The “Imminent Threat” Canard

As the canard that wouldn’t die has been raised in the comments to the Weinberger post, let’s review the President’s SOTU from 2003: 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 … Continue reading “The “Imminent Threat” Canard”

As the canard that wouldn’t die has been raised in the comments to the Weinberger post, let’s review the President’s SOTU from 2003:

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.

Any questions?

UPDATE: Here’s what we said after Powell’s UN presentation, which was clearly not on some “imminent threat” theme. The criticism of the president at the time was largely based on the wisdom of breaking policy by deposing a regime that didn’t present an “imminent threat”.

9 thoughts on “The “Imminent Threat” Canard”

  2. Most people of good will admit that the President’s statement in the 2003 SOTU is his definitive statement on the invasion of Iraq. This isn’t quote-mining, John, it’s correcting amnesiac anti-war (and pro-Saddam) spin.

  4. The historical record is clear, John, and while “threat” is part of it, “imminent threat” isn’t.

    But even if it had been, would you rather Saddam rule Iraq or a freely-elected government? Would you rather the Shah rule Iran, or a freely-elected government? Would you rather Castro rule Cuba, or a freely-elected government? I won’t ask you about China because I already know the answer.

    Enemies of democracy have to take some extreme positions to justify their heartless cruelty, so naturally I love to make them spin.

  5. Richard, who are the “enemies of democracy” that spin because of you?

    Are you suggesting totalitarian dictaors read your blog?

    Or are you suggesting that John K. is an “enemy of democracy”?

    I read today a quote from an interview with Ann Coulter in which she said (this is my paraphrase, from memory, so correct me if I’m not word for word on this, but I think the gist is right) something to this effect: I’m tired of all the talk of civilian casualites. I think we should nuke Korea as a warning to the world. I think it would be fun to nuke Korea.

    This sounds like an enemey of democracy to me.

  6. No, she’s just a loon and we love her for it. The EOD I’m speaking of is named in your comment, and anybody who wanted to leave Iraq alone would qualify. Remember Churchill’s line about greatness? George W. has had greatness thrust upon him, and democracy has never had a better friend.

    This is hard to take, but it’s true and y’all had better get used to it.

  7. So, anyone against Bush policies is an enemy of democracy.

    Bush is Democracy, Democracy is Bush. Right?

    Sounds like that moment in “Triumph of the Will” when the words “Hitler is Germany, Germany is Hitler” ring out to an enthusiastic crowd of patriotic, God-fearing citizens.

    Ann Coulter who wants to drop nuclear bombs on another country & you say she’s lovable.

    What’s next?

  8. It’s not like anybody takes Ann seriously, dude – she’s just an entertainer who can’t sing or dance.

    And yes, democracy has never had a better friend than George W, and history will note this.

Comments are closed.