Who Cares Whether Bush Said 'Imminent'?

One of the marvels of the Internet is the ease with which you can eavesdrop on another culture. Even those cultures which seem similar can surprise you with their different perceptions. Take the recent example of whether President Bush ever described Iraq as an "imminent threat". From a British perspective the exact wording would seem to be a matter of supreme irrelevance. Yet, American web sites are full of views, and the debate provokes enormous passion.

The core of the debate seems to be an attempt by the anti-war lobby to attack Bush for overstating the Iraqi threat. If so, focusing on the phrase "imminent threat" is unfortunate. It does not appear that Bush has ever used those exact words, which leaves his opponents making arguments along the lines of "when he said this he meant..." Meanwhile, Bush's supporters have the short, snappy, memorable come back of "but he didn't say 'imminent threat'". Making complex arguments that have one line replies will not convince anyone. You end up talking to yourself.

It isn't that the arguments aren't easy to build. For instance, the National Security Strategy of the United States of America includes :

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.

Couple this with talk of Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and terrorist links to see how the described threat matches the Whitehouse's own definition of "imminent threat".

Or note that before the war, there was no attempt by the White House to challenge the idea that the President was describing an imminent threat. Perhaps the most telling exchange occurred just two weeks before the invasion, on 5th March.

Reporter : There is no imminent threat.

Ari Fleischer : This is where -- Helen, if you were President you might view things differently. But you have your judgement and the President has others.

Or simply note that if an evil man with weapons of mass destruction who is willing to give these weapons to terrorists who are willing to attack America without warning isn't an imminent threat, exactly what does constitute such a threat?

Ultimately, though the correct response to the right's mantra of "he didn't say 'imminent threat'" is "who cares?" Playing these word games is an irrelevance - it's fighting Bush's supporters on a ground of their choosing. Who cares whether he uttered the exact phrase or not? If the anti-war lobby wishes to attack Bush, attack him for what he most definitely did say. "Hussein has weapons of mass destruction" would be favourite.

In Britain, as I said, this isn't an issue. No one doubts that what Blair described was a threat to the Middle East, this country and the rest of the world that had to be dealt with as a matter of urgency. And while I haven't found a record of him describing the threat as "imminent" he did use the word "immediate". The debate here has focused on the far more important issue of whether his descriptions were valid. I don't care whether some lawyerly argument can prove that "immediate" and "imminent" were the same or not. What I care about is whether the Prime Minister was justified to take us to war on the basis of intelligence that we now know to have been exceedingly flawed. What I care about is how he came to be relying on such intelligence in the first place. In Britain, the debate is focused on these more important questions, so should the American debate.

Graham Robinson. 15th October 2003.

The Quiet Man Implodes

Does anyone doubt that the Tory leader is more hindrance than help to his party? I didn't think so. But his leadership and current plight tells us much more than that about the unelectable state of the Conservatives.

The last couple of weeks have been bad for Iain Duncan Smith. Rumours of a forth-coming leadership challenge over-shadowed the Tory conference, and dominated his speech. Meanwhile, two right-wing papers attacked him for using tax payer's money to pay his wife for work she does not, in fact, do. While this is all dreadful for Mr Smith (not to mention his 'innocent' wife) the two events are far more interesting for what they tell us about the Conservatives in general.

The conference is the more obvious. Smith's speech focused too much on his challenge. Opening with his attack on the rebels was a mistake. That no one has criticised his mistake betrays why the Tory party remains unelectable. When Blair makes a speech, he talks to the country. He talks to floating voters, to the waverers. But the Quiet Man, he talks to the party. That's a mistake. The prime message that voters got from that speech was that Iain Duncan Smith expects a leadership challenge. That the Tories are primarily focused on themselves.

Smith has only been in charge for 25 months. Yet, his party is full of rebels looking to replace him, and no one can even be bothered pointing out the incredible damage that this infighting does to their reputation with the voters.

Smith himself has been irreparably damaged. Even if he proves his innocence, many voters are unlikely to forgive him employing his wife. Any victory will be strictly technical - the affair looks sleazy, and with good reason. All of which gives the rebels all the more reason to remove him, making a leadership challenge within the next six months almost inevitable. Even if this doesn't happen, the Tories will go into the next election with the memories of sleaze and infighting fresh in voters minds.

Given the general disenchantment with New Labour, and the increasing number of scandals eating away at Blair's core supporters, the Tories should be working towards their best electoral chance for a decade. Instead, they act like starving dogs, fighting over the corpse of the official opposition. Smith's focus on his own problems is a sign of weakness, an indication of an impending, self-created crisis. But the leader's implosion is merely symptomatic of a general problem with his party.

Graham Robinson. 15th October 2003.

archives :: links :: faq :: feedback

Find out how you can support Online Opinion

Online Opinion is a trademark owned by Graham Robinson. All rights reserved. The copyright on all articles, columns, and letters on this site is owned by the original author. The copyright on all other material is owned by Graham Robinson. Permission is granted to download and store these pages for personal or research purposes only, and only as is consistent with normal viewing of web pages. All other rights reserved. Permission is granted to freely link to any page within this site, as long as ownership of the material linked to is clear. No advertisements may be associated with this site, whether explicitly or implicitly, without prior written permission.