Did anyone predict no WMDs?

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 8:01 pm

Well, you're right. Fear is what they serve.

But there was no "logic" to what I asked. It was a question. I am actually curious about this.

Besides, politicians generally have no financial interest in the media. Your response may have begun to answer why the media didn't correct their erronous reporting, but it doesn't touch on why the administration didn't.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 8:08 pm

My guess is they figured we would find WMD's so it really didn't bother them that everyone was getting all excited about it.

It's like Bush came into the proverbial theater and said "I see smoke, we may have a fire hazard, lets evacuate the building and check it out!"
Someone else yelled fire...everyone else yelled fire and Bush said "Go on then, get out!!"

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 8:08 pm

The answer I was alluding to is that the administration let whatever idea sold sell itself. The same thing with this "memogate" thing... the White House is just letting CBS implode without coming down on either side of the issue, because if they did then one side or the other would cry foul.

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 8:11 pm

Will Robinson wrote:My guess is they figured we would find WMD's so it really didn't bother them that everyone was getting all excited about it.

Is that behavior that you approve of?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 8:41 pm

kufyit wrote:Is that behavior that you approve of?

You mean them thinking we would find WMD's? Yes.
It was prudent to think we would and would have been irresponsible to not think so!

Do you mean not calling a special press conference to point out that the world was using the word "imminent" when they were using the word "gathering"? Yes, not calling a press conference over such trivial things is approved by me.

Do you mean going to war because they thought there was a gathering threat but the press prefered to call it an immenint threat.
Yes, Saddam=big problem. The press using the wrong word=small problem.

So far I approve of pretty much every aspect of the administrations build up to, and execution of the war in Iraq. Right up to pulling out of Fallujah (but that's another thread in itself).

I disapprove of the way others have misrepresented or ignored the facts about something as important as the War on Terror just because Al Gore couldn't carry his own state in 2000 and they are still mad about it!

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 8:46 pm

Hyperbole, Will. Black and white.

There are many ways he could have addressed it without calling a press conference.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 8:55 pm

yeah kuf -- and they *did* address it in many ways.

Consider: in the State of the Union, Bush contrasts "imminent threat" with his reasons for going to Iraq. By contrasting it, he's making it clear that it's something different from "imminent".

Consider: the administration continually using words like "gathering threat" rather than "imminent threat"

I don't know why the administration didn't do more. Maybe, as Will implied, they didn't think it was worth doing more. What else would you have suggested they do, short of calling a press conference, but stronger than saying (in the State of the Union, a high-profile event) that he's not interested in waiting until the threat is imminent?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 8:58 pm

Ok, so I'm havin' fun with ya!
It's because you didn't really soak up my prior response or you would see why that question isn't too relavent.

If you believe there definitely *are* WMD's. But you say 'We're going because there *may* be WMD's".

Then the press says "There *are* WMD's".

At that point you don't really think you have a problem because even though you only said "there may be WMD's" you believe they are actually right when they said "there are WMD's" so why would you think there is anything that needs to be said.

Then SURPRISE...no WMD's...and now they coveniently say "But you told us there were WMD's"

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 9:11 pm

President Bush said in his State of the Union:

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

Perhaps our difficulties are the result of what we believe "imminent" threat means. Does it mean they have attacked us, or they are preparing to?

And if we are arguing about whether or not he actually said "imminent," literally, then I guess that argument seems silly to me. Implication IS a part of communication. It may be nice to revert to strict diction when we are arguing, however it doesn't seem practical.

I mean, when there is NO POSSIBILITY of Iraq engaging us in a conventional war, what would qualify as "imminent" Mr. Lothar?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 9:38 pm

I don't see why you think "no conventional war" would necessarily imply anything about the threat being imminent or not. I mean... I don't think Bush was at all concerned with Saddam trying to invade the US with ground troops. That was not a threat, imminent, gathering, or otherwise.

But he was concerned with Saddam getting hold of, posessing, and distributing dangerous weapons and finding a way to get them onto the US mainland. Keep reading a few paragraphs after what you quoted:

Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

That could have be construed as an "imminent threat" -- but in the very next line, Bush says what I quoted before:

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.

Summary: Saddam might not be an imminent threat, but we can't afford to wait until he is. He's a nutjob, and we can't sit back and trust him to keep his hands clean.

The implication was clear to me the first time I saw the State of the Union. Did you watch it? Did you read through the whole transcript? Do you think you have a good feel for what he said? Context is of first importance when you're trying to understand the implications. You seem to think your quote implies a possible "imminent" threat, but when I watched the speech at first, and reading it in context now, I don't think he's trying to imply that in the slightest. Just, Saddam is a nut, he had WMD in the past that aren't accounted for, he still wants WMD, and there's no reason to sit back and wait for him to act on his nut-ness.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:08 pm

I don't have time to reply to you in long form Lothar, but in a nutshell what I believe to be a true is not necessarily a lie. I believe they made the argument to me and the american people that saddam posed an imminent threat. Some conservatives on the board have agreed with me, republicans I know in real life believe he argued that and hell--even registered republican Bill O'reilly admits it.

I'll respond substanitively later with proof. A liar I am not, however

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 8:43 am

go blow up an abortion clinic lothar

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 4:50 pm

Though this is a bit off topic I wanted to take this opportunity to exonerate Z in a post I made in this thread. He already has enough issues as it is but if memory serves me right it was Paly who started the whole thread where Bold Deciever argued about if the issue of Bush lying about WMD being the major reason for going to war was really all that important in the scheme of things.

The reason these types of threads become tiresome falls mainly on the fact that it's all just flamebait every single time. Does that mean that most of us here can't carry on a dignified arguement of the facts? Yes, it does, because both sides "facts" contradict the others when it comes to issues regarding Iraq.

Like I mentioned before though. We already know pretty much where most of us stand on this topic and it hasn't changed for almost two years now so....bringing it up again every 2-3 months isn't accomplishing anything more then if you added more fuel to a fire thats burning out.

Tricord · Post by **Tricord** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 3:23 am

This is a discussion about semantics.

What I am worried about is not the war in Iraq, the death toll on both sides or the WMD that supposedly were there, it's the false justification that was given to start the war in the first place.
I am in no position to evaluate the pros and cons of the war for the americans, the iraqis or the rest of the world, however, I do know there is something seriously fishy when the main reason to invade Iraq turned out to be an empty statement. It means information and intelligence was wrong, and by extension, the descision that was made upon it. And that responsibility lies with the president, not with the intelligence services.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again just for Lothar: it's like when two mistakes cancel each other out in a math exercise. The result may be correct, but you shouldn't get any points for obtaining it because you made mistakes getting there. Same applies to the war. The result may be better than the Saddam dictatorship, however the argumentation established to justify the war is a complete ruin, a lie and based on misinformation.
If the president realises he's been misinformed, he should first make sure that will not happen again before he makes another descision. At this level of responsibility, you simply cannot afford the slightest mistake.
Which brings me to the surprising conclusion that Bush takes very little flak for his mistakes. He has carte blanche from his supporters. Incredible.

To those of you who buy the pre-emptive chit, think. This is going to be a "Minority Report" situation. The fact that you can potentially commit a crime will be enough to charge you with it and get punished accordingly. The patriot act is the first installment of a new, massive way of dealing pre-emptively with things. If Bush stays in office, there's going to be more of this.

And as a last paragraph, an administration running a country is about more than war and self-preservation. Yet all Bush does falls in one of those two categories.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 4:40 am

No need to get paranoid there Tri. Saddam hardly was an innocent victim who hadn't committed a crime before actions were taken against him. He certainly had no minority report.

You believe that the war was founded on false justifications and thats fine. You can continue to believe that. I still stand firm on the belief that it is much too early in the scheme of things to say whether or not we had the right idea or not.

I mean, do you honestly think they've had very much time at all to follow potential paper trails, shipment routes, comb out the desert as thoroughly as they'd like while having to battle iraqi forces and then deal with militant insurgents, terrorists and terrorist sympathizers in the two years they've been over there?

It'd be silly to think that all the facts would come to light in a time of such turmoil and hostility. Whatever though, I'm just a stupid American.

Tricord · Post by **Tricord** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 7:12 am

Tyr, I'm not paranoid, but since you mention it, let me act paranoid in the opposite direction.

The president was misinformed by the intelligence services and made a very weighty descision based upon that information.
Isn't that a potentially enormous risk? Find a way to feed false information to the president, and he will buy it.
Kindof like the thread Birds started about the fake beheading video that was picked up by all major news agencies and networks. The fact that such things are possible calls for major revision in the goverment descision-making hierarchy and authority control, in my opinion.

The problem is not Iraq or the war itself. Having never been in Iraq and having very limited knowledge of international and national middle-east political development, I am in no position to appreciate the impact of the war. Old vs. new. I don't think anyone on this forum here can.

However, there are somethings I can be sure of, and that is that Bush and his administration cannot be trusted. It's not what Bush has done so far that worries me, it's what he may do next that worries me.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 7:26 am

Tricord wrote:I do know there is something seriously fishy when the main reason to invade Iraq turned out to be an empty statement.

Your math problem was doomed from the start because you have copied the wrong numbers down. The reason was given but you didn't use it in your calculation.

The reason for the war was because of who Saddam was, what he had done, what he was doing and what he may do in the future.

WMD's were merely one of the things he used in his activities. It's his activities that got him in trouble.
We served an arrest warrant on a mass murdering world scale menace, the fact that he didn't have a gun on him when we found him doesn't exonerate him from the charge.

Semantics indeed.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 10:51 am

Well, it largely was the reason sold to the american people and the world - a dangerous threat to us and his neighbors. The "legal" basis was violating 1444 in the UN -- a weapons violation.

When we went in and america supported the war over half of america thought hussain caused 9-11. Now that there are no WMDs (can't make a direct conclusion, but I bet if you had found the WMDs the people would be thinking differently) the public is pissed and the iraq war approval ratings are now in the toilet.

We're not discussing the "real" reason but the reason sold to us.

Of course he mentioned other things. But the Iraq war never would have gone over if it wasn't actually increasing american security. He played off of fear after 9-11 and made bogus al qaeda and WMD connections to scare everyone into going along with it (opinion).

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 11:04 am

Imminent threat claimed by Mr. Bush and co.? You decide.

[quote]

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
â?¢ President Bush, 11/23/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
â?¢ Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
â?¢ Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
â?¢ President Bush, 10/2/02

Mr Bush made a startling claim that the Iraqi regime was developing drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which "could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas".

"We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States," he warned.

"Absolutely."
â?¢ White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"This is about imminent threat."
â?¢ White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

"Well, of course he is.â?

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 1:28 pm

I see you brought more matches and some lighter fluid.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 1:31 pm

I see that rather than confront a political issue with quotes or an argument, you just claim I am "flaming"

Sounds to me that since you have no rational argument to combat my assertion, you are the one doing the actual flaming in defense of your defenseless position

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 4:56 pm

How about we reduce the list by removing all the statements that are true because, quite frankly, if it's true I don't really care how it affected ignorant people.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 5:05 pm

lol Birds. You want me to dig up a list of quick snipes you've posted just in the last month?

Don't jump on me for something you so often indulge in yourself. Thats just being hypocritical.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 5:47 pm

Birds and Tyr, knock it off.

Will, I think I have a better way to reduce the list... how about we reduce it only to those quotes which actually support the conclusion Birds got out of them? As I'm about to demonstrate, only about 3 of the quotes in the list can even be spun that way -- the rest are clearly not.

over half of america thought hussain caused 9-11.

And yet I'm supposed to trust their judgement on what the Bush administration said about the Iraq war? Heh. If people couldn't get that straight, no wonder they have such a naive view of "WMD was the one and only justification"... and no wonder they so easily change to "imminent threat". They weren't paying attention in the first place, so it's easy to mislead them with out-of-context quotes.

Of your list of 23 quotes, the vast majority of them simply refer to Iraq as a "threat", "serious threat", or "mounting threat". None of the bottom 15 of your quotes (from Bush 7/17/03 on) say anything about imminence, immediacy, urgency, etc. The second and third quotes (Rumsfeld 9/18-19) were already discussed earlier in this thread. The fifth quote (undated) simply speaks of concern about what Saddam might be exploring -- again, there's no timeline here. The Bartlett quote refers to Saddam being an imminent threat to American interests anywhere in the world (google gives his full answer here.)

So we're now down to 4 of the 23 quotes you presented to make your case that MIGHT have anything to do with what you're trying to establish. They are:

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
â?¢ President Bush, 11/23/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
â?¢ President Bush, 10/2/02

"Absolutely."
â?¢ White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"This is about imminent threat."
â?¢ White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Now, I happen to know the McClellan quote offhand, because I was reading it a couple days ago. You can find it in context here in the Q&A section. Start with the bolded words "what about NATO's role?" What McClellan is talking about is the threat to Turkey when the war launched -- Belgium had threatened to veto a measure that would send extra defensive help to Turkey in case Saddam launched a counterstrike. There was an imminent threat -- TO TURKEY!

The Fleischer quote is, again, a bit misleading. You can find the context of that here, and the meaning is different if you just read a few complete sentences:

Q: Well, we went to war, didn't we, to find these -- because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn't that true?

MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely. One of the reasons that we went to war was because of their possession of weapons of mass destruction.

I might count this as half a point since he doesn't correct the "imminent threat" -- but then, by May '03 the war was over, so what he said in May '03 is already being said in retrospect. And you can read this as saying WMD themselves are an imminent threat.

All of a sudden, your impressive list of 23 quotes is down to 2 (Bush 11/23 and Bush 10/02). The full 11/23 quote is "The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq, whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands. We must not and will not permit either terrorists or tyrants to blackmail freedom-loving nations." It probably references the 10/02 quote, which says "the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency" and then goes on to describe Saddam's history and says "They [Saddam's regime] buy time with hollow promises." And then we see this paragraph:

None of us here today desire to see military conflict, because we know the awful nature of war. Our country values life, and never seeks war unless it is essential to security and to justice. America's leadership and willingness to use force, confirmed by the Congress, is the best way to ensure compliance and avoid conflict. Saddam must disarm, period. If, however, he chooses to do otherwise, if he persists in his defiance, the use of force may become unavoidable.

It seems pretty clear he's not saying "Saddam is going to strike us soon" -- just that Saddam should be forced to disarm right away, because we can't afford to stall indefinitely. So these two quotes can be spun either way pretty reasonably.

That gives us a final count of 19 quotes that don't support your position, and 4 that can be spun either way (Bush 11/23 and 10/02, Fleischer 5/7, Rumsfeld 9/19.) It's like one of those lists of Bible contradictions, evidences against evolution, and so on -- there are about 3 decent points on the list that are actually worth arguing, and dozens of filler points that are basically crap to make it look like a big list.

Somebody was intentionally misleading you by assembling that list. They put the quotes with words like "urgent" and "imminent" at the top, and you read them into the last half of the list. They take quotes that were clearly referencing a threat to Turkey and pretend they're about a threat to the US. They intentionally grabbed quotes that made what they already believed sound more plausible. They picked and chose quotes out of the middle of speeches, ignoring context and intent, in order to assemble a list that LOOKS LIKE it supports the accusation people keep putting out. But if you look at the quotes, the vast majority clearly don't support the conclusion of your list, and there are a few that are questionable at best. And when you realize that Bush outright said he wasn't going to wait for Iraq to be an imminent threat, it's really, really hard to support the conclusion you came to.

It seems pretty clear to me that there wasn't any attempt to sell Iraq as an "imminent threat" -- the best evidence people have established is filled with quotes that don't even remotely support the conclusion, quotes pulled out of context, etc.

I don't dispute that you and your friends might have come to that conclusion. All I'm saying is that, if you did, it's because you weren't paying very good attention. Between the "axis of evil" line (you changed your argument from "Bush shouldn't call those nations evil" to "Bush didn't call them evil, but he should've made it so people couldn't misquote him" after my constant prodding) and the "War on Terror correction" (it was actually the ORIGINAL quote, but you kept referring to it as a "correction" until I'd corrected you 3 or 4 times) and the first Um yah thread (kufyit still owes me $2) and half a dozen other things you've claimed Bush said that were clearly not the case if you read the whole quote, that wouldn't surprise me. So yeah, you and your friends might all think the Bush administration sold us on "Iraq is an imminent threat", but you all think so because you misinterpreted things that were said or because the list-writers decieved you.