If no WMD found; will Bush be made out to be a liar?

[Sava]

So your answer is "Intelligence ineptitude"?

[Japher]

I'm waiting for Bush to roll out the trusty "This all depends on the definition of WMD" defense.

"Oh, I though WMD meant Weird Muslim Dudes"

"We were considering Saddam a weapon of mass destruction"?

---

[Winston]

Why do you feel the need to give grades to posters Sava? You've done it three times now.

I completely agree with Shi Huangdi BTW, the war was fought because of Saddam's noncompliance with the international arms control efforts. So the issue of whether or not there actually are (traces of) WMD's in Iraq at this time isn't that important. Except for the average leftist of course. He needs to find something wrong with the unprecedented succesful liberation of the Iraqis, and to him, after much deliberation, the non-existence of a smoking gun is the best bet. It's just a shame most people don't care anymore...

[DAVOUT]

It does not take to be a leftist to think that the case has not been presented this way, and that it was not innocently that the Bush Administration underlined heavyly that the existence of WMD was an absolute certainty.

[Sava]

good post Winston

I forgive you though. Perhaps in Denmark, you aren't exposed to the American media. Maybe if you were, you'd realize the WMD case was the one that was made to the American public. Tony Blair was making the "Saddam is bad" case. And that one has merit. Bush's didn't. And that is the jist of this discussion. You can continue to live in the world of fantasy like Shi. But when you take the red pill and join us in the real world, I'll no doubt welcome you.

[Sava]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
It does not take to be a leftist to think that the case has not been presented this way, and that it was not innocently that the Bush Administration underlined heavyly that the existence of WMD was an absolute certainty.

YES! Somebody who gets it! Thank you DAVOUT. It's good to see people with brains.

The case Bush made to the American people-- pre-War: Saddam had WMD, we must get him.

The revisionist case: This was about liberation, etc...

I prefaced my points by saying WE ARE NOT DISCUSSING THE OTHER MOTIVES FOR WAR BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T THE REASONS AS TOLD TO THE PUBLIC PRE-WAR.

[Jac de Molay]

I completely agree with Shi Huangdi BTW, the war was fought because of Saddam's noncompliance with the international arms control efforts. So the issue of whether or not there actually are (traces of) WMD's in Iraq at this time isn't that important.

I dont agree with this at all. Everybody from Fleischer on up was hammering the point that Saddam was the oogledy-boogledy boogie man with scads of WMDs to sell and use at a moment's notice. The whole support campaign was predicated on the notion that Saddam had a large and ongoing program bent on immediate deployment.

If this was simply about non-compliance, what was the rush to war? and the dismissal of the UN inspection regime because it asked for the things the Administration wants now: time, patience, and manpower?

[Zero]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Winston
Why do you feel the need to give grades to posters Sava? You've done it three times now.
QUOTE]

how do you grade a poster

[Japher]

The case Bush made to the American people-- pre-War: Saddam had WMD, we must get him.

The revisionist case: This was about liberation, etc...

I prefaced my points by saying WE ARE NOT DISCUSSING THE OTHER MOTIVES FOR WAR BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T THE REASONS AS TOLD TO THE PUBLIC PRE-WAR.

[sheep mode = on]

I disagree with this completely. I was not convinced that there were WoMD. As the case was made to me it was due to Saddams violations, the possibility of WMD, and know terrorist ties... All of those, plus Iraqii liberation.

Really, now Sava, the campeign was even called "Iraqi Freedom", not "Get the Oil" or "Find WMD"...

Oh, and by the way, I am part of the public...

[/sheep mode = off]

[Sava]

Considering you tune in to party line outlets, I can't consider you an objective part of the public. The revisionist version has already been imprinted on your supple brain.

[Winston]

So now it's a question of whether one is 'exposed to' American mainstream media coverage during the buildup. Hmm, the media you were exposed to seem to have reported that there was only one single cause for making the decision of attacking Saddam. No more than one, it would unnecessarily complicate things!

In the real world as you put it, it was a blend of several circumstances that led to the decision of launching the campaign. Including the intelligence reports the State Department got that suggested biochemical weapons were being conceiled and moved around.

I think it's a mistake to conclude those claims were the only single reason for the war, just because they were at the time the angle most emphasized in the media.

And yes, I belive the administration took the intelligence seriously. I'd say any sane politician would have to at the time.

[Sava]

So you fall under the "intelligence ineptitude" category as well?

[Japher]

I get it now!

So, ppl who will hold Bush up as a liar if no WoMD are found are not informed enough, and therefor ignorant... ah, that explains the left!

[Shi Huangdi]

"
Shi: Wow, you managed to recite the entire party line rhetoric and completely dodge the point. Please read the discussion guidelines, mkay! "



You asked if Bush would be considered a liar. I explained why he would not be.

"The case Bush made to the American people-- pre-War: Saddam had WMD, we must get him."

Bush was saying what he believed. From what we knew it the time, it certainly looked like he had WMDs. If indeed Saddam never had any WMDs, then in fact Saddam would be very dumb for not giving full and absolute cooperation to the inspections. Now, in your scenario, it could very well be that our intelligence was wrong. But being wrong and lying aren't that the same thing, and Bush had to make his decisions based on what he knew at the time.

[Winston]

Sava, Japher,

No, even if the case should be there are no WMD's at all, the decision to liberate Iraq was still the right one.