U.S. Weapons Inspector: Iraq Had No WMD

Alright then - I know you feel like you're repeating yourself, but tell me what you believe the major reason for removing Saddam was. Also, explain, if you would, why, if WMD weren't the administration's primary justification, did they bring it up in nearly every public address and press conference in the months leading up to the war? Because to me, and most of the country, it sure sounded like WMD were the primary justification.

 

Well it should concern you personally, BTA. It scares me that it doesn't. We've staked the reputation of our nation on a threat that didn't exist. After the example we've set, now there's nothing to stop Israel from pre-empting Palestine, or India from pre-empting Pakistan, or China from pre-empting Japan, or Coke from pre-empting Pepsi, or North Korea from pre-empting us - and they won't need much more than a "but the US pre-empted Iraq with less evidence of a threat than we have against OUR perceived enemy, so it's our right as a nation to defend ourselves as we see fit." How the hell does that NOT concern you?

Sorry - but Saddam repeatedly violating UN resolutions and STILL not being a threat to anyone wasn't worth what this war has cost us. It certainly wasn't a higher priority than al Quaida, who's leadership hated Saddam as much as we did, and it especially wasn't necessary in the middle of a recession, one we've now dug ourselves deeper into thanks to the record defecit. Saddam could have been dealt with at a later date, with a better plan, and for better reasons.

 

Bleh, Compliance with UN resolutions ... I can't hear it anymore. Israel is in permanent violation of some 60 or so UN resolutions and no one in the US gives a sh*t. When Saddam comes along and doesn't fully comply - regime change.

Considering what the current US administration gives about the UN, it is nearly ridiculous that they put such an emphasis on Iraqs violation of the UN sanctions. Like: "Screw the UN - we do what we want anyway" - but when some UN sanctions come in handy and give a nice argument for what they wanted to do anyway - albeit for different reasons - they use it and babble about respecting international law.

That is inconsistent to put it mild.

[ October 07, 2004, 23:58: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

I think there was a feeling among many, not just Shrub and the gang, but also Bill Clinton, Al Gore and many other leading Democrats for some years, that Saddam DID have WMD. And I think that George and Dick were expecting to find "nuclear gold" (or something similar) in Iraq after the war, which of course quickly became - "fool's gold." I do think that Bush and Cheney used the fear factor, which was highly exaggerated, to convince the American people to sign on to the invasion (visions of mushroom clouds over Amercia and that sort of thing - which they are still using by the way).

I think Bush pretty much laid out what was behind his, and the group-think, in the debate with Kerry last week. The invasion of Iraq really is about spreading "Americanism" or "democracy," or however one wishes to define it, to the Middle East as a strategy for the war on terror. This made more sense than anything King George has said about the war. But, as Kerry points out, and as one looks at the results thus far, the invasion appears to be a "collosal error in judgment." That's pretty much, at least at this point, how I see it also.

Edit - BTW, all that oil was just a nice bonus.

[ October 08, 2004, 05:33: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

I think the quote of the week should go to Jack Staw who claims that "the report showed Saddam posed a bigger threat than previously imagined."

Could someone please tell me how someone who didn't have WMD can be even more dangerous than one who did? God, if we had known this we would have nuked them!

The link between Saddam and Bin Laden was always spurious, anyone with half a brain should remember that Saddam banned all practicing Muslims and tore down the Mosques. That's not really going to endear him to Al Quaida.

I agree that there were many reasons for invading Iraq, Regime change, Oil, the fact that a populace always loves a government which goes to war (and wins) - Maggie got a huge majority after the falklands. Some of them are even reasonable such as stopping the persecution of the Kurds. (Unfortunately this doesn't really wash as the same reason doesn't appear to apply to other countries who persecute their own people)

The fact still remains though, that the main justifications for the war were WMD and a supposed link to Al-Quaida. If these two reasons hadn't been used, are beloved governments would not have had the necesary support from the populace and therefore would not have gone to war. Therefore, in my mind, the war was not justifiable as it would not have been fought if the truth had been known.

 

OK, there is one thing I have to point out here. Many people are stating that the Bush administration lied, and I really don't think that is true. It is possible to be wrong, but not be lying. There's been lots of times that I have answered a question on a test at school, thought I got it right at the time I answered it, and it turned out to be wrong. I wasn't lying, I was just wrong. Heck there were times that I was CERTAIN I answered the question correctly, but overlooked some subtle point and that caused me to be wrong.

To relate that back to the situation at hand, Bush and Cheney were certain that Iraq had WMD - just like I was certain I had answered the question correctly on the test, and that's not lying. You see, there's two parts to lying, the first part is that you say something that is not true, and the second part is that you are attempting to deceive someone with that statement. The Bush administration statements regarding WMD hold true for the first part, but not for the second part.

Finally, I have to say that just becasue I don't think they were lying doesn't mean that I don't hold them responsible. Actually, I can't see any reason why everyone wouldn't hold them responsible. It seems pretty obvious to me that the people who made the decision to go to war are the people responsible for the outcome of that war. And that's the problem here. It's the outcome people are unsatisfied with. Even though there were no WMD, Bush still could have salavaged a victory out of this if, now 18 months after the war started, Iraq was taking care of itself, had a functioning democracy, etc. But the fact that over 1,000 Americans have died, and we appear no closer now to acheiving our goals than we were 18 months ago (some would say we're even further from it now than 18 months ago), is why people are unhappy. Say what you want, but the war was poorly planned, and that's incompetence, not deception.

Verily, lying is certainly a way to lose the election, but it appears that the U.S. populace will have to settle for incompetence instead. (As an aside it should be noted that a certain level of intelligence is required to effectively lie. That fact alone should absolve Bush from being accused of lying.)

[ October 08, 2004, 17:39: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

@dmc

"I don't give a rat's tush whether he was lying. He failed."

That's the exact point I'm trying to make - see the last paragraph in my previous post. I'm just trying to make sure we string him up for the right reasons.

I'm not trying to give Bush a free pass here. I do hold him responsible. My point was simply to say that we didn't know the whole story before entering the war, and this was true because of incompetence, not deception.

I really do believe that Bush and Cheney felt "certain" that Iraq had WMD. That there was no doubt in their minds. I understand that the consequences of a test versus a war are immeasurable, but I was using the analogy as a means to show how you can be wrong when you think you're right, and still not be outright lying. I also thought the test analogy was something everyone could relate to. I imagine everyone has at some point got something wrong on a test that they thought they had answered correctly while taking the test.

But back to the issue at hand. There was some rather flimsy circumstantial evidence to justify this belief. I think the problem was that Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq all along. I think it was on his agenda since very early in his presidency, and if not for 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, I think the war would have started considerably earlier than it did. As a result, Bush was desparately looking for a reason, but would settle for an excuse, to go to war with Iraq. He was shown the evidence, and although it wasn't very convincing, it was just enough for him to run with it. I also think he fell into the thinking "If you tell yourself something often enough, eventually you'll start to believe it". With the something in this case being that Saddam was a threat to the U.S. due to his reviving his WMD programs.

I don't think we'll ever know whether or not Bush was lying or not. He certainly had a motive to lie, given his agenda, but I think there is an equal possibility that he actually believed what he was saying to be true - that there was no attempt at deception on his part. However, the question of whether or not he was lying is ultimately inconsequential to the situation at hand. Iraq's a mess, and Bush is culpable.

[ October 08, 2004, 18:02: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

LOL. But I think DMC has a point - he does have an entire administration to do it for him as well. Cheney seems like the sort of hard-nosed cold-blooded career politician who could get Dubya to do just about anything he wanted him to by giving him the right information, and who wouldn't balk at it. The situation after 9/11 meant that all you needed to do was suggest that "this could happen again" and you had people's almost-unqualified support. The US didn't have to go into Iraq to achieve their objectives, but they did, without waiting for anyone else or any other process to complete itself. To me, this implies that they were just looking for a justification.

I'm glad this is attracting so much heat over in the US. I'm extremely happy to see that Iraq is a key issue in the upcoming election. The matter of the administration acting on hearsay and misleading us into war barely rated a mention in the Australian election (although it was the basis on which my vote swung from Liberal to Labor). End result - Labor had a chance to drag the Coalition over the coals, they didn't have the guts to do it, and they ended up losing the election. If the incumbent is going to fight dirty, do it back.