The American left changes gears in Iraq

Draginol:
All may support it now who did then but me and of course, Lilla from Fahrenheit 9/11 and of course, about 100 congresspeople and about 25 senators. But really, when you think about it, we're a small minortiy compared to who you know.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The evolving justifications for war on Iraq developed as such:
Reason #1: This is a war on terrorism
Reason #2: They are a terrorist threat to the US and it has connections to 9-11/Al Qaeda
Reason #3: This is a humanitarian mission for democracy, freedom, and justice for the Iraqi people

Given the first two reasons, in truth, our greatest threat to national security and the country most likely to be associated with 9/11 was Saudi Arabia. What has been asked of the Bush Administration is their true INITIAL intent in attacking Iraq because the reasons they've given would have led anyone else to Saudi Arabia.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Brad,
I will at least grant that you have been consistently trying to justify the Iraq war for non WMD reasons for over a year. That's not the same as saying that this was not the original primary reason for war though. To quote you from a year ago (I would love to quote you from further back, like before the war, but the search engine only seems to show a year back)

... Bush ... assumes Iraq has WMD and calls for military force to remove Saddam for failing to comply with UN resolutions ...

This statement from you indicates that Bush's primary reasons was Saddam failing to comply with article 1441, which lo and behold was about WMD.

I will totally accept that WMD was a crap reason for war (especially with no solid proof) and that many (including myself) supported the war for other reasons.

But lets be honest here, WMD WAS the primary reason given to the American people and the world in general for war.

Paul.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Draginol

Join Date 03/2001

+137

Those of us in favor of military action have written the same reasons for the psat TWO years. Not just me, but pretty much every "war blogger". And WMD stockpiles were NEVER one of the major reasons.

Anyone who thought we were invading Iraq because we feared they had mustard gas or whatever has my sympathy for being clueless and having their heads in the sand.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The idea that Bush "sold" the invasion of Iraq based on false premesis to the American public is not, as you say, a myth. Nor is it wrong to surmise that the Administration pushed the idea that Iraq was an imminent threat. Might I offer some quotes --

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." - President Bush. As we all know, this was not the case.

"Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." - President Bush. Once again, not true.

"The [Iraqi] report also failed to deal with issues which have arisen since 1998, including: . . . attempts to acquire uranium and the means to enrich it." -President Bush. This fails to agknowledge the fact that the State Department labled this claim as "highly dubious" and CIA Director Tenet urged the President and National Security Advisor Rice not to use it in several memos.

"We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents." - President Bush. This is highly misleading because it fails it agknowledge that engineers from the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that the trailers were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.

"He said he wouldn't have chemical weapons, he's got them." President Bush. Let's see what CIA Director Tenet had to say about this one. "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities." - Director Tenet.

And to every, and there were several, suggestions by the Administration that there was an "imminent" threat, consult Director Tenet again. Here are some examples of those suggestions -

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." - Vice President Cheney

"On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . it has developed weapons of mass death." - President Bush

"[N]o terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq." - Sec. Rumsfeld

And Tenet says - "Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate. They never said there was an 'imminent' threat."

Simply put, the Administration, which did, despite your claims, base the invasion of Iraq totally upon the premis that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and could use them against the U.S. and U.S. Interests, played up the danger posed the Iraq in a misleading manner, set aside the reservations of analysts and experts from the Department of State, the CIA, the DIA, the U.S. Air Force, and several other agencies and organizations, and made a series of claims that were clearly intended to scare the American public into supporting this effort.

Now, I know you're probably thinking that that was, in fact, not the sole justification for war. Let's take a look at what International Law says about declarations of war. Internation Law, and you can look this up if you don't want to take my word for it, provides two situations in which the invasion of another nation is legal. One is that you have been openly attacked by that nation, which Iraq clearly had not done. The second is that the nation poses an immediate and grave threat to the sanctity of your own state, and that you must act preemptively to protect yourself. This is that much-touted preemption. So there were two legal avenues that could be pursued by the Bush Administration. One - somehow prove that Iraq had openly attacked the United States, or Two - Claim that Iraq was a threat to the U.S. and attack it preemptively. It is quite clear which option they chose. Hence the efforts of this Administration, despite intelligence and urging to the contrary, pushed the idea that Iraq was developing WMD.

But set that aside, and let's look only at the idea you present -- that we attacked Iraq because Saddam posed a long-term threat. If this is a basis for invasion, why have we not yet invaded North Korea? What about Iran? Libya? North Korea may, according to CIA estimates, have as many as three nuclear weapons, and North Korea also posesses weapons platforms which have the range to effectively target the U.S. mainland. One can hardly call Kim Jong Il a leader any more reasonable or sane than Hussein, perhaps even less so. Saddam never threatened to turn anything into a "lake of fire." (The North Korean Gov't threatened to turn Seoul into a "lake of fire" if provoked." What about Iran? Israel was doing a pretty good job taking care of Iraq's nuclear capabilities when they bombed the nuclear reactor there over a decade ago. Russia is building no less than seven nuclear reactors in Iran as we speak -- nevermind that Iran has a long history of anti-U.S. action, including several widely aknowledged government sanctioned acts of terrorism, including some plane hijackings. Libya had a nuclear weapons program that was far more advanced than the Iraqi equivalent, so why didn't we get them first?

Finally, your premise that had we really been wrong about Iraq the support for the war would have dropped to 10% is absurd. Support for Vietnam was higher than that, for crying out loud. People continue to support the war because first, they think removing Saddam from power was the right thing to do, regardless of the situation it was done in. They don't know much about, or care much about, or both, the foundations of international law or procedure, and they just figure that Saddam was a bad guy and it's good he's gone. That, however, is not a valid justification for war by any stretch, but most of them don't know that, or don't care that much about that. Then there are the people who think we should have gone into Iraq just to spite the UN and prove that the United States is not to be denied what it wants by anyone. There are people who support the war because they want the Iraqi people to have democracy. There are many reasons why people still support the war, but I do not think that these reasons are acceptable reasons as a basis for that war in the first place.

So, I suggest that perhaps you should take a more respectful tone towards those who disagree with you. I think if you look over my arguments you won't find them too terribly arrogant or contemptuous. Your arrogance and contempt for another argument severly undermines your own. Perhaps if you ddn't act so condescendingly I could take you more seriously.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Pointless, utterly f*cking pointless. These people know that no matter how many times you refute their arguements, they'll just move them to another blog or another site. The truth doesn't matter to them, it is the scattergun propaganda value.

I'm getting really sick of the whole vibe. I've been having a hard tome coming to JU the last few days, simply because these anti-Bush dimwits just stand and rant and rant and rant and *nothing* you can say effects their rants. They'll end a decent conversation, you'll think what you said might have moderated their insipid opinion, and then they go straight and make another blog saying the same damn thing you were just talking about.

I think JU is doing far more at this point to benefit anti-Bush activists. The long arguments tend to favor the Right, but this constant article-after-article of accusation with no substance just serves to compound their "movement". They are looking for people who skim an article and give it a "hell yeah". People who think are way too moderate.

Down deep, I can almost hope they get Kerry in office in November so they can see how he is going to betray them on all the big subjects and be utterly innefectual on the rest.

Successfully updated karma reason!

BakerStreet, I think you need to reevaluate what exactly is pointless and what isn't. I think if you're hoping to change someone's mind, to "moderate their insipid opinion," as you so... pleasantly put it, there are better ways to go about it than to call them dimwits making rants. It looks to me, at any rate, that it is you who is doing the most ranting at the moment. I'm open to other opinions. If you want to prove me wrong, go ahead. If you prove to me that I am wrong, I will change my mind. The best way of doing that is certainly not to call me a dimwit, nor to dismiss an entire school of thought out of hand. If you're really that willing to toss aside everyone who disagrees with you as a dimwit, then perhaps it's your insipid opinion that needs moderating.

Successfully updated karma reason!

It is pointless arguing with people about Bush here at JU. There is a core group of people that are motivated by nothing but irrational hate, and no matter what you say, they simply go and make blog after blog after blog.

Your post above is a perfect example. You keep making point after point that you, yourself can answer. When they are answered here, you or someone like you will just ask them again. North Korea, for instance. It is a utterly asinine question that has been dealt with over and over. You know that they are a unified nation with nuclear weapons and an standing army of *millions*, and yet you still make the asinine suggestion that we're hypocrites for not attacking them. Libya? We've been brokering a new era with Libya since before we attacked Iraq. You think we should have attacked them when they were making the effort to change?

Can you not see how transparent it is when people speaking out against IRaq make the point we should have attacked other peopel? You'd be doing the same damn thing if this was Iran, except you would have even more material since we didn't have a cease-fire agreement with Iran.

Of course you know the answer to all these questions. I know you aren't stupid, but you most certainly post stupid things because in order to appease and provoke anti-Bush supporters that is all you need. Why bother really making a point when you can cut-and-past the same bullshit people were posting months ago, and that have been addressed over and over and over?

Your post is so full of rhetoric and rehashed propaganda it makes me want to gouge out my eyes. I don't need to reevaluate anything. You guys need to get some new material, this stuff isn't funny anymore. It's creepy, like some brainwashed, sociopathic mantra, over and over and over...

Successfully updated karma reason!

No, it isn't some sociopathic mantra. Let's look at the Bush Doctrine for a second, shall we? The Bush Doctrine consists of four parts. The Preemptive Strike, Unilateralism if necessary, the War on Terrorism, and Promotion of Democracy. The first part, the reservation of the Administration to act preemptively if it sees a threat, was utilized in Iraq. Next, the Unilateralism. If we have to, we will act alone to protect our interests. Again, we did so in Iraq. The War on Terrorism, again used in the case of Iraq. This, however, was to the detriment of the real war on Terror in Afghanistan. And finally, the promotion of democracy. Democracy in Iraq hangs on a thread, and it's not doing particularly well in Afghanistan either. Now let's look at North Korea, for example. North Korea poses as great a threat as any nation to the United States and our security. This Administration claimed that Iraq's threat to us was a justification for war. Why, then, did we not attack the nation that poses a vastly greater threat to us, North Korea? You say because their army is powerful and because they have nuclear weapons. North Korea has an army that consists of one million men, that is one twenty-fifth of the population of the entire country. They are conscripted, and are using equipment that, for the large part, is left over from the Cold War. They are not particularly well trained or equipped, and one of the lessons we did learn in Iraq was that a poorly trained army with outdate equipment and a rigid command structure cannot stand up to the fluid and technologically advanced U.S. forces. They may or may not have nuclear weapons, but we are fairly sure they have weapons grade material. In 1994, North Korea made the first declaration that it was developing Nuclear Weapons. Now, President Clinton was faced with two options. First was the option of striking the weapons sites, and the second was negotiation. They chose to negotiate, and a deal was made. That deal was the 1994 Framework Agreement, and Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, among others, said it was appeasment and was utterly unacceptable. How has the Bush Administration now taken to dealing with North Korea? The fact is that North Korea poses the greatest threat to the United States. Are you saying that we should destroy or remove those threats only when they can be easily trampled on? The Bush Doctrine says that we should have attacked them, and alone if necessary. We counted North Korea among the Axis of Evil, and North Korea is a key piece of the international nuclear proliferation puzzle. We went to war with Iraq on the grounds that Iraq had WMD. If we are to be afraid of attacking a country because it has WMD, Nuclear Weapons for example, then why did we attack Iraq? Iraq had, prior to the invasion, a military of nearly comperable size with that of North Korea. Your post is so full of insulting dogmatic jingoistic bombast it makes me want to gouge my eyes out. Don't patronize me, you irrational arrongant prig.

You say my post is pointless and empty rhetoric. Then tell my why, exactly, the War in Iraq was legal and justified. Tell me why that was a war that was necessary at that moment above all others. You say I know the answers to my questions, well I do not know the answer to that one. You say I'm not stupid, so treat me like it. If you want to argue the point, argue the point, don't just sit there and repeat the same things you've been saying over and over again, just as you accuse other people of doing. If I'm just spouting rhetoric, prove it instead of just sitting there and being condescending. In case you haven't noticed, I'm not being irrational. I am backing up things that I'm saying. So now you back up what you're saying.

Successfully updated karma reason!

It is empty rhetoric because it is semantic, repetitive questions that have been asked and answered over and over... and yet the questions themselves resonate enough with small minded that it is just enough to ask them.

You aren't that clueless about Korea, I can tell by your line of logic that you know why invading Korea was a non-issue. You built your arguement carefully around the facts, and you know that the cost of life involved in an invasion is a main concern. In Korea you say, " only if they are easily trampled upon", but then in Iraq we have to tolerate people pretending it was too tough to understake.

It becomes so utterly depressing to see people waffle back and forth from topic to topic, taking whatever stance furthers their arguement against Bush. Should have attacked here, shouldn't attack there, you are a war monger here, over there you're a wuss. Blah, same bullshit almost every day. If someone accused Bush of killing nuns, some cretin would ask why we didn't kill nuns in Korea, too...

So if you want to be an idiot and equate invading Iraq and invading Korea, fine, you just make yourself an idiot. If you are, as I think you are, sensible enough to see the difference, then you are worse than an idiot; you're just reposting hollow, meaningless rhetoric because it makes the anti-Bush mob say "hell yeah".

I don't need to patronize you, your post speaks volumes. Once someone has seen this same arguement 50 times, it is pretty easy to tell when someone is asking questions they already know the answer to. I don't know what you guys are interested in, but any hobby would be better than this war of attrition, asking the same insipid questions over and over and over.

Successfully updated karma reason!

And once again you fail to address the question at hand. I am not suggesting that it would have been the best thing to do to invade Korea, quite the opposite. I think that would be one of the worst things we could do, and that this Administration made the right choice in negotiating. I am simply saying that it is intensely hypocritical to claim that you are invading Iraq because it poses a threat to the United States when there are far greater threats out there. I find it ridiculous that this administration would go to war on hollow ground. They claim there are weapons of mass destruction, there aren't. They claim Iraq was a threat, it wasn't. They claim Saddam was a bad guy who needed to be ousted, and that was true, but hardly grounds for war. I am simply saying that to make those claims as a basis for invasion, when most of them weren't even true, and then to follow the same logic when faced with nations who actually DO exhibit those conditions and fail to follow your own doctrine is very, very hypocritical. You, however, in your drive to make me look the fool do not seem to pick up on that. Invading Korea is not a non-issue -- it was proposed by several members of this administration in 1994. And yet this time around, they didn't follow their own advice. Is there nothing wrong with that? Do you find nothing wrong with the fact that this nation went to war on false premesis, on a doctrine that applies itself only selectively, and on the bill of the thousands of live that have and will be lost? You have yet to refute my points, only to tell me that I need be patronized. If I ask the same questions over and over, it is only because they have never been answered.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The obvious reason for not invading North Korea is China.

You forgot that one element of the Bush doctrine is to attempt a peaceful solution. There were weapons inspectors in Iraq before the war.

Bush's diplomatic stance with North Korea is complete, verifiable, and irreversible nuclear disarmnament. That is neither appeasement nor the equivalent of giving them a reactor.

Successfully updated karma reason!

China would never do anything to actively prevent the U.S. from invading North Korea. There's too much at stake. All China could do is put pressure on North Korea to back down. If, however, you want to look at attempting a peaceful solution, we have been attempting one with North Korea for sixty years now. Ten years ago we had them freeze their plutonium enrichment program, and they proceeded on secretly with a uranium enrichment program. When we called them on that, they started the plutonium program up again. Now, we pulled the inspectors out and attacked Iraq because we felt that the Iraqis weren't cooperating with our inspection efforts and were hiding things. I think it's pretty clear that the North Koreans put the Iraqis to shame when it comes to flaunting an attempt to settle a situation peacefully.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Draginol

Join Date 03/2001

+137

Eswiv: What Bakerstreet, and myself for that matter, find frustrating isn't that there are people who disagree with us. But rather that they are so self-righteous, so dogged in their opinions that they don't even bother to read or think about other points of view.

I don't mind debating with someone who disagrees with me. But I do expect them to at least consider what has been written.

This particular discussion is SOOOO straight forward:

IF the US went into Iraq purely for WMD stockpiles (or even primarily) then WHY has support for going in there not significantly declined since we discovered that there are no WMD stockpiles? Why are 90% of Americans pissed off?

BECAUSE the reason we went in there was NOT because of WMD stockpiles. We went in there for the reasons that people like me have been writing about for the past 2 years.

But can I get a Leftistbot to even think about what is written? No. They go into regurgitation mode: "Here are X number of cherry picked quotes I found on left wing propaganda site Y that prove you're wrong."

It's like common sense is a foreign concept for some of the left-wing fanatics. Instead of thinking about what has been written, the discussion gets into some sort of bizarro "Well why didn't we invade North Korea". The reasons why people opposed the war may differ from person to person. But it seems pretty obvious that the reasons those of us favored going into the war were not because we were afraid of "WMD stockpiles".

And like Bakerstreet, I'm getting pretty frustrated with the seemingly mindless Bush bashing. I want an interesting discussion from multple points of view by people who think about these things. Not zealots (from either side) just reposting things from Moveon.org or DU or RushLimbaugh.com. People who are incapable of thinking for themselves aren't welcome.

A tiny amount of respect for the article author seems to be too much to ask from some people:

And once again you fail to address the question at hand. I am not suggesting that it would have been the best thing to do to invade Korea, quite the opposite.

What the hell does North Korea have to do with anything? My article has nothing to do with North Korea. And it's not like the anti-War people are somehow in favor of going into North Korea anyway. It's just a strawman argument. Don't hijack my thread.

The question at hand is: IF you believe the US's goal in Iraq was to eliminate WMD stockpiles, then explain WHY so many Americans are still glad we went in there. Explain why every article (certainly that I've seen) that advocated going into Iraq BEFORE we went in was primarily about Iraq as a long term threat. NOT because they thought Iraq had WMD stockpiles. Just go look at Instapundit archives or NationalReview from the time or Weeklystandard or my own blogs from the time.

The people who were against going into Iraq in the first place obviously don't have a clue why we went in. So I don't appreciate it that they are trying to retroactively assign why we went in. Don't TELL ME why me and millions like me wanted to go into Iraq. Don't define our side. You argue your side, we'll argue our side. We've maintained the same reasons from the beginning. I don't give a shit if you can cherry pick some Bush quote from 2002 or whatever where he mentions WMD stockpiles. WMD stockpiles were ONE of many reasons why we went in but not the main one. Never was.

And those left wingers who disagree need to come up with a plausible reason why so many Americans still support why we went in there or they shoudl shut the hell up and go hang out on some anti-Bush site. Because JU's not going to be some left wing (or right wing) propganda site.

Successfully updated karma reason!

First off, support has significantly declined. Here's some CBS/New York Times polling information.

"Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?"

.

Did Right Thing - Should Have Stayed Out - Don't Know

Trend:
5/20-23/04 49 46 5
5/11/04 49 45 6
4/23-27/04 47 46 7
3/30 - 4/1/04 55 39 6
3/10-14/04 58 37 5
2/24-27/04 54 39 7
2/12-15/04 58 37 5
12/21-22/03 62 34 4
12/14-15/03 63 31 6

That's kind of old data, it's lower now, but you get the idea.

Anyway, here is your question.

IF the US went into Iraq purely for WMD stockpiles (or even primarily) then WHY has support for going in there not significantly declined since we discovered that there are no WMD stockpiles? Why are 90% of Americans pissed off?

And here is my answer.

First, it has significaltly declined, see above. Second, I already answered this question. I'm going to copy-paste from my earlier post.

Support for Vietnam was higher than that, for crying out loud. People continue to support the war because first, they think removing Saddam from power was the right thing to do, regardless of the situation it was done in. They don't know much about, or care much about, or both, the foundations of international law or procedure, and they just figure that Saddam was a bad guy and it's good he's gone. Then there are the people who think we should have gone into Iraq just to spite the UN and prove that the United States is not to be denied what it wants by anyone. There are people who support the war because they want the Iraqi people to have democracy. There are many reasons why people still support the war.

The Administration based the war on the presence of WMD and the resulting threat. It doesn't much matter what people like you have been writing for two years, it matters what the administration said. You aren't the President, the Secretary of State or Defense, the National Security Advisor, or anyone else in the administration, so your arguments have no impact on the implications of that military action. But that leads me to a question -- what are the arguments you have been giving for the past two years? I'd like to debate them.

Might I add that the North Korea subject is not bizarro at all. It's a pretty valid fallacy in the Bush Administration's reasoning regarding Iraq and dealing with threats.

I hope you're not implying that I don't think for myself, thank you. Go ahead and give me your justification for the war, and let's have a discussion.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I keep thinking to myself, what happens in about 2006, when Kerry has won and is dismantling anything of worth that Bush made... what happens when someone rebuilding Iraq finds an underground bunker with hundreds of tons of anthrax, or some other monstrous plaything that Hussein was waiting until he was in a better position to use?

What then? What happens in a few years if people realize that 90% of the bullshit used to smear Bush was really just supposition and hot air? Will they apologize? Will Bush get a second chance? No. They'll probably all just forget what they said, or claim that WMDs were never *really* the point of their anti-Iraq war arguments.

People say what they feel they need to say to make their point. What is being said against Bush re: WMDs is far more politically motivated and far more suppostion than what Bush himself said.

The anti-Bush zealots have backed themselves way out on the most fragile limb, overstating, stretching and bullying because they KNOW they are right. Odd behavior from people demanding the "truth".

Successfully updated karma reason!

When Bush asked other countries to join the coalition, the stated reasons were that Iraq was an imminent threat and they posessed massive stockpiles of WMDs including a nuclear program. This despite a decade of sanctions and no-fly zones within their own borders and intense inspections. Bush did not say "He's a tyrant, let's change the regime". He misled not only the American people but the rest of the world. So did Blair and they are both backtracking now. To claim that WMD were not stated as a key factor in the decision to go to war is revisionism. International cooperation, whether through the UN or informally, lends legitimacy to a war; this is a basic tenet of Just War Doctrine. Dishonesty is not a good basis for international cooperation. The only people I see making emotional statements in this thread are the pro-war posters; Eswiv has made a persuasive and eloquent argument and offers a refreshing viewpoint.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Revisionism better describes people that like to present Hussein's regime as a happy, comfortable place. It better describes people that forget the nations pressing the UN to drop sanctions, both military and economic, and who forget attack after attack on coalition aircraft. Omissions, omissions. Hussein was using anti-aircraft equipment that utilized Chinese-installed fiber optics purchased through an initiative made by the Clinton administration... but he couldn't arm himself? We were always hearing about something new that was being smuggled in or that he was attempting to make.

Anti-Bush folks have no right to use the word "revisionism". Kerry and the rest are revising the first 3 years of the Bush Presidency, or claiming they did what they did because they were misled. The fact remains, though, that Kerry and other "official" critics had the same information Bush had and voted in support of the war. Now instead of blaming the evidence they were all presented with, they blame Bush in a patheically political bait-and-swtich.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I thought comment 18 contained plausible reasons, personally. I'm not sure if you're ignoring it because you don't have an answer, or you didn't see it, or because you think it was an idiotic comment.

I must confess that I get the same feeling arguing with right-wingers that you claim to be getting arguing with left-wingers. Where the person you're arguing with is completely missing the point, where they seem to immediately size you up as "generic liberal/conservative" and answer you that way, rather than what you're actually saying. I've felt that about you at times, Draginol, and I know you've felt it about me. We've had more than one discussion where each of us thought the other wasn't bothering to read our points of view--though I think we're both sufficiently stubborn that we usually end up understanding each other reasonably well in the end, which isn't true of my discussions with most other right-wingers on this site.

I think it's essentially nonpolitical. People often don't spend a lot of time on their posts, so they come out ambiguous. And readers natually place a post into the context of what they already know, rather than what the poster thinks is obvious. So person A posts a comment, person B misinterprets it somewhat, and person A further misinterprets the response, and wonders what the hell is going on...

(I'm not making any comment about posters in this specific thread, just the dynamic I see in general)

Edit: this was a response to 39. The thread moved fast.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Re: # 41 There is far more evidence at this time to support the claim that Iraq didn't have significant WMD stockpiles than to support the idea that it did. I think if you're depending on some huge discovery a few years down the road, then you are backing yourself way out onto a much more fragile limb than anti-Bush zealots. Nobody ever gets a second chance in politics. That's just how it is. Did McCain get a second chance when Rove and Bush ruined his image in SC with fake push polling and supposition? Did Al Gore get a second chance when it was clear that he actually had more votes in Florida had there been a full recount? That's just how it is in politics - you don't get many second chances.

I don't think what's being said about Bush regarding WMDs is at all supposition. It's very, very clearly documented that this administration made the push for war with Iraq on the basis of Iraq's WMD programs or posession. As I said before, this was the only avenue that would permit a legal invasion of Iraq, so it is, even if you deny the evidence, the only course for the Administration to have taken. The President and his cabinet said we were invading Iraq to protect us from Iraq's WMD. Now that there seem to be no WMD, people feel like they were cheated, and rightly so. I don't think that's an unreasonable point at all.

Successfully updated karma reason!

what happens when someone rebuilding Iraq finds an underground bunker with hundreds of tons of anthrax

BakerStreet, when, if ever, will we have waited long enough to be sure that Iraq had no WMD? We've interviewed just about all of Iraq's top scientists, and military, and political officials. We've offered rewards. We've sifted through reams of documentation. What will it take?

And speaking of revisionism... if I'd asked you, before the war, how long after taking control of Iraq would it take before we had some vague idea of Iraq's true WMD capabilities, would you have guessed "years?" I very much doubt it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

There is far more evidence at this time to support the claim that Iraq didn't have significant WMD stockpiles than to support the idea that it did.

Given the fact that the weapons inspectors themselves had numerous misgivings about WMDs that weren't accounted for, I'd say your assumption is pretty weak.I'd suggest a basic philosophy course. You can't prove something doesn't exist. You can believe, or assume, but you can't prove anything of the kind.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Revisionism better describes people that like to present Hussein's regime as a happy, comfortable place.

Great, but what's the point? Hussein's Iraq was not a happy place at all. That's no reason to invade. If it was, we'd be all over the place by now.

Hussein was using anti-aircraft equipment that utilized Chinese-installed fiber optics purchased through an initiative made by the Clinton administration... but he couldn't arm himself?

If his military was truly so formidably armed by Clinton initiatives, why did we roll over them so easilly? We didn't forbid them an army. At any rate, the Bush administration was quite adament in 2000 that Saddam was not significantly rearming and that his military was not rebuilt to any significance.

The fact remains, though, that Kerry and other "official" critics had the same information Bush had and voted in support of the war.

So... Kerry knew everything regarding the situation, yet according to this administration their own counter-terrorism chief was "out of the loop" on these issues. Interesting decision for them to make.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Vincible: I'm not waiting for any of it. I never once thought the invasion of Iraq was about WMDs, and I never once used it as an excuse when I argued for the war, or when I wondered why Clinton was tolerating Hussein's behavior.

My point is, you guys won't care if it is ever found, because it really isn't a concern. If it is every found, you'll not even note your mistake. It is a semantic argument during election season posed for political benefit.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Given the fact that the weapons inspectors themselves had numerous misgivings about WMDs that weren't accounted for, I'd say your assumption is pretty weak.I'd suggest a basic philosophy course. You can't prove something doesn't exist. You can believe, or assume, but you can't prove anything of the kind.

It doesn't matter if you can or cannot prove whether something exists. The burden of proof in this situation rests on the administration, and they have not fulfilled that burden by proving without a doubt that Iraq had WMD and in such quantity as to pose a threat. I do not have to prove that there were no WMD, you have to prove that there were. I didn't go to war on the premise that Iraq didn't have WMD.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The American left changes gears in Iraq

The American left changes gears in Iraq

WMD stockpiles in Iraq were never the core issue