Imminent Threat

WASHINGTON -- In a visit to the heavily Arab community of Dearborn, Mich., the other day, President Bush made a strong case for his invasion of Iraq, ticking off the deprivation of its people under Saddam Hussein. "In a nation where the dictator treated himself to palaces with gold faucets and grand fountains," he said, "four out of 10 citizens did not even have clean water to drink. While the former regime exported milk and dates and corn and grain for its own profit, more than half a million Iraqi children were malnourished."

Doug Schreiber was a two-time, first-team All-American midfielder at Maryland who led the 1973 squad in assists with 33 en route to the program's national championship. But when it was time for Tom Schreiber to pick a school at which to play lacrosse, he did not seriously consider his father's alma mater. “I kind of narrowed it down to Princeton, Georgetown, Duke and Hopkins,” said Schreiber, a first-team All-American midfielder in 2012 who plays for Princeton. “I never visited Maryland.

A lot is being made these days about whether George J. Tenet, the director of the CIA, told President Bush that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction posed an imminent threat to the United States - imminent enough to go to war. Nope, says Tenet. The CIA "never said there was an imminent threat." Or whether Bush himself actually used the word "imminent" when he talked about the threat to America posed by Hussein and the need to invade, occupy and rebuild Iraq. Nope. He didn't. He saw a "gathering threat."

If it is true, as the writer Samuel Johnson once said, that "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel," then the dictionary must be the first. Consider how readily our leaders, in justifying what cannot be justified, parse definitions down to microns of fineness or invent obfuscating euphemisms to hide behind. As in Bill Clinton's memorable attempt to deny he had misled the American people about his relationship with a White House intern. "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is," he said.

WASHINGTON - Even some who have questioned the need for war described Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's performance at the United Nations yesterday as a persuasive case for military action against Iraq within a matter of weeks. Lawmakers from both parties, and defense analysts with varying opinions on Iraq, said they thought Powell put President Bush in a commanding position to seek a new U.N. resolution authorizing force. If the Security Council stalls, they said, Bush could be justified in leading an attack, even without overwhelming international support.

An unsigned and undated Justice Department white paper, obtained by NBC News, reports The New York Times, "... is the most detailed analysis yet to come into public view regarding the Obama legal team's views about the lawfulness of killing, without a trial, an American citizen who executive branch officials decide is an operational leader of Al Qaeda or one of its allies. " The proviso is they must pose "an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States. " If "an informed, high-level official" of the government decides they are a threat, the paper says, and if capture is not feasible, they may be killed.

Doug Schreiber was a two-time, first-team All-American midfielder at Maryland who led the 1973 squad in assists with 33 en route to the program's national championship. But when it was time for Tom Schreiber to pick a school at which to play lacrosse, he did not seriously consider his father's alma mater. “I kind of narrowed it down to Princeton, Georgetown, Duke and Hopkins,” said Schreiber, a first-team All-American midfielder in 2012 who plays for Princeton. “I never visited Maryland.

The last debate ("Candidates trade foreign policy jabs," Oct. 23) demonstrated that Mitt Romney's approach is back to how George W. Bush lead this country - with fear of "imminent threat. " President Bush and Karl Rove lied to this country by using the tactic of "fear" to warrant a war. And now Mr. Romney is using this same fear factor to say that we need to spend more on the military and get ready for war. President Barack Obama, on the other hand, is using economic sanctions to prevent the need for another war. As for Mr. Romney's description of an "apology tour," I truly admire President Obama's ability to stay calm and level headed when in comes to foreign diplomacy.

If it is true, as the writer Samuel Johnson once said, that "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel," then the dictionary must be the first. Consider how readily our leaders, in justifying what cannot be justified, parse definitions down to microns of fineness or invent obfuscating euphemisms to hide behind. As in Bill Clinton's memorable attempt to deny he had misled the American people about his relationship with a White House intern. "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is," he said.

WASHINGTON -- When I wrote in my previous column that President Bush, in defending his Iraq invasion by citing the horrors of Saddam Hussein, "seemed to have forgotten those missing weapons of mass destruction he insisted earlier posed such an imminent threat," the e-mails poured in. One reader, saying I was repeating the "imminent threat myth," said the president had never used those words. Another offered: "Perhaps you know something the rest of us do not. Would you be so kind as to quote the president -- or any member of his cabinet -- making that argument?

John O. Brennan, President Barack Obama's nominee for heading the Central Intelligence Agency, stonewalled Congress during its hearing on his candidacy, which focused on drones - unmanned aircraft carrying surveillance equipment, some with missiles ("The law of drones," Feb. 11). The drone weapons system is mushrooming in the U.S., and it is beginning to get footholds in other countries as well. In addition, The Sun reported that Mr. Brennan refused to use the term, "torture," instead using the propagandistic, "enhanced interrogation.

An unsigned and undated Justice Department white paper, obtained by NBC News, reports The New York Times, "... is the most detailed analysis yet to come into public view regarding the Obama legal team's views about the lawfulness of killing, without a trial, an American citizen who executive branch officials decide is an operational leader of Al Qaeda or one of its allies. " The proviso is they must pose "an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States. " If "an informed, high-level official" of the government decides they are a threat, the paper says, and if capture is not feasible, they may be killed.

The last debate ("Candidates trade foreign policy jabs," Oct. 23) demonstrated that Mitt Romney's approach is back to how George W. Bush lead this country - with fear of "imminent threat. " President Bush and Karl Rove lied to this country by using the tactic of "fear" to warrant a war. And now Mr. Romney is using this same fear factor to say that we need to spend more on the military and get ready for war. President Barack Obama, on the other hand, is using economic sanctions to prevent the need for another war. As for Mr. Romney's description of an "apology tour," I truly admire President Obama's ability to stay calm and level headed when in comes to foreign diplomacy.

The killing of an American-born al-Qaida leader by a drone strike in Yemen last year raised troubling questions about whether the government can legally target U.S. citizens abroad against whom it has presented no evidence and who have never been charged with a crime. This week, Attorney General Eric H. Holder appeared before Congress to assure members that such targeted killings are lawful, but it can't be said his arguments were entirely convincing. Mr. Holder claimed the Constitution gives the president authority to strike suspected terrorists anywhere in the world — including U.S. citizens — if he believes they represent an "imminent threat" to the nation's security.

After two letters in attempt to justify himself and the invasion of Iraq ("Iraq's chemical weapons stocks were well documented," Dec. 28, and "Did Saddam have WMDs before the U.S. invasion in 2003?" Jan. 2) I still can't figure out what Michael DeCicco is trying to say in regard to the astonishingly stupid decision to go to invade Iraq in 2003. Clearly American citizens were in no danger from Saddam's stockpiles of chemical weapons even if they had ever been found or used on U.S. soldiers (which they weren't)

During the Cold War, the United States had a clear, coherent, widely supported national security strategy that focused on containing and deterring Soviet communist expansion. In waging the war on terror, President Bush has embraced a strategy that calls for leveraging American military dominance with preventive military action. In an increasingly dangerous world, with al-Qaida reconstituting itself in South Asia and homegrown terrorists carrying out attacks in Europe and North Africa, it is appropriate for our presidential candidates to discuss the impact of this strategy on the security of the United States.

GEORGE J. TENET, the CIA chief, defended his agency's analysts and their reports on Iraq's weapon programs with a forceful and unapologetic speech at Georgetown University yesterday, a speech that was built around a central assertion: "They never said there was an imminent threat." That caught plenty of people's attention. How can that be? Wasn't that the whole point? In fact -- disturbingly -- it wasn't. Let's examine this idea, because of the truths that it reveals. In the fall of 2002, the CIA produced an alarmist assessment of Iraq's likely stores of chemical and biological weapons, its prospects for producing more, and its efforts to construct a nuclear weapons program.

WASHINGTON - Now that regime change in Baghdad is at hand, does it matter whether those weapons of mass destruction that posed an "imminent" threat to us are found? Their discovery in substantial quantity, along with effective means to deliver them, would certainly provide additional justification in the eyes of the world for the invasion and conquest of the Saddam Hussein regime and for the concept of "anticipatory self-defense." But in retrospect, it is clear that the U.S. emphasis before the United Nations on removing such weapons came from a calculation that the threat of them was a much easier sell than the notion of the pre-emptive invasion of a sovereign country.

WASHINGTON - Just as former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean seems headed for the sidelines as a Democratic presidential candidate, his main theme - President Bush's pre-emptive war against Iraq - is re-emerging as a central campaign issue. Dr. Dean has already returned his campaign rhetoric to the issue that helped make him the front-runner before his misfortune in the Iowa caucuses and subsequent primary defeats. But the renewed focus on the war isn't likely to resuscitate his candidacy as much as give more anti-Bush ammunition to the whole Democratic field.

A lot is being made these days about whether George J. Tenet, the director of the CIA, told President Bush that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction posed an imminent threat to the United States - imminent enough to go to war. Nope, says Tenet. The CIA "never said there was an imminent threat." Or whether Bush himself actually used the word "imminent" when he talked about the threat to America posed by Hussein and the need to invade, occupy and rebuild Iraq. Nope. He didn't. He saw a "gathering threat."