The American left changes gears in Iraq

I've heard many opponents of the war claim that Bush said Saddam and his WMDs were an imminent threat as a way of scaring the American people into support. Actually, Bush said flat out that Saddam's WMD program was not an imminent threat, but that if we waited for it to be one then we would have waited too long. Some people seem to have a hard time understanding that.

Oh i think they understand that.  We are talking about people who opposed the war anyway latching onto this as their new reason for opposing the war.  These aren't people (generaly speaking) who were in favor of going in there who now changed their minds.  Before they didn't want us going in for pretty weak reasons.  Now they can use the no WMD stockpiles argument to sound less lame in light of all the atrocities and other uncovered nastiness of Saddam's regime.

Draginol:
I supported the war, based on Colin Powell's statements to the U.N. Security Council but I do believe Mr. Bush was consistent in saying how much of a threat the WMD's presented to the U.S., the Middle East and Europe. Second, Mr. Bush has consistently maintained a connection with Al Qaeda and terrorism groups that threaten the U.S.
Are you now saying that this is incorrect?

No.  I am simply saying that that primay point of going into Iraq had little to do with finding stockpiles of WMDs. 

You added just now the mentions of Al Qaeda and other things. Please don't make strawman arguments. I said nothing of Al Qaeda, terrorism, or anything else in this article.

Saddam clearly had WMD programs. That is a fact verified by the Kaye report. Saddam's plan was to wait out the sanctions and then he or his sons would move forward on them.  Bush, btw, has explicitly stated that he did not consider Iraq an imminent threat but more a long term menace that in the post-9/11 world we could no longer tolerate. I agree with that and so do millions of other Americans.

Draginol:
If Mr. Bush made statements linking WMD's to both a "possible future threat" and to possible terrorist actions (as he has also done with North Korea) as a pretense to war (which I would agree was done) then the voter must consider whether they believe the evidence presented by Colin Powell was factual and correct, because that is the basis upon which we said we acted.
Since Powell has since stated the intelligence was not correct, where do you draw the line between the leadership (i.e. the administration) misleading the public (even with the best intentions) and the fact that they were duped by false information supplied by Iraqis (like Chalabi) to further their own aims and political ambitions? Does the White House take no responsibility for itself?

Why not just rely on common sense:

If WMD stockpiles were the main justification for going into Iraq and we haven't found them, then why do so many Americans still favor us having gone in there? Answer: Because WMD stockpiles weren't the main justification.

You are confusng Powell's arguments to the UN to get another UN resolution passed with the US reason for itself to go in.

Colin Powell clearly stated that our actions were based on the "evidence" presented before the U.N. Why do Americans still favor us having gone in there? Because the basis for doing so (to remove what everyone on both sides of the political spectrum) was removing Saddam. No one is defending Saddam (except for his corp of 50 international lawyers). Americans at this juncture are still undecided about whether we were justified on any other basis.

What I question is why, if you are so sure this is no longer an issue because it is "so accepted" that we did the right thing do you worry about liberal statements to the contrary? Aren't people who you believe are wrong entitled to their "incorrect" ideas?

Lol, there is information out there pointing to the fact that HUSSEIN though he had WMDs. One general thought another general had them, who in turn... and on and on...

Where did they go? Did they ever exist? Who's to say?

The real problem is that the CIA had no one in Iraq to find out. Why? Because the Clinton administration made rules so draconian that it was impossible to glean intelligence there.

So, in the end, if the information was flawed and incomplete, wouldn't it be the fault of those who made it imposible to glean the information?

What I don't like is historical revision. 

First off, Colin Powell isn't the President. I don't really care what comments you believe he said.  Secondly, please back up your assertion with a quote or something where Powell states that the reaosn we are going into Iraq is to confiscate or whatever Saddam's inventory of WMDs.

I've read your blogs, CrispE, I think it's highly doubtful you ever supported going to war in Iraq. I, on the other hand, was blogging even before we went to war in Iraq and posting both the administration's reasoning and my arguments as to why we should go into Iraq. And I can assure you that WMD stockpiles were never the thrust of the argument.

Bakerstreet: Indeed and the CIA's failures ARE troubling.  But not really relevant.  As Bush has explicitly stated, even if we knew Saddam had no WMDs on hand, we STILL would have gone in.  What more does the left want?

"Knowing what I knew then and knowing what I know today, America did the right thing in Iraq." President George Bush, February 5, 2004.

In short: WMD stockpiles were NOT the issue. Millions of Americans agree. There is a quote somewhere that I can't find where Bush is even more explicit that even if Saddam had no WMD's on hand he still would have given the order to go in.

Since Powell has since stated the intelligence was not correct, where do you draw the line between the leadership (i.e. the administration) misleading the public (even with the best intentions) and the fact that they were duped by false information supplied by Iraqis (like Chalabi) to further their own aims and political ambitions? Does the White House take no responsibility for itself?

Intelligence is a very murky subject. There are no clear-cut solutions when you are dealing with intelligence gathering. It is essentially a big guessing game, where the object is to get the best clues you can in order to make the best guess. Sometimes those guesses are wrong. And that can happen for any number of reasons: bad information, bad analysis, bad hair day.

If you wait until you have 100% knowledge, you have waited too long.

Powell has often expressed this idea.

"Use the formula P=40 to 70, in which P stands for the probability of success and the numbers indicate the percentage of information acquired." "Once the information is in the 40 to 70 range, go with your gut."

"Today, excessive delays in the name of information-gathering breeds 'analysis paralysis'."

Bakerstreet: Indeed and the CIA's failures ARE troubling.

And every person I have talked to in the Intelligence community agrees that this is Clinton's fault.

Just one example (the only one I can really reveal)... In my Top Secret interview I mentioned how long it was taking to get background checks done for clearances and I got a 15 minute rant from the DSS agent about how Clinton had crippled DSS. Clinton had, among other things, cut the number of agents to less than 50%, and most of those cuts were in investigative agents. These are the guys that keep our secrets secret, and try to ensure that the people that receive clearances can be trusted. These men and women were sadly overworked... and that was before 9/11.

Draginol:
This is a direct quote from Powell's testimony on February 5, 2003 to the Security Council. I think it is pretty straightforward and obvious what the argument and basis for U.S. action was shortly thereafter. Do you wish the references Powell has made since the war saying that the information was "flawed" or can we agree to that? BTW: Whether you want to believe it or not, I did support the war, hoped it would end in a quick American victory and following said victory the troops would return home with the Iraqis free to pursue whatever government they choose. I did this in part because that seemed to be what we were (and are) doing in Afghanistan. What I didn't think would happen was Viet Nam II-The Middle East.

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction; he's determined to make more. Given Saddam Hussein's history of aggression, given what we know of his grandiose plans, given what we know of his terrorist associations and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not some day use these weapons at a time and the place and in the manner of his choosing at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond?

The United States will not and cannot run that risk to the American people. Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world.

My colleagues, over three months ago this council recognized that Iraq continued to pose a threat to international peace and security, and that Iraq had been and remained in material breach of its disarmament obligations. Today Iraq still poses a threat and Iraq still remains in material breach.

Indeed, by its failure to seize on its one last opportunity to come clean and disarm, Iraq has put itself in deeper material breach and closer to the day when it will face serious consequences for its continued defiance of this council.

My colleagues, we have an obligation to our citizens, we have an obligation to this body to see that our resolutions are complied with. We wrote 1441 not in order to go to war, we wrote 1441 to try to preserve the peace. We wrote 1441 to give Iraq one last chance. Iraq is not so far taking that one last chance.

We must not shrink from whatever is ahead of us. We must not fail in our duty and our responsibility to the citizens of the countries that are represented by this body.

I would totally agree with you if wanted to argue that Powell made WMD stockpiles a major thrust in trying to get the UN to pass a second resolution.

Unfortunately for your argument, that is not what this discussion is about.  The US had already voted (months previously) authorizing the President to invade Iraq and that case was *not* based on WMD stockpiles.

I have to ask, are you an American? Because you seem very very concerned about what was presented to the UN.

Draginol:
Yes, I am American. Born, raised, and proud to be.

The Secretary of State is often seen as the chief spokesman of foreign policy for the United States Government. He is handpicked by the President and often shares daily briefings, certainly he is one of the few who help formulate foreign policy. The statements that the Secretary of State makes represents the President. You may choose to disagree, which would say to me that Colin Powell was duped because he stated a policy not representing the President. If you say he does represent the President you must see in the quote the reasoning, not for a U.N. resolution, as we were well aware no such resolution could be attained, but rather the reasoning why we were invading and did so shortly thereafter.

It would be disrespectful to both the President and the Secretary of State to suggest otherwise, wouldn't it?

The comments from Powell that were posted don't have anything to do with "stockpiles" of WMDs. In fact, most of Powell's remarks have to do with non-compliance with 1441.

Every other country in the world (except Iraq) thought that Iraq had WMD. There aren't any major non-Iraqi foreign leaders who said Iraq didn't have WMD prior to the war.

Poll interpretation is difficult.

The question asked is typically something of the form, "have the benefits of war outweighed the costs?"

If we'd found out that Hussein had three tons of anthrax, a dozen mobile biological warfare labs working on weaponizing smallpox, and fifty pounds of highly enriched uranium, I think the American people would still answer an enthusiastic "yes!" in spite of all the post-war bungling. Certainly I would.

We should recall that the war itself went surprisingly painlessly. So while the chief benefit of war (defanging Iraq) didn't materialize, some lesser benefits did (Iraqis were happy, albeit only for a couple weeks). So the benefit of war was less than expected, but so was the cost, and people weren't real upset. It's only when the costs began to mount that it became not worth it.

Two more things to consider. First, there's a sizeable minority of people who will support this administration, no matter what, just as there's a sizeable (I think larger) minority who will oppose this administration, no matter what. These people aren't swayed by nuances about WMD--they parrot the party line. Secondly, there are a bunch of people who *still* believe that Iraq had WMD. Here's a poll:

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqQuestionnaire4_22_04.pdf

If you believe the survey, 38% of people believed that "Iraq had actual weapons of mass destruction." That alone might be forgiveable--if you count two mustard gas shells as "having actual weapons"--but 21% believed that Iraq had nuclear weapons! (Page 2)

I don't understand these people, but anyway, their perception of the case for war didn't shift, because their perceptions of the facts didn't shift.

I can't believe you are now saying that the WMD wasn't the primary justification.

Please read the following quotes from Bush's speech on the eve of the war, and then tell me you can still say that with a straight face...

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

"...the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction."

"Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. "

"It is not too late for the Iraq military to act with honor and protect your country, by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction."

" In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. "

"In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth."

" The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now. "

If disarmament wasn't the primary justification, what the heck was the primary justification put forth by Bush?

Sorry Brad,
but yet again I must disagree with you on this topic.

The theory is that Bush "sold" intervention in Iraq based on stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

This statement is true. Bush did sell WMD as the primary reason for going into Iraq. The question is just who did he sell it to. Ordinary Americans (I have a number of freinds who fall into this category) were told quite clearly that Saddam had WMD and the US must act. They also saw Saddam and Al Qaeda linked by association time and time again in statements. Other reasons were peripheral. Americans who had the time to explore the debate would have seen the other issues, but they were in a minority (just look at the numbers who believed Saddam = AlQaeda).

Paul.

Madine,

There aren't any major non-Iraqi foreign leaders who said Iraq didn't have WMD prior to the war.

The French President on American TV (before the war) clearly stated that he had seen no proof that Saddam had WMD. He was attempting to minise the damage and hatred that his anti war stance was causing and decided that appearing live on American TV to answer questions was the best solution. He made it very clear that 1441 was not breached and that while Saddam COULD have WMD, NO proof had been seen by him.

Paul.

Not only that, but the UN weapons inspection team continually indicated that there was no evidence supporting the claims that Iraq had WMD. While WMD may not have been the only reason to get rid of Saddam, I believe it was to most ordinary American's why we were sending our troops there. It was also what was sold to the media as why we had to act now, instead of giving the weapons inspectors time to do their job.

Cherry picking quotes doesn't serve your cause well.

IF WMD stockpiles were the major reason we went to war in Iraq and the CIA report now shows that there probably were no substantial stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, then why do so many Americans favor having gone in there still?

Everyone I know who supported going in there in the first place still is glad we went in there.  Statistically, so do most Americans (other than a handful of recent polls which have to do with the occupation).

Let me give you a clue, Robert: My thesis is that WMD stockpiles were NOT the primary reason we went in there.  They were one of many reasons but they weren't the main reason.  The fact that you can cherry pick quotes doesn't prove anything other than Bush used WMD stockpiles as a reason at various points. This is particularly the case when the Kaye report has shown that Saddam had WMD programs in place still and was just waiting out the sanctions.

Solitair, are you in the United States? No. So what would you know how Bush sold the American people on? It certainly wasn't stockpiles of chemical weapons.  The US argument to the UN was primarily about Iraq's failure to comply with UN resolutions which largely revolved around WMD stockpiles.  But at tha tpoint, the US had already decided it was going to go in.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why so many millions of Americans like me supported going into Iraq in the first place and still do. I never considered WMD stockpiles to be a significant issue. Just another nail in Saddam's coffin at best.  And since I was publicly blogging back then, my writings on the subject are publicly accessible so I haven't changed my story. 

The people who were against going in are still against it and now latch onto this WMD stockpile argument. The people who were for it haven't changed their minds because WMD stockpiles were not the main issue for them.

Ok you have established a motivating reason other than wmd. That means little when there is a ton of tape from cnn fox, cbs emphasising just that. Powell went on record at the UN citing it as the reason. I taped it guy. He put ALOT of emphasis on it.

If wmd was not a primary issue, than it was misleading to let the media hype it to the degree it did. It was hyped ALOT.
Is it surprising that the left rebutted given all the attention it was given? For this you condemn?

The gap in logic widens when you take away the wmd and still make the arguement of "threat". Where is the threat? Threatening to collaborate? A shoddy human rights record is the only reason that held. It STILL didn't warrant unilateral action. It still didn't conform to any of the geneva or nuremburg agreements. The action was still taken.

So if no weapons were present how was this broke and despised dictator a danger? I know there are no weapons. I want you to tell me how Saddam becomes threatening after the sanctions.

Bush did emphasize WMD alot, but an imminent threat of stockpiled WMDs isn't the main reason most Americans supported the war in Iraq.