No, Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld, but particularly the latter two have made the immediate argument, repeatedly. And, even if you wish to drop the argument back a notch and say it's about a "gathering threat", that's of course extremely nebulous. You offer the standard, oh by the way, which is that Saddam will have nukes soon. But when anyone pushes the evidence on that point, it gets genuinely flimsy. Tubes didn't seem to turn the trick, so we'll see yet another argument soon.
No, I'm now about convinced that the reason the Bush folk have advanced so many different arguments for an invasion is because the only pressing reason lies elsewhere, in their desire for a demonstration effect, that the US will use military power as the backdrop to get its way in the world. I assume they are convinced they cannot float such an argument in full view but can float it as backdrop for an "immediate threat." Very savvy political thinking but going to war should get a bit beyond politics.
And, of course, I've posted my growing suspicion that the timing of it this fall is heavily political. Nothing unusual about that, save it makes hash of the immediacy argument and the high moral tone of all this. |
