t know the answer.
– Donald Rumsfeld, remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations, May 27, 2003
It was a surprise to me then – it remains a surprise to me now – that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it’s not for lack of trying. We’ve been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they’re simply not there.
– Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, press interview, May 30, 2003
I think some in the media have chosen to use the word ‘imminent.’ Those were not words we used. We used ‘grave and gathering’ threat. [SEE NEXT QUOTE]
– White House spokesman Scott McClellan, press briefing, Jan. 31, 2004
This is about an imminent threat.
– White House spokesman Scott McClellan, press briefing, Feb. 10, 2003
After being asked whether Hussein was an “imminent” threat: Well, of course he is
– White House spokesman Dan Bartlett, CNN interview, Jan. 26, 2003
After being asked whether the U.S. went to war because officials said Hussein’s alleged weapons were a direct, imminent threat to the U.S.: Absolutely.
– White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, May 7, 2003
And finally, some truth:
We urge you to… enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power.
– Letter to President Clinton, signed by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and others, Jan. 26, 1998, http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
The U.S. should assert its military dominance over the world to shape “the international security order in line with American principles and interests,” push for “regime change” in Iraq and China, among other countries, and “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars….While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”
– “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century,” The Project for the New American Century [members include Cheney and Rumsfeld], Sept. 2000
Judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at the same time. Not only UBL [Osama bin Laden]….Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.
– Donald Rumsfeld notes, Philadelphia Daily News, Sept. 11, 2001
For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, [as justification for invading Iraq] because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
– Paul Wolfowitz, Vanity Fair interview, May 28, 2003
From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go. Going after Saddam was topic “A” ten days after the inauguration – eight months before Sept. 11.
– former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, CBS’ 60 Minutes, Jan. 11, 2004
I don’t think they [WMD] existed. What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last [1991] Gulf War, and I don’t think there was a large-scale production program in the ’90s.
– David Kay, former chief weapons inspector of the UN Special Commission on Iraq, Reuters, Jan. 24, 2004
Intelligence “analysts never said there was an imminent threat” from Iraq before the war.
– CIA Director George Tenet, speech, Feb. 5, 2004
NOTE: Republicans impeached Clinton over a lie involving a private extramarital affair that he told in public, in which no one died. The Bush administration’s lies about Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction have contributed to the deaths of more than 500 U.S. soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians.
– Compiled by Jackson Thoreau, with help from these sources: Whiskey Bar: Free Thinking in a Dirty Glass, by Billmon, http://billmon.org.v.sabren.com/archives/000172.html; Bush Watch, by Jerry Politex, http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm; The Daily Mislead, by MoveOn.Org, http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df02052004.html; Invading Iraq not a new idea for Bush clique: Four years before 9/11, plan was set, Philadelphia Daily News, http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/2003/01/27/news/local/5025024.htm
Jackson can be emailed at jacksonthor@yahoo.com or jacksonthor@justice.com.
Home
Bill Giltner (103a54) — 2/4/2005 @ 8:10 amCody (sarcastically) stated:
“In fact, as I recall the State of the Union in 2003, Bush said something like: ‘Clearly… Iraq has no connection to the terrorists who attacked us…'”
Did you actually take a look at the Dulfer Report? Despite the soundbites you heard stating that it found no connection between Saddam and 9/11, it DOES specifically state that there was a stong link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. So… Saddam didn’t himself help plan the 9/11 attacks, but he did, you know… give them money, training grounds, support, etc. Yes, that’s in the Dulfer report, practically in the same paragraph the MSM partially quoted to say there was no connection. Funny how Dan Rather got to that one sentence and stopped reading. Coincidence I guess.
Thanks for playing. No parting gifts for you.
Strider (95eb36) — 2/4/2005 @ 8:55 amTo David C’s post –“Well what about Iran and South Korea and all of the other dictators that need to be removed.” –I quote the CHP officer who after I complained why he picked on me rather than all those cars that had been passing me: “One at a time.”
tom sargent (2a2c8d) — 2/4/2005 @ 9:41 amDavid C says: “Now that everyone knows the WMDs were never even there…” Never? Never? David, what killed all those Kurds? A bad case of indigestion? Read the Dulfer report. Ask Joe Lieberman about the information the Senate Committees received during the late 1990’s and into 2002. Try actually doing the research that many dedicated intelligence officers were doing to verify just how much of a threat Saddam posed, after proving to the world in the 1990’s that he had and used WMDs. Sorry–reciting talking points is easy. It just adds nothing of value to the discussion.
Kyle (dca2a1) — 2/4/2005 @ 9:46 amFor those who deal in semantics you are correct, however
Saddam Hussein is a treat to America – George Bush 11/3/02
I see a significant treat to the security of the United States in Iraq – Greoge Bush 11/1/02
There is real threat, in my judgement, a real and dangerous treat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein – George Bush 10/28/02
The Iraq regime is a serious and growing threat to peace. George Bush 10/16/02
The Iraq regime is a threat of Unique urgancy. George Bush 10/2/02
There’s a grave threat in Iraq. George Bush 10/2/02
The man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined. George Bush 9/26/02
So, yes in a very narrow view of the world you are correct.
David Lynch (9cc933) — 2/4/2005 @ 9:53 amAh, the irony. You tore Clinton apart for his semantic hair splitting, but when it comes down to someone you worship, well then it’s might fine. Hypocrites
zen_more (577e34) — 2/4/2005 @ 10:08 amRip & Read Blogger Podcast for February 4, 2005
Here’s what I ripped and read in today’s Podcast:
Another Canard Repeated
Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit, after painful dental surgery, and before the administration of the next scheduled painkiller, was able to point to Paterico’s Pontifica…
Rip & Read Blogger Podcast (28eb22) — 2/4/2005 @ 10:52 amWith Pres. Clinton, many of us didn’t tear him apart for “it depends on what you mean by ‘is'” [paraphrased] or similar comments. We did, however criticize his administration for failing to deal with world threats like Hussein, or Kim Jong-Il (Ah the visions of Madeliene Albright dancing with the Dear One).
Kyle (dca2a1) — 2/4/2005 @ 11:08 amAs far as hair splitting is concerned, I think the President and his supporters continue to stand by the comments quoted by Mr. Lynch. Patterico’s point is the misuse of the term “imminent” by the Times’ editors to impugn the decisions of President Bush. To the Times’ editorial staff, the only justification for pre-emptive strikes would be the “imminent” [their definition–we have irrefutable proof of the weapons, and the weapons are now being deployed offensively as we speak] threat of WMD. I agree with the President: we should not be forced to wait until those conditions are fulfilled before taking action to protect the US. Sen. Kerry used a similar definition of imminent to “nuance” his stance on the doctrine of pre-emptive strike during the campaign. I think one can safely say that approach was rejected by a majority of the voters.
David – With regard to your “unique urgency” (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-7.html), you have to remember that the President wasn’t saying that it was imminent, just that it was uniquely urgent. Clearly he meant by this simply that no other thing was exactly as urgent as the threat from Iraq – that threat could have existed years in the future, but it was still *uniquely* urgent. It’s simple, really 😉
Paul (cce31f) — 2/4/2005 @ 11:46 amRemember folks, when your splitting hairs make sure you use the thick ones
David Lynch (9cc933) — 2/4/2005 @ 11:57 amDavid,
Expand your strategic horizon just a little. Do you truly believe everything the MSM is reporting? Consider this (from above)
“Iraq, Libya, and N. Korea almost built Islamic Nuke”
Link Here
And for that matter what the MSM is not reporting that may matter greatly:
Link Here
rpd1 (42e3f7) — 2/4/2005 @ 1:01 pmRegardless of all these 9th grade debating points, and efforts to do nothing more than throw mud on the President, moving forward the US is in a great position today when you consider the outing of the nuke policies of Libya, Iraq, and the recent Iran/Ukraine deal. Consider the outing of the Iraq oil-for-food scandal as well.
All of these nasty programs flourished before 2000, and now they don’t.
Ladainian (91b3b2) — 2/4/2005 @ 1:53 pmAs a reader of the LAT for 50 years I can tell you that they have printed anti-American propaganda as “news” since the Communist shot putter from the Farm took ove 45 years ago. He is long gone but his people are still there. I gave up on them ever going back to telling the truth in 1988 when I canceled my subscrption. Of course they twist Bush’s word to make him “say” what he did not say. It is what they have done for decades and the Trib (current owners) is of the same bias so do not hold your breath waiting for honesty from LAT.
Rod Stanton (833c82) — 2/4/2005 @ 3:17 pmFolks,
The point of the post is simple. Bush didn’t say this in the SOTU. The L.A. Times says he did. They should correct it. It’s really not that complicated.
Patterico (756436) — 2/4/2005 @ 4:38 pmThe L.A.Times really should get its facts straight. President Bush called Iraq an “urgent threat,” not an “imminent threat,” and it was in a radio address, not the SOTU.
millennialpaine (e3910d) — 2/6/2005 @ 1:10 amI know that’s sarcasm, millennialpaine, but you’re absolutely right. If the paper wanted to say, “contrary to what Bush said in a radio address from September of 2002, we now know the threat posed by Hussein was not urgent” — that would be factual. What they did say, wasn’t.
I assume that you agree they should issue a correction, millennialpaine?
Patterico (756436) — 2/6/2005 @ 1:26 amYes, they should. It’s sloppy journalism. On the other hand, focusing on a distinction without a difference is a way to avoid the bigger picture: Many in the MSM and in blogs (see the top of this page), have tried, disingenuously, to distance Bush from the term “imminent,” as if he doesn’t control his top advisors and his own spokesman, or the word, “urgent,” doesn’t mean exactly the same thing.
millennialpaine (e3910d) — 2/6/2005 @ 2:24 amas if he doesn’t control his top advisors and his own spokesman
You think that every statement made by every official in the Bush administration is “controlled” by George W. Bush??? That’s a new one on me.
as if . . . the word, “urgent,” doesn’t mean exactly the same thing.
I don’t think it does, exactly. “Imminent” means “about to occur” and conveys a message about the time when the threat will materialize into something substantive. “Urgent” conveys “compelling and important” and conveys something about how important the threat is. I think one can say that the threat was important and “urgent” even if it wasn’t necessarily immediate and “imminent.”
I’m sure you will call this hairsplitting and mock it. But I think that your use of the word “exactly” is imprecise. My opinion.
Patterico (756436) — 2/6/2005 @ 8:20 amI didn’t say that Bush controls every *statement* his subordinates make. But when they make certain statements–and make them repeatedly, as his spokesman did–and he does not publicly correct those subordinates or force them to correct themselves, and in fact makes virtually the same statement, then he bears responsibility.
Check out the definition, synonyms, and usage examples for “urgent” at Dictionary.com. One definition is “conveying a sense of pressing importance.” Not just importance, but pressing, too. (One synonym for “urgent” in the Thesaurus is “immediate,” which does mean exactly the same thing as “imminent,” does it not?)
So you’re right. The two words are not exactly the same. Something that is imminent is not necessarily important, but something that is urgent is both imminent and important.
millennialpaine (e3910d) — 2/6/2005 @ 9:57 amWhile you’re relying on the thesaurus, care to explain why it doesn’t list “imminent” as a synonym for “urgent”? It’s not because it doesn’t know the word. And when you look up synonyms for “imminent” you don’t see “urgent” either.
Not that any of this is a big deal. My point is not and has never been that Bush didn’t portray Iraq as an important threat. Of course he did. He didn’t say what the Times said he said. That’s my point. I’m glad you agree they should issue a correction.
Patterico (756436) — 2/6/2005 @ 10:15 am…Many in the MSM and in blogs (see the top of this page), have tried, disingenuously, to distance Bush from the term “imminent”…
Ay, there’s the rub, Patterico. Tell me which is the greater journalistic sin: to accurately report on the Bush administration’s belief in the “imminent threat” of Iraq, yet mistakenly attribute this inherently obvious position to the wrong single speech, OR to subtly attempt to disassociate the Bush administration and their many, many claims of an imminent threat posed by Iraq, as you do right here?
Or should your blog be held to a lesser standard of journalism, the standard of partisan shilling? Because I could accept that too–with a grain of salt, of course. 😉
Obviously, I’m just yankin’ your chain, because you’re clearly not just another dittiot. But really now–the “Imminent threat canard?” As if the Bushies didn’t strive to make that case? Get real!
Tom (4a3c50) — 2/13/2005 @ 7:20 pmNice attempt at “fake but accurate,” Tom. Almost all of the “many, many claims” to which you link have the administration describing Iraq as a threat, not as an imminent one.
Xrlq (c51d0d) — 2/13/2005 @ 10:13 pmAre you trying to advance the notion that the Bush administration did not, in fact, find the situation in Iraq to be an “imminent threat?” Nor did they bill it as such, leading up to Iraq? If so, you’re on the wrong side of an attempt to rewrite history, my friend. If not…then we’re really hair-splitting, aren’t we?
Tom (301b86) — 2/14/2005 @ 4:33 amTom,
You agree that the editors of the paper should issue a correction regarding their specific assertion, right?
Patterico (756436) — 2/14/2005 @ 6:12 amTom, you are the one rewriting history. Up until the war, no one claimed a threat was immiment; the whole debate being over whether or not we could afford to wait until it was. Patterico’s actual quote vs. the Dog Trainer’s non-quote is one such example. Another was the Orange County Register, which argued passionately that it would be a mistake to attack any country that did not pose an imminent threat to us. I responded with a letter myself that began with the phrase “immiment schmimminent,” and went on to explain that if the country posed a threat at all we should deal with it on our terms and on our schedule, not wait for the situation to progress until our back was against the wall and our options much more limited. I don’t remember the precise date that I wrote the letter, but it ran in the Register on 2/10/03, well before the war began. The letter itself is no longer online, but my blog entry discussing it is.
Xrlq (c51d0d) — 2/14/2005 @ 7:06 amPatterico: Yes.
I also believe that your headline is misleading, as it implies that the Bush Administration did not trump up the immediate necessity for war in Iraq. Which, as we both know, is clearly false.
…Up until the war, no one claimed a threat was imminent…
Actually, Xrlq, as I’ve already demonstrated, several Bush administration officials DID make that exact claim, and there are many more instances of them exaggerating the threat in Iraq, specifically the WMD that everyone has since conveniently forgot about. As to whether or not there might possibly, eventually have been an imminent threat, why in the hell didn’t we let the inspectors finish their job and find out? Furthermore, I would postulate that North Korea and Iran, who possess ACTUAL WMD capability, pose MUCH more ‘imminent’ threats than Iraq ever did (or, at least they threaten to do so sooner, if that’s what this is about)
You know what pisses me off, guys? Unlike many others, before the war, I was actually concerned about the REAL threat that Iraq posed, not the hypothetical “they’re thinking about possibly maybe developing WMDs at some point…” At that time, many of us are on record, coming to the obvious conclusion that not only were there were no WMDs, but there was no working (or should we say “actionable”) relationship with al Qaeda. At any rate, thousands of carcasses later, the whole objective (find and destroy the WMDs!) and discussion leading up to the war has been Orwelled into something totally different (we’re here to liberate the Iraqi people!) and nobody at least has the decency to acknowledge that there’s been some fucked-up shit going down along the way.
I’d have a better time trusting our beloved leaders to go forward correctly if they were willing to be honest about the enormous blunders that got us in in the first place, instead of dishonoring everybody who’s perished by trying to change history whenever it’s politically expediant. I’m far more concerned with a leader who’s honest and says it like it is, than someone who doesn’t even have the balls to be straight with people AFTER the fact, if not before and during. But anyway…
Guess I didn’t take my mollified liberal pills this morning. Sorry about that.
Tom (fc1352) — 2/14/2005 @ 12:10 pmP.S. I’m fully aware that John Kerry was not that leader, so don’t even say it. I just think that “honesty” should be a non-partisan quality that BOTH sides ought to want to have in their leadership.
Tom (fc1352) — 2/14/2005 @ 12:13 pmTom, your lame attempt to rewrite history did not “demonstrate” anything. Most of the quotes didn’t say anything at all about a threat being “imminent,” and the one that does is based on a paraphrase that I frankly do no trust. I also don’t know why you’re bringing up the WMD issue in this context. The absence of the WMD we (and everybody else, including the nations that opposed the war) thought were there has nothing to do with whether or not anyone claimed an attack was “imminent.” Did you think it does, or are you just throwing out everything you can grab in hopes that something will stick?
Xrlq (816c74) — 2/14/2005 @ 1:18 pmLies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them
W.C. Varones Blog (59ce3a) — 2/22/2005 @ 1:11 pmNot only does the L.A. Times lie about what the President said, they refuse to acknowledge their mistake and use demostrably false statements in their weak explanations.
[…] Patterico’s Pontifications ” L.A. Times Repeats the “Imminent Threat” Canard … so much that Dan Rather and the LAT just can’t keep track of what’s real anymore. … Terrorism. Bear Flag League. Abortion. Election 2004. Judiciary. Music. Spy … […]
» Blog Archive » Whatever the real or imaginary concern displayed by (5689ff) — 11/7/2006 @ 5:09 am[…] Patterico’s Pontifications ” L.A. Times Repeats the “Imminent Threat” Canard … concerned about the REAL threat that Iraq posed, … so much that Dan Rather and the LAT just can’t keep track of what’s real anymore. … Terrorism. … […]
» Blog Archive » Why You Can’t Negotiate About Terrorism. The One (5689ff) — 11/18/2006 @ 8:15 am[…] Patterico’s Pontifications ” L.A. Times Repeats the “Imminent Threat” Canard … Dan Rather and the LAT just can’t keep track of what’s real anymore. … Terrorism. … […] Pingback by ” Blog Archive ” Why You Can’t Negotiate About Terrorism. … […]
» Blog Archive » FDA Bio-Terrorism Hay Records. FDA Bioterrorism Record Keeping. (5689ff) — 12/4/2006 @ 4:05 am[…] Patterico’s Pontifications ” L.A. Times Repeats the “Imminent Threat” Canard … that Dan Rather and the LAT just can’t keep track of what’s real anymore. … Terrorism. … Pingback by ” Blog Archive ” FDA Bio-Terrorism Hay Records. … […]
» Blog Archive » … was a grave and growing threat , (5689ff) — 12/12/2006 @ 1:14 am