Newsblogging.

[teddywolf]

Nope, the Bush administration never said imminent danger or imminent threat. They just said these:
'mortal threat'
'immediate threat'
'grave and gathering danger'
'a threat that we must deal with as quickly as possible'
'no terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein'
'a threat of unique urgency'

A uniquely urgent threat; a mortal threat; an *immediate* threat. [catty] Yes, of course the fact that immediate is sooner than imminent still excuses them from never saying imminent. [/catty]

Comments

[cheshyre]

The phrase "Imminent threat" has certain standing in international law, so they had to be very careful in how they used that word.

Hesiod makes an interesting point on the use of language:

The Bush administration deliberately conflated "imminent" with "gathering" to cover themselves both legally and politically in case this whole thing blows up in their faces.

The term "gathering" is not an international legal term of art, but is designed to allude to an "imminent" threat without actually saying the threat was imminent. That's the political term of art they borrowed (as I argued earlier) from Sir Winston Churchill's account of the causes of the Second World War: "The Gathering Storm." As such, the term has certain associations that give it a weight equivalent to "imminent" when discussing a threat to national security.

Re:

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

What kind of stature does 'immediate threat' have?

Re:

[cheshyre]

Dunno about that wording but I believe that "imminent threat" allows one to legally attack back.

Check http://counterspin.blogspot.com -- Hesiod's had some good stuff on this issue in the last week.