October 11, 2003

The Imminent Lie

Andrew Sullivan reveals, powerfully, how the anti-Bush Left is lying when it says President Bush claimed Iraq presented an "imminent" threat. In fact, Bush said just the opposite, and Sullivan has the pre-war quotes - from Democrats! - that proves it.

The next time someone on the Left tells you Bush was lying when he said Saddam was an imminent threat, tell them no, it is they who are lying because Bush never said any such thing. In fact, as Sullivan notes, in his State of the Union Address before the war, Bush said:

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."

UPDATE: Sullivan has more on the topic, including a revelation that the NYT may be backing off the claim that Bush said the threat was imminent. And, says Sullivan, If the Democratic candidates want to argue that they would have taken the risk and allowed Saddam to stay in power, then they need to say so clearly. Howard Dean already has. He would have left Saddam in place and hoped that the nightmare of terrorists with Saddam-provided WMDS wouldn't take place. After 9/11, I consider that an act of gross irresponsibility. But some do not. Let's debate that, shall we? It's still the critical question in the coming campaign: whom do you to trust to protect us?

Also, Cori Dauber, Professor of Communication Studies and Peace, War, and Defense at the University of North Carolina, has this to say about the "imminent threat" lie, and why it matters:

As I've argued before, this distinction, between whether the argument was "it's an imminent threat" and the argument "we can't wait, in a post September world, for it to become an imminent threat" is a vital one. Not only does it explain why what Kay found so far still justified the war, it also explains why the use of September 11th, in an argumentative sense, is part of an argument about comparative risks, not some sort of manipulative game.